Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      After Calling Foes ‘Vermin,’ Trump Campaign Warns Its Critics Will Be ‘Crushed’

      by

      The former president’s Veterans Day speech used language similar to the dehumanizing rhetoric wielded by dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.Former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign rejected criticism that he was echoing the language of fascist dictators with his vow to root out his political opponents like “vermin,” then doubled down: It said on Monday that the “sad, miserable existence” of those who made such comparisons would be “crushed” with Mr. Trump back in the White House.“Those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said, “and their sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.”At a campaign event Saturday in New Hampshire, Mr. Trump vowed to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” He then said his political opposition was the most pressing and pernicious threat facing America.“The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within,” Mr. Trump said. “Our threat is from within.”The former president’s remarks drew criticism from some liberals and historians who pointed to echoes of dehumanizing rhetoric wielded by fascist dictators like Hitler and Benito Mussolini.An earlier version of Mr. Cheung’s statement, in which he said the “entire existence” of those critics would be crushed, was reported by The Washington Post on Sunday. Mr. Cheung said on Monday that he edited his initial statement “seconds” after sending it, and The Post amended its article to include both versions.Ammar Moussa, a spokesman for President Biden’s re-election campaign, said in a statement that Mr. Trump at his Veterans Day speech had “parroted the autocratic language” of “dictators many U.S. veterans gave their lives fighting, in order to defeat exactly the kind of un-American ideas Trump now champions.”Though violent language was a feature of Mr. Trump’s last two campaigns, his speeches have grown more extreme as he tries to win a second term.At recent rallies and events, Mr. Trump has compared immigrants coming over the border to Hannibal Lecter, the fictional serial killer and cannibal from the horror movie “The Silence of the Lambs.”He called on shoplifters to be shot in a speech in California, and over the weekend in New Hampshire, he again called for drug dealers to be subject to the death penalty. He has insinuated that a military general whom he appointed as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be executed for treason.Last month, Mr. Trump told a right-wing website that migrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” a phrase recalling white supremacist ideology and comments made by Hitler in his manifesto “Mein Kampf.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How Tim Scott’s Campaign Ended: Internal Mistrust, Flat Debates and More

      by

      Externally, Mr. Scott’s brand of relentless optimism never found traction. Internally, his campaign was plagued by missteps, and a huge sum expected from a key donor never materialized.It was late October and Tim Scott’s campaign manager, Jennifer DeCasper, was trying to rally the troops on an all-staff call, announcing that they would soon relocate to Iowa in a last-ditch move to salvage his floundering presidential bid. She broke the news from the back seat of an Uber, according to four people familiar with the call.As the car bumped through the streets of Chicago after a Scott speech had run long, Ms. DeCasper insisted, “We are not failing.”But by then, even many of those around Mr. Scott believed his candidacy had already run its course.His debate performances were flat. His television ads weren’t working. His operation was burning through far more cash than it was raising. And his super PAC had canceled its own television ads days before Ms. DeCasper’s staff call.There was one other detail that had been closely guarded: The man long expected to be the super PAC’s biggest donor, the billionaire Larry Ellison, wound up not giving anything to the group after Mr. Scott entered the race, according to four people aware of the group’s finances. From 2020 to 2022, Mr. Ellison donated $35 million to Scott-aligned groups, and a huge check had seemed a foregone conclusion when Mr. Ellison showed up at the Scott kickoff and got a shout-out from the stage.Before his run, Mr. Scott telegraphed to allies that he had expected a significant sum to flow into his super PAC, according to three of the people familiar with the discussions and planning, and the super PAC wrote a budget for roughly half the amount that Mr. Scott had predicted. But donations fell well short of even that smaller sum.By early November, Mr. Scott had sunk so low in polls that he barely qualified for the third presidential debate in Miami. Then, on a night last week when he knew he needed a performance that would reinvigorate his flagging candidacy, the biggest splash he made in Miami was the public debut of his girlfriend.Days later, he quit the race on Fox News in an announcement that surprised much of his staff.For a senator from South Carolina who had entered the race with high hopes as the Republican Party’s highest-ranking Black elected official, Mr. Scott, 58, was unable to convert his compelling life story — and more campaign cash at the outset than any other candidate — into concrete support.Externally, Mr. Scott’s brand of relentless optimism never found traction in a contest that has been dominated by the dark and fear-laden campaign of former President Donald J. Trump.“Sometimes the message and the tone don’t align with the moment,” said Rob Godfrey, a veteran South Carolina Republican political strategist who has followed Mr. Scott’s career for years. “It may be that the potential wasn’t realized in this campaign because there is such anger and polarization in the electorate.”Internally, the campaign was plagued by miscommunications, missed opportunities and mistrust. Allies questioned the candidate’s devotion to the race and his decision to lean on a senior team, led by Ms. DeCasper, with so little presidential experience. Mr. Scott himself raised concerns to one person close to him about how the nearly $22 million he brought into the race from his Senate re-election was being spent by others, which further narrowed his circle of trust.“It’s hard for any presidential candidate to surround themselves with people they don’t know and ask them to be loyal to the cause,” Ms. DeCasper, who has worked with Mr. Scott for more than a decade, said in an interview. “I was his longstanding protector and nobody could have done that besides me.”Ms. DeCasper said those who doubted Mr. Scott’s commitment to the cause were misinterpreting his core values.“He made a promise to his mother that he would take her to church every Sunday,” Ms. DeCasper said. It was a promise, she added, Mr. Scott rarely broke. “People without context would see it as a lack of commitment to a presidential campaign,” she said. “But in reality he was committing to being a good senator as well as a good Christian as well as a good son.”In some ways, the debates were the undoing of Mr. Scott. He had entered the first one, in August, primed for a moment as Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida had faded and he had ticked up in the polls in Iowa. But Mr. Scott was largely absent that evening and never fully recovered. Donors and voters instead gave a fresh look to his fellow South Carolinian, former Gov. Nikki Haley, who had first appointed Mr. Scott to the Senate a decade ago and who supplanted him as Mr. DeSantis’s chief rival for a Trump alternative.Mr. Scott struggled to stand out against Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy during the primary debates.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesThe fourth debate in December, with its higher polling requirement, had threatened to unceremoniously end the Scott campaign and so, after weekend events in Iowa were canceled because of what his campaign said was a case of the flu, Mr. Scott bowed on Sunday night to the reality that the race was over.His announcement on Fox News on Sunday blindsided most of Mr. Scott’s own aides and supporters, with among the few to know being Ms. DeCasper and Nathan Brand, his communications director.The shock factor was the latest and final sign of a campaign that some criticized as insular at the top. Fund-raising pleas had gone out less than an hour before he had announced his departure. And the suspension of his campaign was not posted on his own account on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, for nearly three hours.Privately, allies and advisers to Mr. Scott had questioned his dedication to the contest, pointing to a campaign schedule that was less robust than his leading non-Trump rivals. According to a calendar tracked by The Des Moines Register, Vivek Ramaswamy held more than twice as many events as he did in Iowa this year, while Mr. DeSantis had 50 percent more events and even Ms. Haley, who has made Iowa far less central to her candidacy, nearly matched Mr. Scott’s total. (Unlike Ms. Haley and Mr. Ramaswamy, Mr. Scott has a full-time job as a senator.)Questions about Mr. Scott’s future had accelerated after his super PAC pulled its advertising plug, after running about $12 million of the $40 million in ads it had announced reserving over the summer. “We aren’t going to waste our money when the electorate isn’t focused or ready for a Trump alternative,” Rob Collins, the super PAC’s co-chairman, wrote in a blunt memo to donors.Katon Dawson, a former South Carolina Republican Party chairman who is supporting Ms. Haley, called the memo unhelpful. “That was the first thing that sucked the oxygen out,” Mr. Dawson said.But Mr. Scott himself soon echoed that message on CNBC, a relatively rare interview beyond the friendly confines of Fox News.“One of the things that we’ve realized throughout the last several days is breaking through in any of the media with any campaign material is just useless,” Mr. Scott said. “Why waste those resources when you can save them for the end of the campaign when you will have the opportunity to break through.”That opportunity never came.Despite a Black Republican surging to the top of the polls in each of the last two open Republican primaries (Ben Carson in 2016, and Herman Cain in 2012), Mr. Scott never had a breakout moment in 2023, even as polls show he remained well liked by voters.In the end, the party instead seemed satisfied to have Mr. Scott stay in the Senate. The lack of money from Mr. Ellison was symptomatic of a broader trend of donor reluctance.In the first half of 2021, when Mr. Scott delivered the Republican rebuttal to President Biden’s first address to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Scott had nearly 247,000 online donations. This year, when running for president, he had far fewer: under 109,000 online contributions, according to federal records data for WinRed, the company that processes nearly all online Republican campaign contributions.Though Mr. Scott has repeatedly downplayed any interest in the vice presidency, his lack of frontal criticisms of Mr. Trump — and Mr. Trump’s lack of attacks on him — has fueled repeated questions about them as potential running mates.But Mr. Scott, who has previously indicated that he will not seek another U.S. Senate term in 2028, did not foreclose a different political future on Sunday, saying he was listening to the voters in his interview with Trey Gowdy.“They’re telling me, ‘Not now, Tim,’” he said. “I don’t think they’re saying, Trey, ‘No,’ but I do think they’re saying, ‘Not now.’” More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley and Those High Heels

      by

      If Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis have the best shot at taking on Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, there was an especially telling moment at Wednesday’s debate that shows why Ms. Haley might be better suited to endure and overcome Mr. Trump’s lines of attacks than Mr. DeSantis would be.It was when their rival, the tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, used a question about Israel to jab at Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis for being foreign policy hawks and then try to belittle them for wearing heels — high heels in the case of Ms. Haley, and cowboy boots for Mr. DeSantis (there has been much speculation that he has lifts in those boots).“Do you want Dick Cheney in three-inch heels?” Mr. Ramaswamy said, clearly pleased with his one-liner. “In which case we’ve got two of them onstage tonight.”It was a classic Trump play by the Trump-toady Ramaswamy — the way the former president tries to reduce women to gender and make them seem weak (Hillary Clinton, Carly Fiorina, Megyn Kelly and more) or tries to de-man a male rival (the penis comparisons with Marco Rubio, the wimp attacks on Jeb Bush and more).Mr. DeSantis said nothing. He was either trying to ignore it or rise above it (or perhaps forget it ever happened). If that’s the soft-shoe dance that Mr. DeSantis plans if and when Mr. Trump escalates attacks on him, history suggests that Mr. DeSantis will get stomped.Ms. Haley, by contrast, seemed almost delighted that Mr. Ramaswamy raised her stilettos: It gave her an opportunity to emphasize this most feminine of objects, while also turning the moment around on her male rival.“I’d first like to say, they’re five-inch heels,” she corrected. “And I don’t wear ’em unless you can run in ’em.”“The second thing that I will say is, I wear heels. They’re not for a fashion statement. They’re for ammunition.”It wasn’t the most artful line. (Who was she outrunning? How could heels be ammunition? Was she not worried she’d conjure a bad “Single White Female” comparison, which of course she did?) But what the exchange revealed was that, amid this sea of macho men and during this era of macho politics, there is a path for women that involves simultaneously rising above and leaning into a gendered insult; while the men, on the other hand, too often succumb to the temptation of going lower.Ms. Haley seemed to know she’d gain more by shutting down a male jerk with humor than by letting the moment go. A bit later, too, when Mr. Ramaswamy brought up Ms. Haley’s daughter’s use of TikTok, an unusually personal attack on a family member, Ms. Haley spoke for many when she said, “You’re just scum.”Now imagine Ms. Haley on the debate stage with Mr. Trump. Maybe Mr. Trump has imagined it. Maybe that’s why he’s afraid to debate her.Whether you love or hate these playground-style duels, these moments can be more consequential than many of us assume. Most Americans are not reading deeply into the platforms of each candidate; they get glimpses of them in public performances like this, and often form opinions around them. So when a moment like this goes viral, often it matters even more. “People get to see whether you could stand your ground or hold your own,” said Tristan Bridges, a sociologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who studies gender politics. “And they’re just intensely gendered, every time, no matter who’s running.”Masculinity contests have long been a part of politics; for years, war heroes and combat veterans won office or their party’s presidential nominations, as other men sought to project traditionally masculine characteristics like toughness, resolve, seriousness, strength. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton ran for president staking out some hawkish positions on Iraq and foreign policy; her image of toughness helped her at first, given the ongoing threats from the war on terror. But she became caught up in questions about her likability, with none other than Barack Obama delivering if not a Ramaswamy comment, then still a pretty gendered one in a hushed aside at a critical debate: “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”No woman runs for office these days without having some way of responding to such digs, and Ms. Haley has practiced. As far back as 2012, she’s been recycling a version of her heels-as-ammunition line. As governor of South Carolina: “I’ve got a completely male Senate. Do I want to use these for kicking? Sometimes, I do.” During an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: “If I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them every single time.” In her official campaign announcement: “You should know this about me: I don’t put up with bullies. And when you kick back, it hurts them more if you’re wearing heels.”The reason for this stiletto contortion is actually quite clever: Ms. Haley, like the women candidates before her, must balance the qualities we expect of women (warmth, femininity) with what we expect of leaders (authority, strength). By taking the most feminine of objects — a heel — and turning it into a weapon is essentially her way of saying “I wear heels, but I’m tough.” It’s not clear how effective this strategy will be with large numbers of voters, but at least it doesn’t contribute to making American politics a locker room.Which is more than we can say for Mr. Trump, of course, who took masculinity chest-beating to new heights with his attacks on “Little Marco” and “Low Energy Jeb” in 2015 and 2016, and any number of sexist attacks on Mrs. Clinton as weak and tired. Or even on occasion Joe Biden, who once said he would have “beat the hell out of” Trump had the two been in high school together.Mr. DeSantis, for his part, seems stuck — there’s no way to judo out of a subject that his critics seem to be dissecting with the fury of a coded Taylor Swift lyric. No, really: There are diagrams of how his boots bend; their arch; the shape they make inside his pants; how they affect his gait. Politico Magazine even interviewed shoemakers about the boots — including one who makes bespoke cowboy boots with heel lifts for Texas politicians, and who concluded there was “no doubt” Mr. DeSantis is wearing lifts. (The shoemaker said the effect of a heel lift is similar to “five-inch stilettos.” A DeSantis spokesperson replied that the governor does not pad his boots and called the magazine’s story a “hit piece.”)It is certainly no surprise that Mr. Trump appears positively giddy over the whole boot matter, posting an image of Mr. DeSantis from a TV appearance on his Truth Social platform with the caption, “Tell me he’s not wearing hidden heels,” followed by a statement from a spokesman, Steven Cheung, suggesting Mr. DeSantis might consider something “sassier like platform shoes more appropriate for a contestant on ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race.’ ”Mr. DeSantis, in response, did what any grown man running for president would apparently do: He went for Mr. Trump’s genitalia. “If Donald Trump can summon the balls to show up to the debate” — he didn’t — “I’ll wear a boot on my head,” Mr. DeSantis challenged. His campaign quickly began selling golf balls with the slogan: “Ron DeSantis Has a Pair. He Shows Up.”If this all feels a little tired, as it may to at least a lot of women in this country, perhaps Ms. Haley offers Republicans another path.I hope she sticks with the heels, to be honest. They are imbued with meaning: a way to remind voters that, like Ginger Rogers, she’s essentially had to dance backward in them — calling attention to the double standard for women — and to give her a comeback against a gendered attack.A final observation. I spent some time examining Ms. Haley’s debate stilettos last week, and by my feminine assessment they look more like four inches than five. Which is utterly inconsequential, except that it tells us something about Ms. Haley: She’s willing to play the size game, too.Jessica Bennett is a contributing editor in Opinion who writes on gender, politics and culture. She teaches journalism at New York University and is co-host of the podcast, In Retrospect.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Scott Suspends Campaign for Republican Presidential Primary

      by

      He entered the Republican presidential race as a rising star with substantial financial resources, but struggled to break out of the pack of Trump challengers.Senator Tim Scott, who tried carving out a space in the Republican presidential field with a hopeful message built on his life story — the son of a single mother, he rose from poverty to become the only Black Republican in the Senate — announced on Sunday that he was suspending his campaign.“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,’” Mr. Scott said on Sunday evening on Trey Gowdy’s program on Fox News. “I don’t think they’re saying, Trey, ‘No.’ But I do think they’re saying, ‘Not now.’”Mr. Scott said he had no intention of endorsing another candidate in the Republican primary race. “The best way for me to be helpful is to not weigh in,” he said. He also brushed off the idea that he could serve as someone else’s running mate. “Being vice president has never been on my to-do list,” he said.Mr. Scott’s decision was in many ways unsurprising: He has struggled in polls and with fund-raising, and would have had to hit a new threshold of 80,000 donors as well as a higher number in public opinion surveys in order to qualify for the next debate sponsored by the Republican National Committee, which will be held in December.Still, he kept his plan to suspend his campaign close: Three people familiar with the matter said a number of staff members had learned of it from watching television.He had begun Sunday with a cryptic message on X, formerly known as Twitter, that cited Proverbs: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to Him, and He will make your paths straight.”Mr. Scott entered the race in May, pledging a different kind of message from the often apocalyptic tenor of some in the Republican field, including the front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump.But Mr. Scott’s brand of sunny optimism found no traction in the modern G.O.P., where the impulse among the party’s core voters, encouraged by Mr. Trump, is to be combative.Mr. Scott began his campaign with $22 million in fund-raising, a substantial war chest that put him in a position of financial strength. He spent millions of dollars on television ads bolstering his candidacy, but his poll numbers remained stagnant, and he never produced a breakout moment on the campaign trail.The super PAC supporting him, fueled by $30 million in donations in 2022 from the Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, announced in mid-October that after seeing no progress for Mr. Scott, it was cutting millions of dollars in television ad reservations it had scheduled for the fall months.Mr. Scott’s momentum appeared to take a hit after the first presidential primary debate, when he was criticized for seeming reluctant to enter the fray. Mr. Scott made it to the third debate, which had increased polling and donor thresholds, only by the narrowest of margins and largely stuck to familiar talking points.He was also never particularly interested in attacking Mr. Trump. And Mr. Trump wasn’t interested in attacking Mr. Scott either, telling aides that he liked the South Carolina senator and planned to say only good things about him.This is a developing story and will be updated. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The New Republican Party Isn’t Ready for the Post-Roe World

      by

      Ohio is not a swing state, not any longer. Donald Trump won it by eight points, twice. It has a Republican governor, and while its senators are split between the parties, its U.S. House delegation is made up of 10 Republicans and five Democrats. And yet Ohio just passed an abortion-rights referendum by a margin of more than 13 points.There’s no way to spin this result. There’s no way to spin every other pro-choice result in every other red-state referendum. The pro-life movement is in a state of electoral collapse, and I think I know one reason.In the eight years since the so-called New Right emerged on the scene and Trump began to dominate the Republican landscape, the Republican Party has become less libertarian but more libertine, and libertinism is ultimately incompatible with a holistic pro-life worldview.I’m not arguing that the pro-choice position is inherently libertine. There are many millions of Americans — including pro-choice Republicans — who arrive at their position through genuine philosophical disagreement with the idea that an unborn child possesses the same inherent worth as anyone else. But I’ve seen Republican libertinism with my own eyes. I know that it distorts the culture of the Republican Party and red America.The difference between libertarianism and libertinism can be summed up as the difference between rights and desires. A libertarian is concerned with her own liberty but also knows that this liberty ends where yours begins. The entire philosophy of libertarianism depends on a healthy recognition of human dignity. A healthy libertarianism can still be individualistic, but it’s also deeply concerned with both personal virtue and the rights of others. Not all libertarians are pro-life, but a pro-life libertarian will recognize the humanity and dignity of both mother and child.A libertine, by contrast, is dominated by his desires. The object of his life is to do what he wants, and the object of politics is to give him what he wants. A libertarian is concerned with all forms of state coercion. A libertine rejects any attempt to coerce him personally, but he’s happy to coerce others if it gives him what he wants.Donald Trump is the consummate libertine. He rejects restraints on his appetites and accountability for his actions. The guiding principle of his worldview is summed up with a simple declaration: I do what I want. Any movement built in his image will be libertine as well.Trump’s movement dismisses the value of personal character. It mocks personal restraint. And it’s happy to inflict its will on others if it achieves what it wants. Libertarianism says that your rights are more important than my desires. Libertinism says my desires are more important than your rights, and this means that libertines are terrible ambassadors for any cause that requires self-sacrifice.I don’t think the pro-life movement has fully reckoned with the political and cultural fallout from the libertine right-wing response to the Covid pandemic. Here was a movement that was loudly telling women that they had to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, with all the physical transformations, risks and financial uncertainties that come with pregnancy and childbirth, at the same time that millions of its members were also loudly refusing the minor inconveniences of masking and the low risks of vaccination — even if the best science available at the time told us that both masking and vaccination could help protect others from getting the disease.Even worse, many of the same people demanded that the state limit the liberty of others so that they could live how they wanted. Florida, for example, banned private corporate vaccine mandates.This do-what-you-want ethos cost a staggering number of American lives. A 2022 study found that there were an estimated 318,981 vaccine-preventable deaths from January 2021 to April 2022. Vaccine hesitancy was so concentrated in Republican America that political affiliation was more relevant than race and ethnicity as an indicator of willingness to take the vaccine. Now there’s evidence from Ohio and Florida that excess mortality rates were significantly higher for Republicans than Democrats after vaccines were widely available.And this is the party that’s now going to tell American women that respect for human life requires personal sacrifice?It’s not just that libertinism robs Republicans of moral authority; it’s that libertinism robs Republicans of moral principle. The Ohio ballot measure could fail so decisively only if Republicans voted against it. The same analysis applies to ballot referendum losses in pro-Trump states like Kansas, Montana and Kentucky.In each state, all the pro-life movement needed was consistent Republican support, and it would have sailed to victory. All the Democrats in the state could have voted to protect abortion rights, and they would have lost if Republicans held firm. But they did not.“Do as I say and not as I do” is among the worst moral arguments imaginable. A holistic pro-life society requires true self-sacrifice. It asks women to value the life growing inside of them even in the face of fear and poverty. It asks the community to rally beside these women to keep them and their children safe and to provide them with opportunities to flourish. It requires both individuals and communities to sublimate their own desires to protect the lives and opportunities of others.As the Republican Party grows more libertine, the pro-life movement is going to keep losing. Of course, it’s going to keep losing with Democrats and independents, many of whom have always been skeptical of pro-life moral and legal arguments. But it’s also going to lose in the Republican Party itself, a party that is increasingly dedicated to outright defiance.An ethos that centers individuals’ desires will bleed over into matters of life and death. It did during Covid, and it’s doing so now, as even Republicans reject the pro-life cause.The challenge for pro-life America isn’t simply to raise more money or use better talking points. As Republican losses in Virginia demonstrate, advocating even a relatively mild abortion ban — a 15-week law, not a so-called heartbeat six-week bill — is fraught. The challenge is much more profound. Pro-life America has to reconnect with personal virtue. It has to model self-sacrifice. It has to show, not just tell, America what it would look like to value life from conception to natural death.At present, however, the Republican Party is dominated by its id. It indulges its desires. And so long as its id is in control, the pro-life movement will fail. There is no selfish path to a culture of life.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Takes Veterans Day Speech in a Very Different Direction

      by

      The former president said that threats from abroad were less concerning than liberal “threats from within” and that he was a “very proud election denier.”Former President Donald J. Trump, on a day set aside to celebrate those who have defended the United States in uniform, promised to honor veterans in part by assailing what he portrayed as America’s greatest foe: the political left.Using incendiary and dehumanizing language to refer to his opponents, Mr. Trump vowed to “root out” what he called “the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”“The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within,” Mr. Trump said Saturday in a nearly two-hour Veterans Day address in Claremont, N.H.Mr. Trump accused Democrats and President Biden of trying to roll back his efforts to expand veteran access to health care, causing soaring inflation, pushing the country to the brink of World War III, endangering the troops in Afghanistan and of lying and rigging elections.He also promised to care for America’s veterans, reviving a hyperbolic claim that he made throughout his 2016 campaign that Democrats “treat the illegal aliens just pouring into our country better than they treat our veterans.”And he said he would divert money currently earmarked “for the shelter and transport of illegal aliens” to instead provide shelter and treatment for homeless military veterans.Here are some of the more notable elements of Mr. Trump’s Veterans Day speech.Courtroom CamerasMr. Trump, who is facing a civil fraud trial in New York and four criminal indictments, said in a radio interview earlier this week that he would welcome cameras in the courtroom. He went further on Saturday.“I want this trial to be seen by everybody in the world,” Mr. Trump said to a cheering crowd, referring to his federal election trial in Washington. “The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness, and I want sunlight.”Mr. Trump, who has denounced the prosecutions he faces as politically motivated and accused Mr. Biden of weaponizing the Justice Department, said that he was convinced Americans who watched the trial would reach his view.“Every person in America and beyond should have the opportunity to study this case firsthand,” he said.Mr. Trump’s remarks came the day after his lawyers in the case filed papers arguing those proceedings should be televised, backing a similar push by other media organizations.It was a rare instance in which the former president found common ground with the mainstream media, which Mr. Trump attacked repeatedly on Saturday.Hands RaisedAs he has before, Mr. Trump again called for executing drug dealers, praising China for making drug trafficking a capital offense. But in New Hampshire, a state where the opioid crisis has hit particularly hard, he turned to an informal straw poll to strengthen his case.“Let’s have a vote,” Mr. Trump said to the crowd. “Who would be in favor of the death penalty — now, wait, don’t go yet — knowing that it will solve the problem?”A majority of the crowd raised their hands.Fewer hands went up when Mr. Trump asked who would oppose such a move. When one woman raised her hand emphatically, Mr. Trump looked at her with a small smile and asked, “Are you a liberal?”She wildly shook her head to the contrary.Facts FloutedMr. Trump also repeated lies, falsehoods, exaggerations and half-truths that he has told routinely on a number of subjects, including on gas prices, U.S. energy independence, election fraud and the 2020 elections.“I’m a very proud election denier,” Mr. Trump said.Insults HurledMr. Trump had previously refrained from commenting on the persistent rumors about whether Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida wears heel lifts in his cowboy boots — the subject of late-night jokes and social media gossip. But on Saturday he finally couldn’t resist.After mocking Mr. DeSantis for courting farmers in Iowa, Mr. Trump made an aside: “I’m not wearing lifts, either, by the way. I don’t have six-inch heels!” The comment was an echo of a slight by Vivek Ramaswamy in Wednesday’s debate, where the entrepreneur and author made a dig at the Florida governor.He then did a clownish impression of Mr. DeSantis walking off the stage at Wednesday night’s debate that looked ripped from Monty Python’s Ministry of Silly Walks. “I thought he was wearing ice skates,” Mr. Trump joked.Mr. Trump also derided Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, a Republican who has said Mr. Trump cannot win next year; Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic former House speaker; Hillary Clinton, his 2016 opponent; and Mr. Biden.Compliments GivenMr. Trump lauded Dana White, the president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship. “There’s a guy I’d like to make my defense chief,” he said. “I wouldn’t call him my defense chief, I’d call him my offense chief.”And he complimented President Xi Jinping of China, of whom he said, “He’s like Central Casting. There’s nobody in Hollywood that can play the role of President Xi — the look, the strength, the voice.” More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Asks Judge Chutkan to Air His Federal Election Trial on TV

      by

      The request to Judge Tanya Chutkan was short on legal arguments and long on bluster, and it faces an uphill battle as federal courts generally prohibit cameras.Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump have told a judge that she should permit his trial on federal charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election to be televised live from the courtroom.It was the first time that Mr. Trump has formally weighed in on the issue of whether to broadcast any of the four criminal trials he is facing. His motion to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal election trial in Washington, came after similar requests made by several media organizations and was filed late on Friday.A judge in Georgia who is handling Mr. Trump’s state election subversion case has said that proceeding will be televised. But the request to Judge Chutkan is likely to face an uphill battle given that federal rules of criminal procedure — and the Supreme Court — generally prohibit cameras in federal courtrooms.Mr. Trump’s motion for a televised trial came in a filing adopting his bombastic and combative style.In the motion, his lawyers argued that a televised trial was needed because the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, had “sought to proceed in secret” with the election case, even though the prosecution has attracted enormous attention from the news media, had several public hearings and had countless rounds of court papers filed on a public docket.The lawyers also used the motion to complain, as they have at almost every opportunity, that Mr. Trump has been treated “unfairly” by the Biden administration even though the election case — and another federal case in which Mr. Trump stands accused of mishandling classified documents — have been overseen by Mr. Smith, an independent prosecutor.It is little surprise that Mr. Trump, a former reality television star, would want to have the trial broadcast live from Federal District Court in Washington.As his testimony this past week in his civil fraud trial in New York has shown, he has opted to pursue a strategy of creating noisy conflict to obscure the legal issues underpinning his cases and to use the proceedings to amplify the message of victimhood and grievance that sits at the heart of his re-election campaign.Mr. Trump’s Friday night filing to Judge Chutkan was a sharp turn from his stance on the issue last week when prosecutors told Judge Chutkan, at his request, in their filing that his lawyers were taking “no position” on televising the trial.In that filing, prosecutors working for Mr. Smith also told Judge Chutkan that televising the trial was “clearly foreclosed” by federal rules.The prosecutors acknowledged that the public and the media had “a constitutional right of access” to the trial. But that, they claimed, was “the right to attend a criminal trial — not the right to broadcast it.”Mr. Trump’s filing ignored these arguments and instead relied on his usual mix of bluster and belligerence.“In sum,” his lawyers wrote, “President Trump absolutely agrees, and in fact demands, that these proceedings should be fully televised so that the American public can see firsthand that this case, just like others, is nothing more than a dreamt-up unconstitutional charade that should never be allowed to happen again.” More