United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Job Is Managing State Finances, but His Issues Are Jan. 6 and Abortion

      by

      Ryan Bizzarro, a Democrat and member of Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives, announced a bid to challenge the Republican incumbent, Stacy Garrity, by invoking issues galvanizing to Democrats.A Pennsylvania Democrat announced a bid for state treasurer on Tuesday by seeking to tie his Republican opponent to two of the country’s most incendiary issues: abortion rights and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.In his announcement video, Ryan Bizzarro, a member of the state House of Representatives, accuses the Republican incumbent, Stacy Garrity, of being “Pennsylvania’s highest-ranking extremist office holder.” He highlights her past support for abortion restrictions and her appearance at a rally in Harrisburg the day before the Capitol riot in which she appeared to endorse former President Donald J. Trump’s false claims that the election was rigged.Campaigns for a lower-profile office like state treasurer — where the duties include managing the government’s cash flow, not setting policy — have tended to fly under voters’ radars. But in a battleground state like Pennsylvania, where the presidency and a U.S. Senate seat will be fiercely contested in 2024, down-ballot races, too, can take on intense partisanship over issues with little connection to an official’s duties.“She’s one of those extreme folks we’ve got to get rid of,” Mr. Bizzarro said in an interview. His opening salvo takes a page from the playbook of Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat who ran in 2022 against a hard-right opponent by promising to protect abortion and voting rights. Abortion rights in particular proved a galvanizing issue for Democrats in the midterm elections after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. But while Pennsylvania’s governor has immense sway over those issues, its treasurer does not.A campaign adviser to Ms. Garrity, Dennis Roddy, said that bringing abortion and Jan. 6 into the race was an effort to dodge the fact that Ms. Garrity has been a successful steward of Pennsylvania’s money.“She’s done a hell of a job, she’s well liked and this is just the usual ‘let’s nationalize an election we can’t win on the merits,’” he said.Mr. Bizzarro’s announcement video begins with harrowing scenes of the violent attack on the Capitol, then cuts to Ms. Garrity at a Jan. 5, 2021, rally in Harrisburg that was organized to pressure Pennsylvania lawmakers to decertify the state’s vote for Joseph R. Biden Jr. After courts in Pennsylvania had already rejected multiple claims of fraud by the Trump campaign and allies, Ms. Garrity insisted to the crowd, “The election from this November is tarnished forever.”Ms. Garrity, an Iraq war veteran who defeated a Democratic incumbent in 2020, has also shown an inclination to lean into national issues. Her campaign Facebook page recently criticized Mr. Biden’s “hasty and spineless retreat” from Afghanistan, equated “Bidenomics=Bideninflation” and joined a chorus of Republican critics of Senator John Fetterman’s shorts-and-sweatshirt wardrobe.In the past, Ms. Garrity, 59, has asked people to “please pray” for the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade and called to defund Planned Parenthood. In 2020, she boasted of being endorsed by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a group that says it exists “to end abortion.”Mr. Bizzarro, 37, the House Democratic Policy Chair, comes from a family of professional prizefighters in Erie County, Pa. It is unclear if he will have a primary competitor. He appears in his video inside a boxing ring. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      J.D. Vance Is Not Your Usual Political Opportunist

      by

      J.D. Vance was trying to find his groove. I had just shown up at his office last week to interview the Ohio Republican about his first nine months in the Senate, where he has proved curiously hard to pigeonhole. As we sat down, Mr. Vance — at 39, one of the chamber’s youngest members — squirmed in his ornate leather arm chair, complaining that it was uncomfortable. Whoever used it previously, he explained, had created a “giant ass print” that made it a poor fit for him.Then the senator kicked a foot up on the low coffee table in front of him. This gave me a glorious view of his custom socks: a dark-red background covered with pictures of his 6-year-old son’s face. On the far end of the table was a Lego set of the U.S. Capitol that his wife had bought him on eBay for Father’s Day. With his crisp dark suit, casual manner and personal touches, Mr. Vance suddenly looked right at home. I suspected there was some grand metaphor in all this about the young conservative working to carve out his spot in this world of old leather and hidebound traditions.I asked what had been his most pleasant discovery about life in the Senate. “I’ve been surprised by how little people hate each other in private,” he offered, positing that much of the acrimony you see from lawmakers was “posturing” for TV. “There’s sort of an inherent falseness to the way that people present on American media,” he said.This may strike many people as rich coming from Mr. Vance, who is one of the Republican Party’s new breed of in-your-face, culture-warring, Trump-defending MAGA agitators. And indeed, Mr. Vance knows how to throw a partisan punch. Yet in these early days on the job, he has also adopted a somewhat more complicated political model, frequently championing legislation with Democrats, including progressives such as Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin.Pragmatic bipartisan MAGA troll feels like a dizzying paradoxical line to toe. And it risks feeding into the larger critique of Mr. Vance as a political opportunist. This is, after all, the guy who won attention in the 2016 election cycle as a harsh conservative critic of Mr. Trump, only to undergo a stark MAGA makeover and spend much of his 2022 Senate race sucking up to the former president. “I don’t know that I can disrespect someone more than J.D. Vance,” Mitt Romney, the Utah senator and former Republican presidential nominee, told his biographer about the party’s 2022 midterm contenders. “It’s like, really? You sell yourself so cheap?”Mr. Vance is not one to ignore such swipes. “Mitt Romney is one to talk about changing his mind publicly. He’s been on every side of 35 different issues,” he clapped back to Breitbart News.But there seems to be something going on with Mr. Vance beyond the usual shape-shifting flip-floppery. He contends that his approach is the more honest, hopeful path to getting things done for the conservative grass roots. In his telling, he’s not the cynical operator; his critics are.In some respects — especially with his defense of Mr. Trump — the freshman senator is transparently full of bull. But when it comes to how to navigate and possibly even make progress in today’s fractious G.O.P., not to mention this dysfunctional Congress, he may well be onto something.Mr. Vance and I sat down on a morning when Congress was all a dither over a possible government shutdown being driven by a spending fight among House Republicans. While sympathetic to his colleagues’ concerns, Mr. Vance saw the battle as unfocused, unproductive and bad for the party.“My sense is this shutdown fight will go very poorly for us unless we’re very clear about what we’re asking for,” he told me. With different blocs of Republicans demanding different things, “that’s just going to get confused, and the American people are going to punish us for it.”He argued that if the conservatives would hunker down and focus, they could get one major concession. “And we should be fighting for that one thing,” he said. What did he think they should prioritize? “If we could get something real on border security, then that would be a deal worth taking.”Mr. Vance described himself less an ideological revolutionary than a principled pragmatist. He did not come to Washington to blow up the system or overhaul how the Senate operates. He said his outlook was, “There are things I need to get done, and I will do whatever I need to do to do them.”If this means making common cause with the political enemy now and again, so be it. “I am a populist in a lot of my economic convictions, and so that will lead to opportunities to working with Democrats,” he reasoned.Mr. Vance’s cross aisle endeavors include teaming up with Ms. Warren to push legislation that would claw back compensation from bank executives who were richly paid even as they were “crashing their banks into a mountain,” as Mr. Vance put it. He has joined forces with Ms. Baldwin on a bill that would ensure that technologies developed with taxpayer money are manufactured in the United States. He is working with Senators Amy Klobuchar and Ron Wyden on a bill to reduce thefts of catalytic converters. And in the coming weeks, his focus will be on pushing through railway safety reform that he and Ohio’s senior senator, Sherrod Brown, introduced in the wake of the derailment disaster in East Palestine. That is the bill about which he was most optimistic. “We have 60 votes in private,” he said.Even if nothing makes it through this year, Mr. Vance is playing the long game. “Those productive personal relationships are quite valuable because they may not lead to an actual legislative package tomorrow, but they could two years from now,” he said.Squishy “relationship” talk can be dangerous in today’s G.O.P., even for members of the relatively genteel Senate. Being labeled a RINO — that is, a Republican in Name Only — generally earns one the sort of opprobrium normally reserved for child sex traffickers.But here’s where his MAGA antics may provide a bit of cover. In his brief time in Washington, the senator has proved himself an eager and a prolific culture warrior. The first bill he introduced — an important moment in any senator’s career — aimed to make English the nation’s official language. In July, after the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action in university admissions, he fired off a letter to the eight Ivy League schools, plus a couple of private colleges in Ohio, warning them to retain any records that might be needed for a Senate investigation of their practices. That same month, he introduced a bill to ban gender-affirming care for minors. He even waded into the hysteria last winter over the health risks of gas stoves. This month, he’s out hawking a bill that would ban federal mask mandates for domestic air travel, public transit systems and schools, and bar those institutions from denying service to the maskless.Perhaps most vitally, Mr. Vance remains steadfast in his support of Mr. Trump. In June, he announced he was putting a hold on all Justice Department nominees in protest of “the unprecedented political prosecution” of Mr. Trump. And he plans to work hard as a surrogate to return the MAGA king to the White House. “I’m thinking about trying to be as active a participant as possible.”J.D. Vance during a Trump campaign rally last year.Megan Jelinger/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesHis critique of Mr. Trump’s critics can be brutal.“Trump is extraordinarily clarifying on the right and extra confusing on the left,” he said. The hatred for Trump among progressives is so strong that people cannot see past it to acknowledge the former president’s “good parts,” he contended. While among conservatives, “Trump has this incredible capacity to identify really, who the good people are on the right and who the bad people are on the right.”Elaborating on the “bad” category, he points to former Representative Liz Cheney and the neoconservative writer Bill Kristol. “They say, ‘Donald Trump is an authoritarian’ — which I think is absurd. ‘Donald Trump is anti-democratic’ — which, again, in my view is absurd. I think they’re hiding their real ideological disagreements,” he argued.Mr. Vance is entitled to his view, of course. But glibly rejecting stated concerns about Mr. Trump’s anti-democratic inclinations — and characterizing his critics’ reactions as “obsessive” — would strike many as the real absurdity.Asked specifically about Mr. Trump’s election fraud lies, which Mr. Vance has at times promoted, the senator again shifted into slippery explainer mode. “I think it’s very easy for folks in the press to latch onto the zaniest election fraud or stolen election theories and say, ‘Oh this is totally debunked,’” he said. “But they ignore that there is this very clear set of institutional biases built into the election in 2020 that — from big tech censorship to the way in which financial interests really lined up behind Joe Biden.”“People aren’t stupid. They see what’s out there,” he said. “Most Republican grass roots voters are not sympathetic to the dumbest version of the election conspiracy. They are sympathetic to the version that is actually largely true.”Except that, as evidence of what is “actually largely true,” Mr. Vance pointed to a 2021 Time article detailing a bipartisan effort not to advance a particular candidate but to safeguard the electoral system. More important, the “dumbest” version of the stolen election conspiracy is precisely what Mr. Trump and his enablers have been aggressively spreading for years. It is what drove the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, landed many rioters in prison, led to Fox News paying a $787.5 million defamation settlement and prompted grand juries to indict Mr. Trump in federal and state courts. Mr. Vance may want to believe that most Republicans are too smart to buy such lunacy, but he is too smart not to recognize the damage to American democracy being wrought by that lunacy.As for those who criticize his approach, Mr. Vance saw them as out of sync with voters. The conservative grass roots are “extremely frustrated with Washington not doing anything,” he said. “I think if you are a critic of them — if you are a critic of the way they see the world — you see people who want to blow up the system. Who are just pissed off. And they want fighters.” And not necessarily fighters who are “directed” or strategic in their efforts, he said, so much as just anyone who channels that rage.By contrast, “if you’re sympathetic to them and you like them,” he continued, you understand that “the problem is not that people don’t bitch enough or complain enough on television.” Rather, it’s that voters are fed up that “nothing changes” even when they “elect successive waves of different people. So I actually think being a bridge builder and getting things done is totally consistent with this idea that people are pissed off at the government as do-nothing.”When I asked how Mr. Vance defined his political positioning, he abruptly popped out of his chair and hurried over to his desk. He returned with a yellow sticky note on which he drew a large grid. Along the bottom of the paper he scrawled “culture” and on the left side, “commerce.” He started drawing dots as he explained: “I think the Republican Party has tended to be here” — top right quadrant, indicating a mix of strong cultural and pro-business conservatism. He added, “I think the Democratic Party has tended to be here,” pointing to the bottom left quadrant, which in his telling represents a strong liberal take on both. “And I think the majority, certainly the plurality of American voters — and maybe I’m biased because this is my actual view — is somewhere around here,” he said, placing them on the grid to suggest that people are “more conservative on cultural issues but they are not instinctively pro-business.”Michelle CottleMr. Vance reminded me that he has always been critical of his party’s pro-business bias. And it is primarily in this space that he is playing nice with Democrats.Bridge builder. Deal Maker. MAGA maniac. Trump apologist. Call Mr. Vance whatever you want. And if you find it all confused or confusing, don’t fret. That may be part of the point. Mr. Trump’s Republican Party is something of a chaotic mess. Until it figures out where it is headed, a shape-shifting MAGA brawler who quietly works across the aisle on particular issues may be the best this party has to offer.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

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Why Democrats Keep Winning Elections Despite Biden’s Negative Polling

      by

      Despite a flood of negative polls for Democrats, the party has delivered a string of strong results in special elections, which can be a useful gauge of the national political environment.For nearly two years, poll after poll has found Americans in a sour mood about President Biden, uneasy about the economy and eager for younger leaders of the country.And yet when voters have actually cast ballots, Democrats have delivered strong results in special elections — the sort of contests that attract little attention but can serve as a useful gauge for voter enthusiasm.In special elections this year for state legislative offices, Democrats have exceeded Mr. Biden’s performance in the 2020 presidential election in 21 of 27 races, topping his showing by an average of seven percentage points, according to a study conducted by the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the party’s campaign arm for state legislative races.Those results, combined with an 11-point triumph for a liberal State Supreme Court candidate in Wisconsin this spring and a 14-point defeat of an Ohio ballot referendum this summer in a contest widely viewed as a proxy battle over abortion rights, run counter to months of public opinion polling that has found Mr. Biden to be deeply unpopular heading into his re-election bid next year.Taken together, these results suggest that the favorable political environment for Democrats since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade has endured through much of 2023. Democratic officials have said since the summer of 2022, when the ruling came down, that abortion is both a powerful motivator for the party’s voters and the topic most likely to persuade moderate Republicans to vote for Democratic candidates.“Dobbs absolutely changed the way that people thought about and processed things that they had perceived as a given,” said Heather Williams, the interim president of the D.L.C.C. “We continue to see voters recognizing what’s at stake in these elections.”Democrats are now using abortion rights to power races far down the ballot — an extension of how candidates in special elections at the congressional level have long used prominent national issues to fuel their campaigns.In January 2010, Scott Brown won a shocking upset in a Senate special election in deep-blue Massachusetts by running against President Barack Obama’s health care push. In March 2018, Conor Lamb won a special election to fill a House seat in a deep-red Pennsylvania district by campaigning as a centrist voice against Mr. Trump.Both the Brown and Lamb special elections served as indicators of the wave elections their parties won in subsequent midterm elections.Some of the special elections won by Democrats this year have involved relatively few voters: Under 2,800 ballots were cast in a New Hampshire State House contest last week.“The best evidence that a special election produces is whose side is more engaged on a grass-roots turnout level,” Mr. Lamb said in an interview on Monday. “That gives you some signal about who is bringing their turnout back next year.”Mr. Biden’s low approval ratings have illustrated a wide gap between how Democratic leaders view him and what voters think. But past presidents — including Barack Obama — have recovered from similarly sour numbers to win re-election, a point Mr. Biden’s aides repeat to seemingly anyone who will listen.Political operatives remain vexed about how much stock to put into the results of special elections. Such races tend to draw a fraction of the turnout in regular contests, and the voters skew older and more educated — a demographic that in the Trump era is more likely to favor Democrats.The party that wins special elections tends to trumpet their importance and predictive power, while the losing side writes them off as insignificant measures of voters’ mood.Last week, after Democrats won special elections to maintain control of the Pennsylvania House and flip a Republican-held seat in the New Hampshire House, Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Mr. Biden’s campaign manager, emailed donors to say the results showed Mr. Biden’s political strength.“These aren’t just one-off election wins,” she wrote. “They prove that our message is resonating with voters — and that we can’t write off any corner of the country.”Officials with the Republican state legislative campaign arm did not respond to messages on Monday.The next chance for Democrats to prove their strength in down-ballot elections will come in Virginia. A slate of Democratic state legislative candidates are warning on the campaign trail that a Republican-controlled legislature and Gov. Glenn Youngkin would roll back abortion rights. Republicans are pitching the same menu of tax cuts and parental influence over schools that swept Mr. Youngkin into office two years ago.The elections are likely to serve as a solid arbiter of the parties’ strength heading into 2024. Under the state’s new legislative district lines, Mr. Biden would have won a majority of House of Delegates seats in 2020. But Mr. Youngkin carried a majority of the districts when he was elected in 2021.“These are competitive maps,” Ms. Williams said. “When we get to the other side of this November election and you look at all of these things combined, you’re going to see a very strong story for Democrats.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      7 Candidates Qualify for Second Republican Debate; Trump Won’t Attend

      by

      The Republican National Committee announced the lineup Monday night: Doug Burgum, Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott.Seven candidates qualified for the second Republican presidential debate, the Republican National Committee announced Monday night, just one fewer than participated in the first debate last month.The event, scheduled for Wednesday from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time, will include:Gov. Doug Burgum of North DakotaFormer Gov. Chris Christie of New JerseyGov. Ron DeSantis of FloridaNikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and former United Nations ambassadorFormer Vice President Mike PenceThe entrepreneur Vivek RamaswamySenator Tim Scott of South CarolinaWhere the Republican Presidential Candidates Stand on the IssuesAs the Republican presidential candidates campaign under the shadow of a front-runner facing dozens of felony charges, The New York Times examined their stances on 11 key issues.While former President Donald J. Trump, the runaway front-runner in polls, easily exceeded the donor and polling requirements for participation, he is planning to skip the debate. He also skipped the first debate, which still managed to draw nearly 13 million viewers and was also the most-watched cable telecast of the year outside of sports.For his rivals, time is running short to gain ground on the leader. Mr. Trump’s closest rival, Mr. DeSantis, has fallen in recent polling, and the other candidates have been unable to make substantial breakthroughs. They will need to seize on moments like debates, with national audiences, to make noise in early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who qualified for the first debate, failed to meet the tougher requirements for the second. He needed 50,000 donors (up from 40,000 last month) and 3 percent (up from 1 percent) in at least two national polls accepted by the R.N.C., or in one national poll plus two polls from early-voting states.It is unclear whether he missed both requirements or just one. He did not meet the new polling threshold, according to a New York Times analysis, but his campaign did not respond to requests to confirm whether he had met the donor threshold.The Lineup for the Second Republican Presidential DebateSeven candidates have made the cut for the next debate. Donald J. Trump will not participate.No one who missed the first debate qualified for the second. Most of the lesser-known candidates — including former Representative Will Hurd of Texas, the talk-show host Larry Elder, the businessman and pastor Ryan Binkley and the businessman Perry Johnson — reported having met the increased donor requirement, but 3 percent in multiple polls was a bridge too far.Like last month, when Mr. Trump recorded an interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson to be released while his rivals were on the debate stage, Mr. Trump has his own counterprogramming plan. He will be in Detroit to give a prime-time speech to current and former union workers as members of the United Automobile Workers near the two-week mark on their strike.Mr. Trump has also refused to sign a pledge to support the Republican nominee regardless of who it is, which is a requirement for debate participation. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Tells Gun Store He’d Like to Buy a Glock, Raising Legal Questions

      by

      Officials have increasingly voiced concerns about threats of violence related to the former president’s trials, as he faces charges that would make it illegal for a store to sell him a firearm.A spokesman for former President Donald J. Trump posted a video on Monday showing him at a gun shop in South Carolina, declaring that he had just bought a Glock pistol.The post on X, formerly known as Twitter, included video of Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Party’s nomination for president who is facing four criminal indictments. He looked over the dullish gold firearm, a special Trump edition Glock that depicts his likeness and says “Trump 45th,” as he visited the Palmetto State Armory outlet in Summerville, S.C. “I want to buy one,” he said twice in the video.“President Trump buys a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!” his spokesman, Steven Cheung, wrote in his post. The video showed Mr. Trump among a small crowd of people and posing with a man holding the gun. A voice can be heard saying, “That’s a big seller.”The gun was decorated with Mr. Trump’s name and likeness.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe statement immediately set off an uproar and prompted questions about whether such a purchase would be legal. Mr. Trump is under indictment on dozens of felony counts in two different cases related to his efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election and to his possession of reams of classified documents after he left office.There were also questions about whether the store could sell a firearm to Mr. Trump if people there knew that he was under indictment.Federal prosecutors are asking a federal judge in the case that accuses Mr. Trump of breaking several laws in his efforts to stay in office to impose a limited gag order after he made repeated threats against prosecutors and witnesses in various cases against him. Mr. Trump’s lawyers were under a late-Monday-night deadline to respond to the government’s request for the order.But within two hours of the initial post on social media, Mr. Cheung deleted his post, and issued a statement saying, “President Trump did not purchase or take possession of the firearm. He simply indicated that he wanted one.”A man who answered a phone registered to the shop’s owner hung up when a reporter called. A salesperson at the Summerville location, who declined to give her name or answer additional questions, said Mr. Trump had not bought a gun.Mr. Trump has increasingly been faulted by prosecutors, security experts and others for his language on his social media site, Truth Social, in relation to his trials.At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for instance, officials have increasingly voiced concerns about threats of violence, as Mr. Trump and his allies have targeted the agency.Under the main federal gun law, 18 U.S.C. 922, it is illegal for merchants to sell firearms to people who are under indictment for crimes carrying sentences of more than a year. Indicted defendants are also barred from shipping or receiving any weapons that have crossed state lines.But the statute does not appear to prohibit people under indictment from simply buying or possessing weapons. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Do Voters Actually Care That Tim Scott Isn’t Married?

      by

      A spouse brings advantages to the campaign trail, as a built-in surrogate and cheerleader. But interviews with voters show they have bigger concerns than a candidate’s love life.During a private meeting with evangelical faith leaders in Iowa this summer, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina was asked about an issue he would prefer not to discuss: his love life.Mr. Scott, 57, has put his faith and commitment to conservative family values at the center of his campaign for president, which at that point was in its earliest weeks. None of the pastors in attendance questioned his faith. But at least one was curious about his lack of a wife and children.“You’re unmarried, and you want to lead the country. But we can’t even see how you’ve led a family. Help me out with that,” Michael Demastus, a pastor in Iowa who has met with the senator multiple times, recalled asking during the meeting. He meant the question, he added, “not in a condemning way — just genuinely want to know a little bit more.”Mr. Scott told the group that he was in a relationship with a woman whom he was serious about but not yet ready to introduce to the public, according to two accounts of the meeting.Mr. Demastus said that Mr. Scott’s response satisfied him in the moment, and that his congregation hasn’t seemed to care much one way or the other. It’s not a topic voters have clamored to ask the candidate about during town halls. And yet, as Mr. Scott joked at an evangelical conference in Des Moines, queries about the woman in his life have been “one of the more asked questions recently.”And Mr. Scott is answering, however reluctantly.“I am dating a lovely Christian girl,” he told Iowa’s attorney general, Brenna Bird, who asked him what she called the “personal” question right off the bat. “One of the things I love about the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that it points us always in the right direction. Proverbs 18:22 says, ‘He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.’ So can we just pray together for me?”A longtime bachelor, Mr. Scott is hardly a rarity in America, where more people than ever report being single. But a presidential candidate’s marital status is nearly impossible to avoid on the campaign trail. Some of Mr. Scott’s rivals, like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Vivek Ramaswamy, have given their spouses and young children starring roles as they work to win over those evangelical voters for whom traditional family values are top of mind. The frequent domestic scenes offer a stark contrast with the race’s front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, who is twice-divorced and facing four criminal indictments, one involving hush-money payments to a porn star. His wife, Melania Trump, has been largely absent.Mr. Scott has attributed the attention his personal relationships have received to opposition research he said had been circulated by his opponents.Mel Musto for The New York TimesMr. Scott, who is polling in the lower single digits, is sometimes joined by his mother and his nephew, whom he speaks of as a son. And he talks so much about his life story and his Christian faith that many prospective voters in Iowa and New Hampshire said that after meeting him for the first time, they felt like they were learning much about him and his character, even without a spouse at his side.Interviews with more than a dozen conservative voters and grass-roots organizers across early states suggest that they have bigger concerns than whom or whether Mr. Scott is dating.Nearly all, most of whom had only begun paying attention to Mr. Scott this year, said they did not mind that he was unmarried or childless. Several said they weren’t aware of his marital status. And many said they cared far more about his views on meaty issues like immigration and the economy — and about what they saw as his lack of any personal scandal whatsoever.“Is he? OK,” Anne Hoeing, 78, a New Hampshire voter and retired teacher, said after being informed that Mr. Scott was single. “Who cares? I mean, I don’t care. I would say I’d be very hesitant about a president who was married several times and there was all kinds of baggage — you know what I mean? I’d be more hesitant about that.”After Axios reported this month that a small number of prospective Scott donors had expressed concerns about his marital status and his reluctance to discuss his personal life, Mr. Scott suggested that his opponents were behind it. “What we’ve seen is that poll after poll after poll says that the voters don’t care. But it seems like opponents do care, and so media covers what opponents plant,” he said in New Hampshire. “The good news is, I just keep fighting the good fight. Make sure that America is better off today than yesterday.”In a more recent interview with The Washington Post, Mr. Scott offered a few additional details about his relationship: Mr. Scott and his girlfriend met through a friend from church, he said; they got to know each other by talking about God and doing Bible study together. They also played pickleball. Mr. Scott declined to be interviewed for this article, and his campaign declined to identify his girlfriend or make her available to be interviewed.He has suggested that rival campaigns planted stories about his being single because attacking him for his race would be a bridge too far. “You can’t say I’m Black, because that would be terrible, so find something else that you can attack,” Mr. Scott told The Post.Addressing unfounded speculation about Mr. Scott’s sexual orientation that has bounced around the political chattering class, his campaign manager, Jennifer DeCasper, told The Post that he was not gay.Many voters have expressed interest in Mr. Scott’s policy positions on issues like immigration and the economy rather than his bachelorhood.John Tully for The New York TimesThose closest to Mr. Scott and his family say that the answer to the perennial question most single or unmarried people face — why? — is more reflective of his busy schedule than a lack of interest in dating.“I don’t remember ever hearing that question until the presidential run,” said Chad Connelly, a former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party and founder of the faith-based political advocacy group Faith Wins.Andy Sabin, a Republican megadonor who supports Mr. Scott’s campaign, said he had not spoken with Mr. Scott about his marital status or heard of concerns about it from prospective donors he has tried to court. He added that “not one person” had come to him with questions about Mr. Scott’s personal relationships.“Nobody says you have to be married to be president,” Mr. Sabin said. “It’s kind of sad — you get presidents that are unhappily married. That’s worse.”Mr. Scott would join a small group of bachelor presidents if elected. Only two have entered the White House unmarried: Grover Cleveland, who in 1886 was married at the White House, and James Buchanan, who left office in 1861 and never wed.He is also not the first presidential candidate to face questions about his bachelorhood. Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, who is also unmarried, saw his marital status quickly become a subject of interest during his run for president in 2020. He made public his relationship with the actress Rosario Dawson roughly a month into his campaign.During the 2016 presidential primary, Senator Lindsey Graham, also from South Carolina, faced a barrage of questions about his personal life. “I don’t think there’s anything in the Constitution that says single people need not apply for president,” Mr. Graham said at one point. “And if it bothers some people, then they won’t vote for me. I offer what I offer.”Mr. Scott rose to prominence in South Carolina politics preaching — and practicing, according to him — abstinence before marriage. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 2010. But in 2012, the year he was appointed to the Senate, he told an interviewer that he was not adhering to that practice quite as well as he had in the past. He remained, however, reticent on the topic of his relationships.His single status came up just days after he announced his 2024 presidential campaign. In a May appearance at an Axios event, Mr. Scott was asked about being a bachelor. At first he challenged the question: “The fact that half of America’s adult population is single for the first time, to suggest that somehow being married or not married is going to be the determining factor of whether you’re a good president or not, it sounds like we’re living in 1963 and not 2023,” he said.Then he suggested that being single as president might be a benefit — before letting it slip that he was dating someone. “I probably have more time, more energy and more latitude to do the job,” Mr. Scott said, adding: “My girlfriend wants to see me when I come home.”The disclosure spurred a flurry of interest.Queries about the woman in his life have been “one of the more asked questions recently,” Mr. Scott joked Saturday at the Faith and Freedom Coalition banquet in Des Moines.KC McGinnis for The New York TimesMaurice Washington, a former chairman of the Charleston County Republican Party and a longtime Scott ally, faulted Mr. Scott’s presidential campaign for not proactively addressing questions about his personal life.“I think the people he’s paying the big bucks to need to do a better job in preparing him in how he handles or responds to it,” Mr. Washington said.Some voters said they saw Mr. Scott’s personal life as unexceptional.“I didn’t get married until I was 37,” said Dave Laugerman, a 73-year-old architect from Des Moines who said he was considering supporting Mr. Scott and several other candidates as alternatives to Mr. Trump. “It doesn’t bother me at all.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      If Politicians Are Either Stainless or Shameless, Guess Which One Senator Menendez Is

      by

      Bret Stephens: Gail, you know how much I hate stereotypes, but — New Jersey! What is it about the state that seems to produce ethically challenged pols? I’m thinking about Harrison Williams and Bob Torricelli and Jim McGreevey and innumerable mayors and assemblymen and now Senator Robert Menendez, indicted — once again — for various corrupt practices, including taking bribes in the form of gold bars.Is it the mercury in the Hackensack River? The effects of Taylor Pork Roll? Lingering trauma over the Snooki pouf?Gail Collins: Well, Bret, the case has of course yet to be tried, but right now, whenever I see a picture of Bob Menendez, I imagine a little golden rectangle sticking out of his pocket.His career is over. However, let’s be fair. We can’t get all high and mighty about New Jersey when we live in a state where George Pataki, whose three terms ended in 2007, was the last elected governor to finish his political career without having to resign in disgrace.Bret: Maybe the eastbound sign on the George Washington Bridge should read, “Welcome to the Empire State, not quite as crooked as the state you’re leaving. But. …”Gail: I can think of some more states that could use similar signs, but I’ll be charitable today and refrain from making lists. Do you have a remedy? One thing that worries me is how uncool politics has become. You don’t see promising college students talking about their dream of going back home and running for City Council. Or even someday becoming president.I blame Donald Trump for that, of course. But I have to admit Joe Biden doesn’t exactly make politics look like an exciting career.Bret: My pet theory about modern American politics is that only two types of people go into it: the stainless and the shameless. Either you have lived a life of such unimpeachable virtue that you can survive endless investigations into your personal history, or you’re the type of person who lacks the shame gene, so you don’t care what kind of dirt the media digs up about you. In other words, you’re either Mitt Romney or Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer or Anthony Weiner.Gail: Wow, first time I’ve thought about Anthony Weiner in quite a while. But go on.Bret: Point being, most normal people fall somewhere in the middle, and they don’t want to spend their lives under a media microscope. That’s why so many otherwise well-qualified and otherwise public-spirited people steer clear of political careers. Which brings us without stopping to the complete breakdown in the Republican House caucus.Gail: So glad you brought that up. I was of course going to ask — how much of this is Kevin McCarthy’s fault, how much the fault of Republican conservatives in general?Bret: Can’t it be both? McCarthy got his speakership by putting himself at the mercy of the lunatic fringe on his right, and now that fringe is behaving like … lunatics. In theory, what the Republican caucus is arguing about is government spending and whether a government shutdown can send a message about excess spending. In reality, this is about power — about people like Matt Gaetz showing that, with a handful of votes, he can bring the entire Congress to heel. It’s the tyranny of a small minority leveraging its will over a bare majority to hold everyone else hostage.Including, I should add, the Defense Department. If you had told me 10 years ago that the G.O.P. would purposefully sow chaos at the Pentagon to score points about government spending or abortion, I would have thought you were tripping. But here we are.Gail: Non-fan of the House Republicans that I am, I did not expect anything good when they won the majority last year. But I did expect them to be semi-competent in their attempts to do bad.Bret: Hehe.Gail: Instead, we have government by Matt Gaetz, or Tommy Tuberville, the Alabama senator who’s been holding up military promotions as a protest against … abortion rights?All this is good for the Democrats, who would have had to block any House budget that decimated critical services like health care. As things stand now, if we go into October without a national budget in place, all the ensuing crises will be blamed on the Republicans.Not saying I want that to happen, but if it does, glad the shame will go in the right direction.Bret: House Republicans have become a circular firing squad and I really have to wonder whether McCarthy will last another month as speaker, let alone to the end of this Congress. Although, whenever I think the Republicans are harming themselves, I turn to the Democrats. Granting almost 500,000 Venezuelans temporary protected status is the right thing to do, but the administration’s failure to get control of the border means it’s only a matter of time before grants at this scale happen as a matter of course. I just don’t understand how this is good policy or wise politics. Please explain it to me.Gail: Don’t think anybody feels the current border policies are anything close to perfect, but it’s a question of what else to do. Eager to hear any suggestions that don’t involve a stupid, embarrassing wall.Bret: Which I continue to favor — along with wide and welcoming gates — but OK. There’s also something called a “smart fence” that has excellent sensors to detect border crossings, but is less ugly, less expensive and more environmentally sensitive than a wall. But it would have to be manned continuously by armed patrols. We can also immediately return people arriving here illegally rather than let them stay in the United States while awaiting a court hearing, unless they are from countries where they are at mortal risk from their own governments. President Obama did that pretty robustly, and I don’t remember any of my liberal friends claiming it was an assault on human rights. And we need to enormously expand consular facilities throughout Latin America so people’s immigration claims can be processed abroad, not once they’ve crossed the border.Gail: Voting with you on greatly expanded consular services.Bret: It would be a start. And I’m saying all this as someone who believes deeply in the overall benefits of immigration. But a de facto open border doesn’t advance the cause of a liberal immigration policy. It undermines it. And it could take down a lot of the Democratic Party in the process.Gail: Arguing about the fence is sort of comforting, in a way. Takes me back to the old days when we could fight about politics without having to wring our hands over the likes of Kevin McCarthy.Bret: So true. Politics used to be debating ideas. Now it’s about diagnosing psychosis.Gail: Don’t know how depressed to feel about the deeply unenthusiastic, borderline terrifying polling numbers that Biden has been getting. On the one hand, it’s understandable that people are cranky about not having a younger, fresher, more exciting alternative to Trump. On the other hand — jeepers, the man has achieved a heck of a lot. And when you look at the inevitable alternative. …Bret: Liberals might see a lot of liberal policy achievements, but what conservatives and swing voters see is higher food and gas prices, higher mortgage rates, urban decay, an immigration crisis that only seems to get worse and a visibly feebler president. I really doubt we’d be having these anxieties over a potential second term for Trump if Biden simply stepped aside.Gail: But to get back to the House Republicans — an impeachment inquiry, starring Hunter Biden, yet again? This one, as you know well, is allegedly supposed to investigate whether the president did anything in 2015 to protect his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. Are you indifferent, bored or embarrassed?Bret: Angered. It’s outrageous to open an impeachment inquiry when there is absolutely no available evidence that the president committed impeachable offenses. By that preposterous standard, the police should open investigations into every parent in America whose children are louts.Gail: Speaking of louts — or at least uncouth dressers — how do you feel about Chuck Schumer’s decision to drop the Senate dress code? Clearly a bow to John Fetterman, who has been known to show up in a hoodie and shorts.Bret: Schumer is one of the nicest men I know in political life, a real mensch whether you agree with him or not. But this is a case of him being too nice. The Senate is held in low enough repute already; we don’t need it looking like an Arby’s. I hope he rethinks this. What’s your view?Gail: Agree about Schumer and kinda think you’re also right on the dress code. He lost me at the shorts.Hey, one last question — any predictions for the Republican debate this week?Bret: I expect Ramaswamy to irritate, DeSantis to infuriate, Christie to needle, Pence to remind me of a beetle, Scott to smile and Haley to win by a mile. But I doubt it will move the dial.Otherwise, I’d rather spend the time watching people ice fish.Gail: Come on, there’s always something weird or ridiculous to reward you for watching. And some suspense — will Ron DeSantis say something truly stupid that will make him drop out? Will Tim Scott have any good I-wanna-be-veep moments? And it’s always fun to listen to Chris Christie slam into Trump.Bret: True. And let’s see what conspiracy theory Ramaswamy will endorse next, like: Did Joe Biden get his Corvette at a discount from George Soros?Gail: We can talk it over next week. Along with God-knows-what new political crisis. Looking forward already.Bret: Same here. And before we go, I hope our readers didn’t miss Ian Johnson’s extraordinary essay about the Chinese journalists and historians fighting to preserve the knowledge of China’s tragedies and atrocities in the face of the regime’s attempts to suppress it. It made me think of how badly our own sense of history, including events like Jan. 6, has eroded, and reminded me of my favorite Milan Kundera lines: “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”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

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Democratic Party Has an Old Problem and Won’t Admit It

      by

      President Biden’s advanced age (80) gets rehashed endlessly, because the human condition makes it inescapable. A deft politician can wait out almost any other liability: Scandals and gaffes fade over time; the economy bounces back; governing errors can be corrected. But Mr. Biden will never be (or appear) younger than he is today. The problem of his age will never fade.In our fixation on Mr. Biden’s age, we often gloss over the role the Democratic Party has played in promoting and lionizing its older leaders, then muddling through when illness or death undermines their ability to govern. The party’s leaders seem to believe implicitly in the inalienable right of their aging icons to remain in positions of high power unquestioned, long after it becomes reasonable to ask whether they’re risking intolerable harm.The party has come to operate more like a machine, in which lengthy, loyal service must be rewarded with deference. It is why Mr. Biden has not drawn a credible primary challenger, when polling and reporting alike suggest that Democrats are deeply anxious about his ability to mount a vigorous campaign and serve another full term.And it is that deference, from those who seek to protect Democratic leaders from all but the mildest criticism, that ensures that we keep reliving the same bad dream, where each subsequent election comes with higher stakes than the last. It leaves grass-roots supporters to see all their hard work — and democracy itself — jeopardized by the same officials who tell them they must volunteer and organize and donate and vote as if their lives depend on it. And for millions of younger voters, it becomes increasingly hard to believe that any of it matters: If defeating Republicans is a matter of existential urgency for the country, why is the Democratic Party so blasé about elevating leaders who are oblivious to the views of the young people who stand to inherit it?I peg the beginning of this recurring nightmare to the year 2009, when Senator Ted Kennedy’s death nearly derailed President Obama’s signature health care reform and ultimately deprived Democrats of their Senate supermajority, which they might have used to pass more sweeping legislation than they did. Eleven years later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also died in office. Her death was a hinge point where history turned and swept much of her substantive legacy into the dustbin; worse, it left living Americans to toil indefinitely under the legacy that replaced hers.There were gentle behind-the-scenes efforts and a robust public persuasion campaign meant to convince Justice Ginsburg to retire when Democrats still controlled the Senate and President Obama could have appointed her replacement, but there were plenty of liberals urging her to stick it out. Christine Pelosi, the daughter of Nancy Pelosi, who was then the House minority leader, cheered Justice Ginsburg for ignoring the calls for her to step down. “You Go Ginsburg! Resist that sexist Ageism,” she wrote.Despite all of this terrible history, we face a similar challenge today: an aging party, and a Democratic establishment not just unwilling to take decisive action to stave off disaster but also reluctant to even acknowledge the problem.When Senator Dianne Feinstein of California (90) developed complications from shingles earlier this year and was unable to fulfill her duties, leaving Senate Democrats unable to swiftly advance judicial nominations, the elder Ms. Pelosi framed the calls for Ms. Feinstein to step aside as a form of injustice. “I’ve never seen them go after a man who was sick in the Senate in that way,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters.She herself has ignored years of (gentle, always gentle) hints that it was time to step aside in favor of younger leaders with less political baggage. She did finally relinquish her leadership role in 2022, after losing the House majority for the second time in 12 years, but earlier this month, she said she would run for her House seat again.The end of Ms. Pelosi’s speakership has reduced the overall risk level somewhat. If she or Ms. Feinstein were to die in office, it wouldn’t be terribly destabilizing, the way it was when Mr. Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg died, and the way it would if Mr. Biden did. But it does feed the deeper and perhaps more insidious problem: a widespread sense of alienation among the young voters Democrats desperately need to turn out in elections.This should not go on. Liberals are apparently doomed to white-knuckle it through 2024, but there are affirmative steps Democrats could take to better allow younger leaders to displace older ones.Paradoxically, the G.O.P. may provide a model the Democrats can use. Although the Republican base is older, it does a better job insulating itself from gerontocracy than Democrats do. Republicans are obviously far from perfect champions of their own self-interest. Their penchant for personality cults has wedded them to Donald Trump, who also happens to be old, but they are vulnerable to charlatans of all ages. That’s in part because they take steps to reduce the risk that they lose power by the attrition of elderly leaders. Justice Anthony Kennedy timed his retirement so a Republican president could replace him; the House G.O.P. has cycled through several leaders over the past decade and a half, none of them terribly old. When Kentucky’s Democratic governor Andy Beshear defeated the Republican incumbent Matt Bevin, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, encouraged his allies in the Kentucky Legislature to circumscribe Mr. Beshear’s appointment power — to ensure partisan continuity in Washington, should a Senate seat become vacant. So although Mr. McConnell seems committed to serving out his term, he has a succession plan.Democrats could adopt a similarly hard-nosed attitude about retiring their leaders in dignified but timely ways. Republicans term-limit the chairs of their congressional committees, which guarantees senior lawmakers cycle out of their positions and make way for younger ones.Even just acknowledging this issue — and encouraging good-faith dissent — would boost Mr. Biden’s credibility with younger voters. While a political conversation that sidesteps this uncomfortable topic, along with any number of others, might soothe anxious partisans, it will leave them unprepared for hard realities.Democratic Party actors may be able to convince themselves that there’s something high-minded about muzzling this discourse entirely — that vigorous intraparty criticism is self-defeating, and that complaining about Mr. Biden’s age when nothing can be done about it is a form of indulgent venting that only inflames public misgivings about the president. But they’d be wrong. We can see without squinting that his advanced age has created meaningful drag on his polling, and that it is a gigantic problem for the Democratic Party if younger voters, who are overwhelmingly progressive, come to view it as a lifestyle organization for liberals who have grown out of step with the times. Airing out widely held frustrations with the party’s gerontocracy might persuade younger voters that their leaders get it, and that their time in power will come to an end sooner than later.Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) writes Off Message, a newsletter about politics, culture and media.Source images by Liudmila Chernetska, Adrienne Bresnahan and xu wu/Getty ImagesThe 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