United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Campaign Anguishes His Storied Family

      by

      The presidential bid by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has tested the bonds of an iconic Democratic clan that does not want him to run and does not know what to do about it.Jack Schlossberg had enough. The only grandson of President John F. Kennedy, Mr. Schlossberg had been watching the presidential campaign of his cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with increasing dismay.To Mr. Schlossberg, the quixotic challenge to President Biden for the Democratic nomination was just a “vanity project” that was tarnishing the legacy of his grandfather and their storied family. Just days earlier last month, his conspiracy-minded cousin had suggested that the Covid-19 virus had been engineered to protect Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.Sitting in a van in Australia, where he was on vacation, Mr. Schlossberg sketched out a few bullet points, took out his mobile phone and recorded a harsh condemnation of his cousin on Instagram. “He’s trading in on Camelot, celebrity, conspiracy theories and conflict for personal gain and fame,” Mr. Schlossberg said. “I’ve listened to him. I know him. I have no idea why anyone thinks he should be president. What I do know is his candidacy is an embarrassment.” Then he hit the post button.Mr. Schlossberg’s denunciation underscored the turmoil inside what remains of Camelot. Bobby, as the 69-year-old candidate is called, has become a source of deep anguish among his many siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews, one that is testing the bonds of what was once known as the royal family of American politics. His relatives by and large do not want him to run, do not support his campaign, disdain his conspiratorial musings and almost universally admire Mr. Biden, a longtime friend of the family who keeps a bust of Robert F. Kennedy Sr. in the Oval Office.President Joe Biden keeps a bust of Robert F. Kennedy Sr. on display in the Oval Office. Pool photo by Al DragoYet even as some members of the candidate’s family feel compelled to speak out against his campaign, others find themselves profoundly pained by the airing of domestic discord. They do not share Bobby’s views on many issues, particularly his strident anti-vaccine stances, these Kennedys say, but they care for him, do not want to see him hurt and do not think it helps to publicly criticize him.“I love my brother deeply, and while I don’t agree with him on a number of issues, theories, I do not want to knock him,” said Courtney Kennedy Hill, one of the candidate’s sisters. “He has done a lot of good for many, many people,” she added, citing his work as an environmental lawyer who helped clean up the Hudson River and his advocacy for those struggling with drug addiction. “I just don’t want all that to get lost in the maelstrom around his more controversial statements and views.”Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known as Bobby, in the middle row on the right, appears in a portrait with his family in 1964.Bettmann Archive/Getty ImagesNever before has the family faced a conundrum quite like this. Through all the tragedies and scandals and campaigns over the years, the traditional Kennedy rule has always been to pull together, to stand by one another no matter what. Family was the rock. Solidarity was the code. But as he polls at around 15 percent against Mr. Biden, Bobby has roiled a family that wants nothing to do with his campaign and telephone lines between Kennedy homes burn with what-to-do agonizing.At left, John F. Kennedy, and in the foreground, Edward M. Kennedy, known as Ted. In a family once considered American royalty, marked by political ambitions and public tragedy, solidarity was long the code.Kennedy Family Collection, Courtesy of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, via Associated Press“It must be painful for them,” said Bob Shrum, who for years was one of the leading advisers to Edward M. Kennedy, the senator and patriarch known as Ted. “He’s been through some struggles himself,” Mr. Shrum added of Bobby, “and I think they want to love him. But at the same time, they can’t abide this. It’s very sad at every level.”Robert Kennedy Jr. opted against discussing his relations with his family. “It’s pretty clear that the Times is not going to treat me fairly honestly so I’m going to decline,” he said in a text message. In a statement to CNN in April shortly before kicking off his campaign, he acknowledged that some relatives do not support him. “I bear them no ill will,” he said. “Families can disagree and still love each other.”Still, privately he has reached out to some of his relatives to complain about their public comments and engaged in tense discussions about his campaign and platform. Some family members recall pressing him on why he was running and warning him that he was putting his life up for scrutiny in a way that might be personally devastating.Mr. Kennedy, who was 9 when his uncle was assassinated and 14 when his father was killed, struggled with addiction as a young man and was kicked out of private schools and arrested on marijuana and heroin charges more than once. After checking into a treatment facility in 1983, he says he has been clean ever since and has been an antidrug crusader. Amid reports of infidelity, he separated from his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy, who also battled addiction and died by suicide in 2012. He is now married to his third wife, the actress Cheryl Hines.Mr. Kennedy and his wife Cheryl Hines in Israel in 2019 as part of a trip with the Waterkeeper Alliance, of which he was board president in his environmental advocacy.Daniel Rolider for The New York TimesIn interviews in recent days, several members of the Kennedy family, some of whom did not want to be named, sounded tortured about the situation. They talked of a brother, cousin, uncle who flashed some of the raw political talent of his famed father, but who has undergone trauma and is headed down a path they do not fully understand.For years, Mr. Kennedy has made himself into a champion of the vaccine resistance movement, promoting spurious assertions about the dangers of inoculations and once calling the Covid-19 vaccine the “deadliest vaccine ever made.” He has said Anne Frank had more freedom during the Holocaust than Americans pressured to take the vaccine, a comparison for which he later apologized, and wrote a book attacking Dr. Anthony S. Fauci.He has suggested that mass shootings at schools have increased because of heightened use of antidepressants. And in a particularly sensitive area for his family, he has maintained that the C.I.A. was involved in the assassination of his uncle, John F. Kennedy, and possibly in the assassination of his father.Last month, he declared that the coronavirus was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people” and that “the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” He later said he was misinterpreted, writing on Twitter that the disparate effect of the virus “serves as a kind of proof of concept for ethnically targeted bioweapons” but “I do not believe and never implied that the ethnic effect was deliberately engineered.”That proved too much for several family members. Kerry Kennedy, his sister and president of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, issued a statement calling his remarks “deplorable and untruthful.” Joseph P. Kennedy II, his brother and a former congressman, called them “morally and factually wrong.” Joseph P. Kennedy III, his nephew and another former congressman now serving as Mr. Biden’s special envoy to Northern Ireland, posted his own response on Twitter: “I unequivocally condemn what he said.”Mr. Kennedy protesting a Covid-19 vaccine mandate in Washington in January 2022. Last month, he declared that the coronavirus was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people.”Victor J. Blue for The New York TimesMr. Schlossberg filmed his video four days later. “I didn’t have a plan,” he said in an interview from Australia, where he traveled after passing the bar exam to visit his mother, Caroline Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador, and to tour the country before returning home to begin a legal career. “I just wanted to speak out and felt it was the right time.”Mr. Schlossberg, 30, said he did not consult family members first and added that posting the video was “not an easy thing to do.” But he stressed how much he admires Mr. Biden, who he said “sees America now much the same way as my grandfather did” and in his view is “probably the greatest president of my lifetime.”While the statements were not coordinated, according to family members, the display of disagreement struck close observers of the Kennedys as a pivotal moment. “The Kennedy family has always tried to keep things within the family,” said Jim Manley, a longtime aide to Edward Kennedy. “The fact that some of the members, some of his cousins, are beginning to speak up publicly, it to me indicates how upset they are with what he’s saying and what he’s doing.”Vaccines are not the only source of dispute. The candidate has also spoken out against aid for Ukraine, accused the Biden administration of lying to the public about the war and suggested that American leaders pushed Ukraine into conflict with Russia “as part of their strategic grand plan to destroy any country such as Russia that resists American imperial expansion.”“I do not agree with Bobby on Ukraine, and I’ve had many conversations with him about it and I’m disappointed that he is not more supportive,” Douglas Kennedy, another brother and a Fox News correspondent, said in an interview.Still, he expressed understanding for his brother’s propensity to question conventional wisdom. “Bobby has views that I would say most of the members of my family disagree with,” he said. “But I also believe that particularly our family, our siblings, we were brought up to be skeptical of authority in general.”Mr. Kennedy appeared at a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month organized by Republicans, on the weaponization of the federal government.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesPatrick J. Kennedy, another former congressman and son of Edward Kennedy, said he regrets that the campaign has distracted from priorities the family has long promoted. “It would be nice for the general public who is associating the legacy of my family with my cousin (esp bc he invokes them so much) to know that my family’s historic legacy of fighting for social justice was on display today,” he said by text on the day the Biden administration advanced new rules aimed at increasing access to mental health and substance abuse services.It has not been lost on the family that Robert Kennedy Jr. has drawn support from Republicans affiliated with former President Donald J. Trump. Roughly half of the $10.5 million raised by two super PACs supporting Mr. Kennedy came from a single donor who previously backed Mr. Trump and has contributed $53 million in stock to build a wall on the border with Mexico.Nor is Mr. Kennedy’s target immaterial. Mr. Biden has been close to the Kennedys for half a century, since the days when Edward Kennedy showed up at the Delaware hospital where his sons were recovering from the car accident that killed the future president’s first wife and baby daughter.To this day, Mr. Biden calls the candidate’s mother, Ethel Kennedy, every year on her birthday and for decades, according to Douglas Kennedy, has shown up for family events two or three times a year. The president has dispensed appointments to multiple members of the family, including Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the ambassador to Austria; Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a senior Labor Department official; Caroline Kennedy and Joseph Kennedy III.Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Edward M. Kennedy during a Senate hearing with Attorney General Edwin Meese in 1987. The ties between the Biden and Kennedy families go back to the 1970s.Jose R. Lopez/The New York Times“Everybody in our family loves Joe Biden, and Joe Biden has been very good to my mother and I think genuinely loved my father probably as much as anybody who has held that office in the past 50 years,” Douglas Kennedy said. “That’s certainly a factor in everybody’s individual feeling about Bobby running.”Courtney Kennedy Hill recalled how “exceptionally kind, thoughtful and valuable” Mr. Biden was when her daughter, Saoirse Kennedy Hill, died of an overdose in 2019. But so too was Bobby, she noted. He had a close relationship with his niece. “He was special to and for her and I will love him forever for that,” she said.One way or the other, she predicted, the family would get through this. “If you came to the Cape on Thanksgiving, you would see a family full of fun, energy, laughter and, of course, healthy competition,” she said. “A lot of it anyway.” More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Attacks on ‘Woke’ Ideology Falling Flat With G.O.P. Voters

      by

      New polling shows national Republicans and Iowa Republican caucusgoers were more interested in “law and order” than battling “woke” schools, media and corporations.When it comes to the Republican primaries, attacks on “wokeness” may be losing their punch.For Republican candidates, no word has hijacked political discourse quite like “woke,” a term few can define but many have used to capture what they see as left-wing views on race, gender and sexuality that have strayed far beyond the norms of American society.Gov. Ron DeSantis last year used the word five times in 19 seconds, substituting “woke” for Nazis as he cribbed from Winston Churchill’s famous vow to battle a threatened German invasion in 1940. Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, speaks of a “woke self-loathing” that has swept the nation. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina found himself backpedaling furiously after declaring that “‘woke supremacy’ is as bad as white supremacy.”The term has become quick a way for candidates to flash their conservative credentials, but battling “woke” may have less political potency than they think. Though conservative voters might be irked at modern liberalism, successive New York Times/Siena College polls of Republican voters nationally and then in Iowa found that candidates were unlikely to win votes by narrowly focusing on rooting out left-wing ideology in schools, media, culture and business.Instead, Republican voters are showing a “hand’s off” libertarian streak in economics, and a clear preference for messages about “law and order” in the nation’s cities and at its borders.The findings hint why Mr. DeSantis, who has made his battles with “woke” schools and corporations central to his campaign, is struggling and again show off Mr. Trump’s keen understanding of part of the Republican electorate. Campaigning in Iowa in June, Mr. Trump was blunt: “I don’t like the term ‘woke,’” he said, adding, “It’s just a term they use — half the people can’t even define it, they don’t know what it is.”It was clearly a jab at Mr. DeSantis, but the Times’s polls suggest Mr. Trump may be right. Social issues like gay rights and once-obscure jargon like “woke” may not be having the effect many Republicans had hoped“Your idea of ‘wokeism’ might be different from mine,” explained Christopher Boyer, a 63-year-old Republican actor in Hagerstown, Md., who retired from a successful career in Hollywood where he said he saw his share of political correctness and liberal group think. Mr. Boyer said he didn’t like holding his tongue about his views on transgender athletes, but, he added, he does not want politicians to intervene. “I am a laissez-faire capitalist: Let the pocketbook decide,” he said.“Your idea of ‘wokeism’ might be different from mine,” said Christopher Boyer, a 63-year-old Republican actor in Hagerstown, Md.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesWhen presented with the choice between two hypothetical Republican candidates, only 24 percent of national Republican voters opted for a “a candidate who focuses on defeating radical ‘woke’ ideology in our schools, media and culture” over “a candidate who focuses on restoring law and order in our streets and at the border.”Around 65 percent said they would choose the law and order candidate.Among those 65 and older, often the most likely age bracket to vote, only 17 percent signed on to the “anti-woke” crusade. Those numbers were nearly identical in Iowa, where the first ballots for the Republican nominee will be cast on Jan. 15.Mr. DeSantis’s famous fight against the Walt Disney Company over what he saw as the corporation’s liberal agenda exemplified the kind of economic warfare that seems to fare only modestly better. About 38 percent of Republican voters said they would back a candidate who promised to fight corporations that promote “woke” left ideology, versus the 52 percent who preferred “a candidate who says that the government should stay out of deciding what corporations should support.”Christy Boyd, 55, in Ligonier, Pa., made it clear she was no fan of the culture of tolerance that she said pervaded her region around Pittsburgh. As the perfect distillation of “woke” ideology, she mentioned “time blindness,” a phrase she views as simply an excuse for perpetual tardiness.But such aggravations do not drive her political desires.“If you don’t like what Bud Light did, don’t buy it,” she added, referring to the brand’s hiring of a transgender influencer, which contributed to a sharp drop in sales. “If you don’t like what Disney is doing, don’t go. That’s not the government’s responsibility.”Indeed, some Republican voters seemed to feel pandered to by candidates like Mr. DeSantis and the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, whose book “Woke Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam,” launched his political career.Lynda Croft, 82, said she was watching a rise in murders in her hometown Winston-Salem, N.C., and that has her scared. Overly liberal policies in culture and schools will course-correct on their own, she said.“If anyone actually believes in woke ideology, they are not in tune with the rest of society,” she said, “and parents will step in to deal with that.”In an interview, Mr. Ramaswamy said the evolving views of the electorate were important, and he had adapted to them. “Woke” corporate governance and school systems are a symptom of what he calls “a deeper void” in a society that needs a religious and nationalist renewal. The stickers that read “Stop Wokeism. Vote Vivek” are gone from his campaign stops, he said, replaced by hats that read “Truth.”“At the time I came to be focused on this issue, no one knew what the word was,” he said. “Now that they have caught up, the puck has moved. It’s in my rearview mirror as well.”Law and order and border security have become stand-ins for “fortitude,” he said, and that is clearly what Republican voters are craving.(The day after the interview, the Ramaswamy campaign blasted out a fund-raising appeal entitled “Wokeness killing the American Dream.”)DeSantis campaign officials emphasized that the governor in recent days had laid out policies on border security, the military and the economy. Foreign policy is coming, they say. But they also pointed to an interview on Fox News in which Mr. DeSantis did not back away from his social-policy focus.Along with several other Republican-led states, Florida passed a string of laws restricting what G.O.P. lawmakers considered evidence of “wokeness,” such as gender transition care for minors and diversity initiatives. Mr. DeSantis handily won re-election in November.“I totally reject, being in Iowa, New Hampshire, that people don’t think those are important,” he said of his social policy fights. “These families with children are thanking me for taking stands in Florida.”For candidates trying to break Mr. Trump’s hold on a Republican electorate that sees the former president as the embodiment of strength, the problem may be broader than ditching the term “woke.”As it turns out, social issues like gender, race and sexuality are politically complicated and may be less dominant than Mr. Trump’s rivals thought. The fact that Mr. Trump has been indicted three times and found legally liable for sexual abuse has not hurt him. Only 37 percent of Republican voters nationally described Mr. Trump as more moral than Mr. DeSantis (45 percent sided with Mr. DeSantis on the personality trait), yet in a head-to-head matchup between the two candidates, national Republican voters backed Mr. Trump by 31 percentage points, 62 percent to 31 percent.The Times/Siena poll did find real reluctance among Republican voters to accept transgender people. Only 30 percent said society should accept transgender people as the gender they identify with, compared with 58 percent who said society should not accept such identities.But half of Republican voters still support the right of gay and lesbian people to marry, against the 41 percent who oppose same-sex marriage. Fifty-one percent of Republican voters said they would choose a candidate promising to protect individual freedom over one guarding “traditional values.” The “traditional values” candidate would be the choice of 40 percent of Republicans.Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, responded simply: “Americans want to return to a prosperous nation, and there’s only one person who can do that — President Trump.”Mr. Boyer, who played Robert E. Lee in Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln,” bristled at having to make a choice: “It’s hardly an either-or: Why wouldn’t I want someone to fight for law and order and against this corrupt infiltration in our school systems?” he asked.But given a choice, he said, “the primary job of government is the protection of our country and there’s a tangible failure of that at our border.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Chose Their Fate When They Chose to Shield Trump

      by

      It’s not too much to say that the 2024 Republican presidential primary is effectively over. In fact, it’s been over. The earliest you could say it was over was Jan. 7, 2021, when most Republican politicians closed ranks around Donald Trump in the wake of the insurrection. The next earliest date was Feb. 13 of the same year, when the majority of Senate Republicans voted to acquit Trump of all charges in his second impeachment trial, leaving him free to run for office.With Trump now shielded from the immediate political consequences of trying to seize power, it was only a matter of time before he made his third attempt for the Republican presidential nomination. And now, a year out from the next Republican convention, he is the likely nominee — the consensus choice of most Republican voters. No other candidate comes close.According to the most recent New York Times/Siena poll, 54 percent of Republicans nationwide support Trump for the 2024 nomination. The next most popular candidate, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, gets 17 percent support. The next five candidates have either 2 percent or 3 percent support.You might think that Trump’s overwhelming lead is the product of a fragmented field, but that’s not true. If every candidate other than DeSantis left the race, and their votes went to DeSantis, Trump would still win by a nearly two-to-one margin.You can’t even blame the poor performance of DeSantis’s campaign. Has he burned through campaign cash with little to show for it? Yes. Is he tangled up in multiple scandals and controversies, including one in which a (now former) staffer created and shared a video with Nazi imagery? Yes. But even a flawless campaign would flounder against the fact that Trump remains the virtually uncontested leader of the Republican Party.And make no mistake: Trump’s leadership has not been seriously contested by either his rivals or the broader Republican establishment. How else would you describe the decision to defend Trump against any investigation or legal scrutiny that comes his way? Republican elites and conservative media have successfully persuaded enough Republican voters that Trump is the victim of a conspiracy of perfidious liberals and their “deep state” allies.They have done a good job convincing those voters that Trump deserves to be back in office. And sure enough, they are poised to give him yet another chance to win the White House.What I WroteMy Tuesday column was on Congress’s power to regulate, and discipline, the Supreme Court.Setting aside both the legislature’s power to impeach judges and its power of the purse over the judiciary — there’s nothing in the rules that says the court must have clerks, assistants or even a place from which to work — there are at least two provisions of the Constitution that authorize Congress to, in Alito’s words, “regulate the Supreme Court.”My Friday column was on the federal indictment of President Donald Trump on charges related to his effort to overturn the presidential election.The criminal-legal system is now moving, however slowly, to hold Trump accountable. This is a good thing. But as we mark this development, we should also remember that the former president’s attempt to overthrow our institutions would not have been possible without those institutions themselves.Now ReadingDavid Waldstreicher on writing history for the public for Boston Review.A.S. Hamrah on the “Mission: Impossible” franchise for The New York Review of Books.Brianna Di Monda on the film “Women Talking” for Dissent.The New Republic on the 100 most significant political films of all time.Richard Hasen on the federal case against Donald Trump for Slate.Photo of the WeekJamelle BouieThis is the remnant of a downtown storefront in Quincy, Fla. I took this earlier in the summer during a trip to visit family in the area.Now Eating: Red Curry Lentils With Sweet Potatoes and SpinachThis is a wonderfully comforting vegetarian meal that is very easy to put together, especially if you have staples like lentils and coconut milk already on hand. If you don’t have vegetable stock, just use water. Or if you’re not a strict vegetarian and prefer chicken stock, you can go with that instead. Although this is Thai-inspired, I think it goes very well with a warm piece of cornbread. Recipe from New York Times Cooking.Ingredients3 tablespoons olive oil1 pound sweet potatoes (about 2 medium sweet potatoes), peeled and cut into ¾-inch cubes1 medium yellow onion, chopped3 tablespoons Thai red curry paste3 garlic cloves, minced (about 1 tablespoon)1 (1-inch) piece fresh ginger, peeled and grated (about 1 tablespoon)1 red chile, such as Fresno or serrano, halved, seeds and ribs removed, then minced1 teaspoon ground turmeric1 cup red lentils, rinsed4 cups low-sodium vegetable stock2 teaspoons kosher salt, plus more to taste1 (13-ounce) can full-fat coconut milk1 (4-to-5-ounce) bag baby spinach½ lime, juicedFresh cilantro leaves, for servingDirectionsIn a Dutch oven or pot, heat 2 tablespoons olive oil over medium-high. Add the sweet potatoes and cook, stirring occasionally, until browned all over, 5 to 7 minutes. Transfer the browned sweet potatoes to a plate and set aside.Add the remaining 1 tablespoon olive oil to the pot and set the heat to medium-low. Add the onion and cook, stirring occasionally, until translucent, 4 to 6 minutes. Add the curry paste, garlic, ginger, chile and turmeric, and cook until fragrant, about 1 minute.Add the lentils, stock, salt and browned sweet potatoes to the pot and bring to a boil over high. Lower the heat and simmer, uncovered, stirring occasionally, until the lentils are just tender, 20 to 25 minutes.Add the coconut milk and simmer, stirring occasionally, until the liquid has reduced and the lentils are creamy and falling apart, 15 to 20 minutes.Add the spinach and stir until just wilted, 2 to 3 minutes. Off the heat, stir in the lime juice and season with salt to taste.Divide among shallow bowls and top with cilantro. More

    • 25 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Coup-Coup-Ca-Choo, Trump-Style

      by

      WASHINGTON — The man who tried to overthrow the government he was running was held Thursday by the government he tried to overthrow, a few blocks from where the attempted overthrow took place and a stone’s throw from the White House he yearns to return to, to protect himself from the government he tried to overthrow.Donald Trump is in the dock for trying to cheat America out of a fair election and body-snatch the true electors. But the arrest of Trump does not arrest the coup.The fact is, we’re mid-coup, not post-coup. The former president is still in the midst of his diabolical “Who will rid me of this meddlesome democracy?” plot, hoping his dark knights will gallop off to get the job done.Trump is tied with President Biden in a New York Times/Siena College poll, and if he gets back in the Oval, there will be an Oppenheimer-size narcissistic explosion, as he once more worms out of consequences and defiles democracy. His father disdained losers and Trump would rather ruin the country than admit he lost.The Trump lawyer John Lauro made it clear they will use the trial to relitigate the 2020 election and their cockamamie claims. Trump wasn’t trying to shred the Constitution, they will posit; he was trying to save it.“President Trump wanted to get to the truth,” Lauro told Newmax’s Greg Kelly after the arraignment, adding: “At the end he asked Mr. Pence to pause the voting for 10 days, allow the state legislatures to weigh in, and then they could make a determination to audit or re-audit or recertify.”In trying to debunk Jack Smith’s obstruction charges, Lauro confirmed them. Trying to halt the congressional certification is the crime.Smith’s indictment depicts an opéra bouffe scene where “the Defendant” (Trump) and “Co-Conspirator 1” (Rudy Giuliani) spent the evening of Jan. 6 calling lawmakers attempting “to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol” by sowing “knowingly false allegations of election fraud.” Trump melodramatically tweeted about his “sacred landslide election victory” being “unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots.”Giuliani left a voice mail message for a Republican senator saying they needed “to object to numerous states and raise issues” to delay until the next day so they could pursue their nefarious plan in the state legislatures.Two words in Smith’s indictment prove that the putz knew his push for a putsch was dishonest: “too honest.” Bullying and berating his truant sycophant, Mike Pence, in the days leading up to Jan. 6, Trump told his vice president, “You’re too honest.”The former vice president is selling “Too honest” merchandise, which, honestly, won’t endear him to the brainwashed base. Pence’s contemporaneous notes helped Smith make his case.It’s strange to see Pence showing some nerve and coming to Smith’s aid, after all his brown-nosing and equivocating. He and Mother, who suppressed her distaste for Trump for years, were the most loyal soldiers; in return, according to an aide, Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows said Trump felt Pence “deserved” to be hanged by the rioters.Pence told Fox News on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers wanted him “essentially to overturn the election.”“It wasn’t just that they asked for a pause,” Pence said, at odds with Lauro. “The president specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes.”Ron DeSantis, another presidential wannabe who enabled Trump for too long, acknowledged on Friday that “all those theories that were put out did not prove to be true.” But Trump and his henchmen were busy ratcheting up the lunacy.“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Trump threatened on Truth Social on Friday.On the same day and platform, he accused “the corrupt Biden DOJ” of election interference. Exquisite projection. In Trump’s warped view, it’s always the other guy who’s doing what Trump is actually doing.Kari Lake told House Republicans to stop pursuing a Biden impeachment and just decertify the 2020 election because Biden is not “the true president.” Lake said of Trump: “This is a guy who’s already won. He won in 2016. He won even bigger in 2020. All that Jan. 6 was, was a staged riot to cover up the fact that they certified a fraudulent election.”Before laughing off this absurdity, consider the finding from CNN’s new poll: Sixty-nine percent of Republicans and those leaning Republican believe Biden is an illegitimate president, with over half saying there is “solid evidence” of that.While Trump goes for the long con, or the long coup — rap sheet be damned, it’s said that he worries this will hurt his legacy. He shouldn’t. His legacy is safe, as the most democracy-destroying, soul-crushing, self-obsessed amadán ever to occupy the Oval. Amadán, that’s Gaelic for a man who grows more foolish every day.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A Republican 2024 Climate Strategy: More Drilling, Less Clean Energy

      by

      Project 2025, a conservative “battle plan” for the next Republican president, would stop attempts to cut the pollution that is heating the planet and encourage more emissions.During a summer of scorching heat that has broken records and forced Americans to confront the reality of climate change, conservatives are laying the groundwork for future Republican administration that would dismantle efforts to slow global warming.The move is part of a sweeping strategy dubbed Project 2025 that Paul Dans of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank organizing the effort, has called a “battle plan” for the first 180 days of a future Republican presidency.The climate and energy provisions would be among the most severe swings away from current federal policies.The plan calls for shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power plants, dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels — the burning of which is the chief cause of planetary warming.The New York Times asked the leading Republican presidential candidates whether they support the Project 2025 strategy but none of the campaigns responded. Still, several of the architects are veterans of the Trump administration, and their recommendations match positions held by former President Donald J. Trump, the current front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination.The $22 million project also includes personnel lists and a transition strategy in the event a Republican wins the 2024 election. The nearly 1,000-page plan, which would reshape the executive branch to place more power into the president’s hands, outlines changes for nearly every agency across the government.The Heritage Foundation worked on the plan with dozens of conservative groups ranging from the Heartland Institute, which has denied climate science, to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says “climate change does not endanger the survival of civilization or the habitability of the planet.”Mr. Dans said the Heritage Foundation delivered the blueprint to every Republican presidential hopeful. While polls have found that young Republicans are worried about global warming, Mr. Dans said the feedback he has received confirms the blueprint reflects where the majority of party leaders stand.“We have gotten very good reception from this,” he said. “This is a plotting of points of where the conservative movement sits at this time.”Paul Dans of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, in April.Leigh Vogel for The New York TimesThere is a pronounced partisan split in the country when it comes to climate change, surveys have shown. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted last month found that while 56 percent of respondents called climate change a major threat — including a majority of independents and nearly 90 percent of Democrats — about 70 percent of Republicans said global warming was either a minor threat or no threat at all.Project 2025 does not offer any proposals for curbing the greenhouse gas emissions that are dangerously heating the planet and which scientists have said must be sharply and quickly reduced to avoid the most catastrophic impacts.Asked what the country should do to combat climate change, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Heritage Foundation’s energy and climate center, said “I really hadn’t thought about it in those terms” and then offered that Americans should use more natural gas.Natural gas produces half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal when burned. But gas facilities frequently leak methane, a greenhouse gas that is much more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term and has emerged as a growing concern among climate scientists.The blueprint said the next Republican president would help repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, the 2022 law that is offering $370 billion for wind, solar, nuclear, green hydrogen and electric vehicle technology, with most of the new investments taking place in Republican-led states.The plan calls for shuttering a Department of Energy office that has $400 billion in loan authority to help emerging green technologies. It would make it more difficult for solar, wind and other renewable power — the fastest growing energy source in the United States — to be added to the grid. Climate change would no longer be considered an issue worthy of discussion on the National Security Council, and allied nations would be encouraged to buy and use more fossil fuels rather than renewable energy.In July, Phoenix experienced a record-breaking streak of above-100-degree days. Ash Ponders for The New York TimesThe blueprint throws open the door to drilling inside the pristine Arctic wilderness, promises legal protections for energy companies that kill birds while extracting oil and gas and declares the federal government has an “obligation to develop vast oil and gas and coal resources” on America’s public lands.Notably, it also would restart a quest for something climate denialists have long considered their holy grail: reversal of a 2009 scientific finding at the Environmental Protection Agency that says carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public health.Erasing that finding, conservatives have long believed, would essentially strip the federal government of the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from most sources.In interviews, Mr. Dans and three of the top authors of the report agreed that the climate is changing. But they insisted that scientists are debating the extent to which human activity is responsible.On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world agree that the burning of oil, gas and coal since the Industrial Age has led to an increase of the average global temperature of 1.2 degrees Celsius, or 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit.The plan calls on the government to stop trying to make automobiles more fuel efficient and to block states from adopting California’s stringent automobile pollution standards.Ms. Furchtgott-Roth said any measures the United States would take to cut carbon would be undermined by rising emissions in countries like China, currently the planet’s biggest polluter. It would be impossible to convince China, to cut its emissions, she said.Mandy Gunasekara was chief of staff at the E.P.A. during the Trump administration and considers herself the force behind Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate accord. She led the section outlining plans for that agency, and said that regarding whether carbon emissions pose a danger to human health “there’s a misconception that any of the science is a settled issue.”The plan does not offer any proposals for curbing the greenhouse gas emissions that are dangerously heating the planet.Leigh Vogel for The New York TimesBernard L. McNamee is a former Trump administration official who has worked as an adviser to fossil fuel companies as well as for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which spreads misinformation about climate change. He wrote the section of the strategy covering the Department of Energy, which said the national laboratories have been too focused on climate change and renewable energy. In an interview, Mr. McNamee said he believes the role of the agency is to make sure energy is affordable and reliable.Mr. Dans said a mandate of Project 2025 is to “investigate whether the dimensions of climate change exist and what can actually be done.” As for the influence of burning fossil fuels, he said, “I think the science is still out on that quite frankly.”In actuality, it is not.The top scientists in the United States concluded in an exhaustive study produced during the Trump administration that humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame. “There is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence,” scientists wrote.Climate advocates said the Republican strategy would take the country in the wrong direction even as heat waves, drought and wildfires worsen because of emissions.“This agenda would be laughable if the consequences of it weren’t so dire,” said Christy Goldfuss, chief policy impact officer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.Republicans who have called for their party to accept climate change said they were disappointed by the blueprint and worried about the direction of the party.“I think its out-of-touch Beltway silliness and it’s not meeting Americans where they are,” said Sarah Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, which works with Republican state officials on energy needs.Firefighters battling the Agua Fire in Soledad Canyon near Agua Dulce, Calif., last month.David Swanson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesShe called efforts to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which is pouring money and jobs overwhelmingly into red states, particularly impractical.“Obviously as conservatives we’re concerned about fiscal responsibility, but if you look at what Republican voters think, a lot of Republicans in red states show strong support for provisions of the I.R.A.,” Ms. Hunt said.Representative John Curtis, Republican of Utah, who launched a conservative climate caucus, called it “vital that Republicans engage in supporting good energy and climate policy.”Without directly commenting on the G.O.P. blueprint, Mr. Curtis said “I look forward to seeing the solutions put forward by the various presidential candidates and hope there is a robust debate of ideas to ensure we have reliable, affordable and clean energy.”Benji Backer, executive chairman and founder of the American Conservation Coalition, a group of young Republicans who want climate action, said he felt Project 2025 was wrongheaded.“If they were smart about this issue they would have taken approach that said ‘the Biden administration has done things in a way they don’t agree with but here’s our vision’,” he said. “Instead they remove it from being a priority.”He noted climate change is a real concern among young Republicans. By a nearly two-to-one margin, polls have found, Republicans aged 18 to 39 years old are more likely to agree that “human activity contributes a great deal to climate change,” and that the federal government has a role to play in curbing it.Of Project 2025, he said, “This sort of approach on climate is not acceptable to the next generation.” More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Approval Rating Remains Low Despite Flurry of Good News

      by

      The president is experiencing a flurry of good news on the economy, crime, immigration and other areas, but voters so far have not given the president much credit.Inflation at long last is down. So are gas prices and Covid deaths and violent crime and illegal immigration. Unemployment remains near record lows. The economy, meanwhile, is growing, wages are climbing, consumer confidence is rising and the stock market is surging.For President Biden, many of the numbers that define an administration are finally heading in the right direction. Except one: his approval rating.Despite the flurry of good news on economic and other domestic fronts in recent weeks and months, Mr. Biden’s poll numbers remain low. Just 39 percent approved of his performance in the latest survey by The New York Times and Siena College, far from the level that would typically give strategists confidence heading into a re-election campaign.An average of multiple recent polls by the website FiveThirtyEight puts Mr. Biden’s approval at 41.2 percent, lower than every president at this stage of their term in the last three-quarters of a century other than Jimmy Carter, who went on to lose his bid for a second term. The Times-Siena survey found Mr. Biden deadlocked at 43 percent to 43 percent with the Republican front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, who has been indicted three times on criminal charges.The question for Democrats is whether Mr. Biden’s public standing is a lagging indicator that will grow in the next several months as improving conditions in the country become more evident to voters, much as Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were transformed from midterm losers to re-election winners. Or as some Democrats fear, is Mr. Biden’s anemic support more about Mr. Biden himself in a highly polarized moment that will make securing a second term next year vastly more challenging?“Even though Biden’s numbers aren’t great, their trendlines, albeit halting, are positive, and we’ll see if they have a soft landing,” said Douglas B. Sosnik, who was Mr. Clinton’s White House counselor and analyzes today’s political trends in regular papers. “I feel like Biden has plenty of time to get the arrows in the right direction the way that Obama did and Clinton did and Reagan did.”Biden aides express equanimity about the sluggish poll numbers, noting that Mr. Biden won in 2020 and that Democrats avoided a predicted “red wave” in 2022 despite his similarly low approval rating then.But they are taking satisfaction for the moment that so many other indicators have turned positive. Given where this presidency began, in the throes of a pandemic and resulting economic crisis, it was hardly a given that a year out from the next election Mr. Biden would preside over a healthy economy and a healthy citizenry.The president’s advisers argue that the positive trendlines of late were a direct result of Mr. Biden’s policies, including widespread Covid-19 vaccination, abundant pandemic relief spending, a mammoth new program to build or repair roads, bridges and other public works, record investments in clean energy and federal support to jump-start the semiconductor industry.Biden aides express equanimity about the sluggish poll numbers, taking satisfaction for the moment that so many other indicators have turned positive.Doug Mills/The New York Times“What you’re seeing is the president put in two hard years of work of putting these policies in place, and they’re starting to deliver the results we thought they would,” said Ron Klain, the president’s first White House chief of staff, who managed many of those efforts.“The good economic news is very important. It creates a base for him to run on,” he added. “I don’t think you’re ever going to persuade Republicans, but I think independents are coming around that the economy is doing better, and I think that’ll be a self-reinforcing cycle.”Republicans will do all they can to foster the opposite impression, though, portraying the nation as a dystopian hellscape awash in crime, uncontrolled immigration, rising debt and economic misery. “Our country is going to hell,” Mr. Trump told supporters in April.Mr. Biden has engaged in the battle of perceptions lately by branding the disparate elements of his agenda “Bidenomics” and embarking on a barnstorming tour of the country claiming credit for avoiding the recession experts had long predicted. His team has proved particularly disciplined in reinforcing that message with the kind of relentless repetition traditionally necessary to cut through the noise of public life.Change in attitudes has been noticeable but incremental. Just 23 percent of Americans think the country is on the right track in the latest Times/Siena poll, but that is up from 13 percent a year ago. Similarly, just 20 percent consider the economy excellent or good, but that is up from 10 percent a year ago, while the share of respondents who called it poor has fallen from 58 percent last summer to 49 percent today.It can take a while for the public perspective to catch up with improving conditions. A recession during the presidency of George H.W. Bush officially ended in 1991, long before the 1992 election, but it did not feel that way to voters who turned instead to Mr. Clinton and his “it’s-the-economy-stupid” campaign.The Great Recession sparked by the 2008 financial crash formally ended in June 2009, but Mr. Obama’s Democrats were still swamped in midterm elections a year later. By the time he came up for re-election in 2012, public confidence in the economy had improved and he secured a second term.Moreover, the lingering effects of recent hardships are not so easily erased. Inflation has fallen from a peak of 9 percent to 3 percent, a remarkable drop, but even though prices have stabilized, they have stabilized at a level still significantly higher than when Mr. Biden took office. Unemployment is at 3.5 percent, matching a half-century low and meaning that most people who want a job can find one, but not all of these positions have high pay with benefits. Wages have begun rising faster than inflation — but only just begun.And for all that, conditions still feel in flux to many people. While illegal border crossings have dropped significantly since last year, they surged again in July. The S&P 500 stock market index has swelled by 17 percent this year, but slipped in recent days after the Fitch Ratings agency downgraded the U.S. government’s credit. Likewise, gas prices remain below their peak but have inched up lately.What may prove more vexing to Mr. Biden and his strategists is the possibility that his political prospects may be decoupled from such issues. In past generations, Americans were more reactive to events in evaluating their presidents, while in recent years they have been more locked into their partisan corner. The days when a president could garner the support of 60 percent or more of the public feel long gone.President George W. Bush’s approval rating in Gallup surveys fell below 50 percent two months after his second inauguration and never surpassed it again for his entire second term. Mr. Obama was below 50 percent for the vast bulk of his second term until his final months in office, and Mr. Trump never enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans for a single day of his presidency. Mr. Biden fell below 50 percent in his first summer in office and has yet to recover.“Presidents today are less and less able to rely on even begrudging approval from partisans on the other side of the aisle,” said Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster. “This places a lower and lower ceiling on presidential job approval, because without the ability to garner any approval from the other side, you are stuck relying solely on your own party’s voters to boost you.”For decades, the American National Election Studies, a collaboration of Stanford University and the University of Michigan, has tracked how Americans felt about presidential candidates, asking them to rate them on a scale of zero to 100, with zero meaning very cool and 100 meaning very warmly.In 1980, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter both received some measure of support from voters who were not in their party.United Press InternationalIt used to be that Americans had at least some respect or admiration for a candidate of the other party. In 1980, Democratic voters gave Mr. Reagan an average of 46.3 while Republicans gave Mr. Carter an average of 40.6. In 2000, Democratic voters gave the younger Mr. Bush an average of 44.8 while Republicans gave the Democrat Al Gore an average of 40.8.But by recent years, views had hardened, becoming far more pronounced and partisan. In 2016, Democratic voters gave Mr. Trump just 14.5 while Republicans gave Hillary Clinton a 16.6. In 2020, Democrats gave Mr. Trump a 9.6 while Republicans gave Mr. Biden a 20.2.“The reality is that presidents lately are not coming into office with even the slightest bit of good will or benefit of the doubt from the other side,” Ms. Anderson said, “and that places a very hard cap on how much approval they can ever hope to garner outside their own team.”So as Mr. Biden and his team look ahead to 2024, they hope to make the most of an improving economy to bring home disaffected Democrats and independents, but they cannot count on a newfound swell of popularity to carry him to victory. Instead, they anticipate a grinding campaign in which they compete for a relatively small share of the electorate while trying to maximize turnout among their own voters.“Republicans are just hard core,” Mr. Klain said. “They’re never going to approve of Joe Biden’s job, no matter what he’s doing. The vote is the vote. What matters is who’s going to win on Election Day.” More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Does It Matter What Trump Really Believes?

      by

      More from our inbox:Anti-Trump Republicans as Swing VotersRacial Disparities in the Swimming PoolMultitask? Maybe.A Dog’s Behavior Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump, in Shadow of Capitol, Issues a Not Guilty Plea” (front page, Aug. 4):So, Donald Trump pleads not guilty to fraud and obstruction charges that resulted in violence, death and utter chaos on Jan. 6.He truly doesn’t know what guilt means. Nor responsibility. Nor having an honest reckoning with himself over the conduct he chose leading up to and on that infamous day. He knows only lies, blaming others and outrage.These are not traits that serve a president of a local board, never mind a chief executive of a large and complex nation battling sophisticated economic, diplomatic and social problems crying out to be addressed.I hope we never again have enough citizens who fall for a presidential candidate with these major character deficiencies.Amy KnitzerMontclair, N.J.To the Editor:Re “The Trial America Needs,” by David French (column, nytimes.com, Aug. 1):For the life of me I just cannot understand why prosecutors must prove that Donald Trump knew he was lying when he claimed he won the election.How can refusing to see the truth be a valid defense for his actions? In law school I learned about the “reasonable person” standard for determining liability in a number of circumstances. If a reasonable president would have known that he lost an election in view of the overwhelming evidence, shouldn’t this former president be imputed with this knowledge whether he believed it or not?Refusing to acknowledge facts is not reasonable. He can’t be allowed to use obtuseness to avoid the consequences for his actions.Rhonda StarerHarrington Park, N.J.To the Editor:Re “A President Accused of Betraying His Country” (editorial, Aug. 3):In his final presidential debate with Hillary Clinton in 2016, Donald Trump was asked whether he would accept the result of the election if he lost. He refused to say. “I will look at it at the time,” he responded. “I will keep you in suspense.”That the moderator, Chris Wallace, thought it necessary to pose the question should have been shocking. Mr. Trump’s unabashed contempt for democracy should have been disqualifying in the minds of enough voters to ensure he’d not be elected.Looking back now, nobody can claim that Mr. Trump didn’t put us on notice for what we’re facing now. It is an example of how we ignore certain kinds of red flags at our own great peril.David SabrittSeattleTo the Editor:Re “First Amendment Is Likely Linchpin of Trump Defense” (front page, Aug. 3):It may make sense as a legal strategy, but as a political argument for re-election, “I have a constitutional right to lie all I want” doesn’t sound like a winner, at least to this voter.Anna Cypra OliverGreat Barrington, Mass.Anti-Trump Republicans as Swing VotersRepublican voters are apparently not concerned about Donald J. Trump’s increasing legal peril.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Far Ahead in the G.O.P. Race Despite Charges” (front page, July 31):I draw an important inference from the data in the poll described in the article: Donald Trump will lose the general election if he is the Republican nominee.The nearly one in four G.O.P. voters who are truly anti-Trump will do what they did in 2020 and vote for the presumed Democratic nominee, Joe Biden. Those swing voters proved to be a deciding factor last time, and their numbers increase with each new indictment of the former president.It doesn’t matter how unwavering Trump supporters are. If they want to elect a Republican president, they need to choose someone other than Mr. Trump. Nearly all the other G.O.P. candidates tiptoe around the mention of Mr. Trump to avoid alienating his base, but sycophancy won’t sway his followers.A more effective (and pragmatic) approach would be to repeatedly argue that swing voters, a.k.a. moderate Republicans, will hand this election to the Democrats if Mr. Trump is the nominee.Jana HappelNew YorkRacial Disparities in the Swimming Pool Allison Beondé for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Why We Need More Public Pools,” by Mara Gay (Opinion, July 30):Kudos to Ms. Gay for highlighting an important public health disparity and drowning crisis. The disproportionately high rates of drowning among Black and brown people should be unacceptable and widely recognized as a safety and public health priority.The racist policies discussed by Ms. Gay that limit resources for access to swimming opportunities contribute to the wide disparities in swimming ability and water safety.More inclusive access to competitive swimming is also important to provide swimming role models. The reversal in 2022 of the ban on the Soul Cap for Black hair by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) shows that policy change can occur through public campaigns.A much greater national public health campaign can help ensure that not only are water safety and swimming training made widely available but also that the physical and mental health benefits of swimming are widely understood and enjoyed by all, especially as the climate heats and relief is needed.Adrienne WaldHigh Falls, N.Y.The writer is an associate professor of nursing at Mercy College, specializing in public health and health promotion, and an avid swimmer.Multitask? Maybe. Janet MacTo the Editor:“Today’s Superpower Is Doing One Thing at a Time,” by Oliver Burkeman (Opinion guest essay, July 30), hit a chord in me. Mostly, because I desperately want to stop multitasking, but I simply cannot: I am a mother.Mr. Burkeman’s article is written from such a place of privilege — white, male and well off — that it began to sicken me that he was imploring the rest of us to stop multitasking. In fact, I reread the article, searching for any quotes he might have from a woman, but indeed, all his sources were men.In other words, not multitasking is a privilege that very few of us can afford.Melissa MorgenlanderBrooklynTo the Editor:I began reading Oliver Burkeman’s essay using the newspaper as a kind of readable place mat on which I enjoyed my Sunday lunch. I made it just past the second paragraph when I closed and removed the paper, carrying on with lunch atop the bare table.I felt empowered but haven’t managed to get to the rest of the piece since then.Pablo MonsivaisSpokane, Wash.A Dog’s Behavior Illustration by Akshita Chandra/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Stressed-Out Life of a Biter in Chief,” by Alexandra Horowitz (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 3):Thank you for publishing this piece about dog behavior, specifically biting.I am one of the many who don’t like dogs. In fact, I fear them. The reason? Every dog that has ever jumped on me, growled at me or attempted to bite me did so immediately after its human companion told me that the dog is friendly and safe to be around, followed by dismay and surprise that their dog would do such a thing.It is helpful to know more about the myriad reasons that dogs bite, even if it doesn’t assuage my fear of them.Lisa M. FeldsteinNew York More