United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley Raises $7.3 Million, With More in an Allied Super PAC

      by

      The amount showed Ms. Haley’s strength with small donors, but fell well below numbers broadcast by her leading Republican presidential rivals, Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis.Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, raised $7.3 million through her presidential campaign and affiliated committees from April through June, a modest sum that still showcased her robust appeal to small donors.The total included $5.3 million reported by her campaign, as well as money from two allied committees, according to reports provided by her campaign to The New York Times in advance of a filing deadline with the Federal Election Commission on Saturday.Separately, a super PAC supporting her candidacy said on Monday that it had raised $18.7 million since its inception this year, and that it had $17 million in cash on hand at the end of June. Reports for super PACs are not due with the F.E.C. until the end of the month.Her campaign’s fund-raising numbers fell below those of the two men leading the polls for the Republican nomination, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and former President Donald J. Trump. Last week, the DeSantis campaign said it had raised $20 million, while a super PAC supporting him had raised $130 million since March.Mr. Trump’s joint fund-raising committee, his primary fund-raising vehicle, said it had raised $35 million in the second quarter; it is not clear how much went to his campaign committee.Neither the Trump campaign nor the DeSantis campaign provided the reports. When they are filed this weekend, they will provide greater clarity on how each candidate’s money has been raised and spent.By her campaign’s account, Ms. Haley is above the minimum threshold of 40,000 individual donors that candidates must reach to take part in the first Republican debate on Aug. 23. Her campaign said it had received 160,000 donations from all 50 states since she entered the race in February, the vast majority of which were under $200.Ms. Haley raised money through three committees: her presidential campaign, a joint fund-raising committee called Team Stand for America, and a multicandidate PAC. The joint fund-raising committee also transfers money to the other two committees — the $5.3 million received by her campaign in the second quarter, for example, includes a $1 million transfer from Team Stand for America.In April, Ms. Haley came under criticism after her campaign broadcast that $11 million had been raised in its opening six weeks. In fact, the committees had together taken in about $8.3 million, including $2.7 million in transferred money that was counted twice.Together, the three committees had $9.3 million in cash on hand at the end of June, according to the latest filings; her campaign accounts for $6.8 million of that. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Ron DeSantis Doesn’t Know Whether He’s Coming or Going

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, about Ron DeSantis. Last week, I criticized him for weenie stuff like big book advances and questionable road repair materials. At the time, I definitely felt like I was carping.Then his people shared an ad on L.G.B.T.Q. issues that … wow.Bret Stephens: “Wow” just about covers it.Gail: It began with a clip of Donald Trump defending gay rights in days of yore, which was very clearly supposed to make viewers … hate Trump. Followed by praise for Florida laws DeSantis signed that “literally threaten trans existence.” Followed by a super-duper weird montage showing men flexing muscles, Brad Pitt in Trojan-warrior garb and Governor Ron with lightning flashes coming out of his eyes.Pete Buttigieg, who is President Biden’s secretary of transportation and one of the best-known gay figures in politics, rightly pointed out “the strangeness of trying to prove your manhood by putting up a video that splices images of you in between oiled-up, shirtless bodybuilders.”Any thoughts?Bret: I guess my main takeaway is that DeSantis isn’t going to be the next president. He makes Trump seem tolerant, Ted Cruz seem likable, Mitch McConnell seem moderate, Lauren Boebert seem mature and Rick Santorum seem cool. Not what I would have expected out of the Florida governor six months ago, but here’s where I confess: You were right about him, and I was wrong.Gail: My other takeaway is that Republicans are focusing more on L.G.B.T.Q. issues now that they’ve come to understand that attacking abortion isn’t a national winner — or even a state winner in most places.In the long run, stomping on gay rights isn’t going to do it either, because such a huge number of people — even conservative Republicans — have friends, family, colleagues who are gay. May take a while to come to grips with that, but once you realize someone you care about is gay, the idea of persecuting them presumably seems way less attractive.Just recalling how my conservative Catholic mother wound up, in old age, riding on a float in Cincinnati’s Gay Pride parade.Bret: As you mentioned last year in that wonderful column you wrote about Allen Ginsberg.Gay bashing is morally intolerable as well as politically inept. But a lot of people — including many Democrats and independents — have honest and serious concerns about some aspects of the trans issue, especially as it concerns the integrity of women’s sports, the morality of drastic medical interventions in teenagers and the anti-scientific denial of basic biology when it comes to questions of sex. I also detest terms like “bodies with vaginas” as a substitute for “women.” It isn’t a sensitive or inclusive use of language; it’s misogynistic and Orwellian.DeSantis could have addressed these issues in a sober and nuanced way. Instead, he went full Trojan, and I suspect his campaign will meet a similar fate to Troy’s.Gail: Full Trojan? Just like Brad Pitt in that ad!Bret: Switching topics, Gail, can we talk about homelessness? The problem just keeps getting worse, particularly out west, and it’s doing real damage to urban life. Your thoughts on what does and does not work?Gail: What works is pretty simple: more housing and outreach for the mentally ill. Both are difficult, of course, ranging from pretty darned to stupendously.Bret: What also works are ordinances forbidding “camping” on public lands so that homeless people are required to use shelter beds, which some liberal judges have blocked cities from doing. One of the problems of our public discussion of the issue is that we treat homelessness as a problem of the homeless only. It’s also a public safety issue and a quality-of-life issue. People ought to have a right to walk down urban sidewalks that haven’t been turned into tent cities and open-air toilets.Gail: New York is still dealing with a flood of new migrants, mainly from Latin America, who have been coming in huge numbers for more than a year. Most of them are ambitious and hopeful, and they could be a great shot to our local economy — if they had permanent places to stay.Bret: Completely agree. I also think the migrant problem is qualitatively different from the kind of homelessness issues that cities like San Francisco or Portland, Ore., are experiencing. Migrants are struggling with poverty but not, generally, mental health or drug-dependency issues. What migrants typically need is a room and a job.Gail: Eric Adams, the mayor of New York, has talked about finding some of them homes in the suburbs, where there’s obviously more room and housing prices are sometimes a lot lower. Said suburbs rose up in rage to stop an incursion of needy people. It’s so irritating, although I have to admit that my liberal Manhattan neighborhood — which has plenty of programs for the homeless — consistently rebels against talk of any big new housing projects for any income group.Your turn.Bret: I’m skeptical of the theory that we could solve the crisis just by building a lot more housing. First, because we can’t build quickly and cheaply enough to keep up with the growing number of homeless people. Second, because even when the homeless are housed, they often fall back into the kinds of behaviors that ultimately lead them to return to the streets.My own view is that people living on the street should be required to go into shelters, which can be built much more quickly and cheaply than regular housing, be required to get mental health screenings and be required to be treated if they have drug or alcohol dependencies.Gail: Well, if the mental health treatments were great, that might be an argument. But they often aren’t — just because there’s a terrific shortage of personnel.And the shelters are no picnic either. A lot of the people you see on the street have been, at one time or another, threatened by a mentally troubled co-resident, gotten into a fight as a result of shared emotional problems or in some other way come to feel that living on the street is safer.Bret: The other big story from last week, Gail, is the ruling by a federal judge that forbade the Biden administration to work with social media companies to remove content it didn’t like, mainly connected to alleged Covid misinformation. What the administration was doing seems to me like a serious infringement on people’s freedom of speech, but I’d like to know your view.Gail: Gee, I was under the impression one of the jobs of the executive branch was to make sure people were getting the right information about health issues. And it’s not as if the Biden folks marched in and removed a bunch of posts themselves. Conferring with the social media companies seems like something they ought to do.Bret: One good way of thinking about the issue is putting the shoe on the other foot. For instance, we now know that the Steele dossier was malicious partisan misinformation, secretly and illicitly paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and that some of its most salacious allegations, like the pee-tape stuff, were false. How would you react if you had learned that the Trump administration had been putting heavy pressure on executives at MSNBC to forbid Rachel Maddow from ever mentioning it back when she had her show?Gail: Hey, it’s hot and humid outside. No fair trying to take me down the Hillary Clinton road. Look — the whole world changed with the advent of social media. If you’ve got influencers with millions of followers warning that, say, giving milk to babies is dangerous, you’ve got to do something more than issue a press release.Bret: I’m pretty sure we could get the word out that milk is generally fine for babies or vaccines are generally safe without setting a precedent that the federal government can work with Big Tech to censor individual speech.Gail: Of course I agree with you about freedom of expression. But in the process of protecting it, it’s natural to argue about specific cases with particular details. We will pursue this again soon. Well, forever probably.But let me be boring for a second and ask you about Congress. Just got through that deficit crisis, and another one will be coming around the bend this summer. What’s your long-term advice? Spend less? Tax more? Ignore the whole thing and figure it’ll work out somehow like it always does?Bret: My advice: Talk less, smile more. Seriously, what we need from Congress and the president is to get through the next 18 months without another manufactured domestic crisis. Between the war in Ukraine, Iran’s creeping nuclearization and China’s saber-rattling over Taiwan, we have more than enough to worry about abroad.Gail: Hmm. One writer’s manufactured domestic crisis is maybe another’s reasonable disagreement. And while Congress isn’t always fascinating, it’s at the top of the critical-if-possibly-boring ladder.Bret: Before we go, Gail, I have to put in a word for Penelope Green’s funny, fabulous obituary in The Times of Sue Johanson, a Canadian sex educator who died last month at 92. It has the single most memorable paragraph to appear in the paper for at least a month, if not a year. I have to quote it in full:Is it weird to put body glitter on your boyfriend’s testicles? Is it safe to have sex in a hot tub? Could a Ziploc baggie serve as a condom? If condoms are left in a car and they freeze, are they still good? Answers: No. No (chlorinated water is too harsh for genitals, particularly women’s). Definitely not. And yes, once they’ve been defrosted.I mean, after that, what else is there to say?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

      Hill Harper, ‘Good Doctor’ Actor, Enters Senate Race in Michigan

      by

      Mr. Harper is challenging Representative Elissa Slotkin from the left and will have an uphill climb in a heated Democratic primary race in a 2024 presidential swing state.Hill Harper, an author and actor, on Monday entered Michigan’s 2024 Senate race, pledging to run to the left of Representative Elissa Slotkin, a moderate Democrat, in what is expected to be one of the most closely watched Democratic primary races in a 2024 presidential battleground state.Mr. Harper, a first-time candidate known for his roles on “CSI: NY” and “The Good Doctor,” began his campaign with a message focused on expanding Social Security and access to affordable health care, as well as tackling income inequality and student debt. In an interview, he said he planned to position himself as “the most progressive candidate” in the race and would work to bring jaded and unheard voters back into the Democratic fold.“It became clear to me that folks across Michigan don’t feel like they are being represented in Washington, D.C.,” he said, describing his conversations with people at farmers’ markets and union halls as he weighed his decision to run. The state’s Democratic leadership, which holds the governor’s office and both chambers of the Michigan Statehouse, he added, has “done a lot to move the state forward, but Washington is still broken.”The Democratic primary is likely to be followed by a heated general election against a tense backdrop. Donald J. Trump won this industrial Midwestern state by nearly 11,000 votes in 2016, and lost it to Joseph R. Biden Jr. by more than 150,000 votes in his 2020 re-election bid. Mr. Trump focused on the voting in Michigan in his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.As they head into the 2024 presidential cycle, Democrats will be concentrating on holding on to their midterm victories in Michigan in 2022, when protecting abortion rights galvanized the party nationwide.Mr. Harper’s supporters believe that, as a Black progressive, he will be able to draw a coalition of liberal and Black voters. His campaign could particularly resonate with Black voters in a state where the debate over race and representation has raged in some corners: The 2022 midterm election left Detroit, the nation’s largest majority Black city, without Black representation in Congress for the first time in decades.But Mr. Harper will face an uphill climb against Ms. Slotkin, a former C.I.A. analyst and three-term congresswoman who has built a track record as a seasoned campaigner and prolific fund-raiser. She has won three tough races for her House seat in a central Michigan district, which encompasses Lansing. Ms. Slotkin had more than $2.3 million cash in hand at the end of March, and is running on a platform focused on jobs and economic issues.She was the first in her party to declare her candidacy for the seat being vacated by Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat, and has the solid backing of establishment Democrats at the state and national level.That hasn’t dissuaded Mr. Harper and a handful of Democrats from jumping in, including Leslie Love, a former state lawmaker, and Pamela Pugh, who serves as president of the Michigan State Board of Education.For the Republicans, Nikki Snyder, a member of the State Board of Education, and Ezra Scott, a former Berrien County commissioner, are vying for the seat. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley Is Focused on New Hampshire — and Moving Up in the Republican Primary

      by

      The former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador is intensely focused on the state. But her brand of politics may not resonate in the 2024 political climate.Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, five months into her first run for president, acknowledges the position she is in.Though she was the first Republican to announce a challenge to former President Donald J. Trump, she hasn’t spent a dime on television ads, is polling well behind Mr. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and has struggled at times to make a case for her campaign.But in an interview on Friday, at a picnic table outside a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in the small town of Lancaster, N.H., Ms. Haley downplayed concerns about her standing in the primary. It’s early in the race, she said, and many voters have yet to tune in to the campaigns.“I look at it like one goal after another; I don’t look at the end,” she said. “I know that by mid-fall, this is going to be totally different. Once you pass Labor Day, the numbers start to shift. And you can look at history for that. That’s not me just hoping, that’s me knowing.”As she traversed small towns in the mountainous North Country region of New Hampshire last week, she tacitly acknowledged the uphill race, while also telling her story of overcoming long political odds to win South Carolina’s governorship in 2010, making her the first woman to serve as governor of the state and the second governor of Indian descent.During her appearances, Ms. Haley also mixed in subtle digs at her primary rivals.“I did not go to an Ivy League school like the fellas that are in this race,” she told voters in a North Conway community center on Thursday. “I went to a public university.” Touting her degree in accounting from Clemson University, she said: “I’m not a lawyer. Accountants are problem solvers.”Ms. Haley’s most recent swing through New Hampshire, which holds the party’s first primary, was billed by her campaign as a grass-roots-focused trip, and one intended to introduce her to voters in this part of the state as a former state executive with roots in the rural South, rather than an establishment figure with Washington ties.Frank Murphy, 54, who moved to northern New Hampshire from South Carolina in 2016, knows Ms. Haley as his former governor. When she introduced herself to the voters crowded into the Lancaster V.F.W. post, he raised his hand within the first few minutes of her speech to tell her he was from Charleston.“I got to see firsthand what she did to help the economy down there,” he said, adding that he was elated to see her running for president. “To come into a small town meeting like this and to speak to people and to get them to engage and to talk and ask questions? That’s what you want from a politician,” he said.The challenge for Ms. Haley is that her credentials might be more of a liability than an asset in a Republican primary that seems to be geared more toward personality than policy, with much attention concentrated on Mr. Trump’s legal troubles and Mr. DeSantis’s focus on social and cultural issues.In small events and meet-and-greets, Ms. Haley spoke as much about her family and personal background as she did about the economy and foreign policy.She complimented the scenery of the North Country, adding that its close-knit communities reminded her of her hometown, Bamberg, S.C. Her upbringing as a member of the only Indian American family in town — “We weren’t white enough to be white, we weren’t Black enough to be Black,” she said — taught her to look hard for the similarities she shared with others.Ms. Haley sought to connect with New Hampshire voters by noting her small-town roots.John Tully for The New York TimesSpeaking to voters at the V.F.W. outpost in Lancaster on Friday, she poked fun at the southern accents she is used to hearing in South Carolina and tested out a New England twang, asking those present if her saying “Lan-cah-stah” made her sound local.“Somebody said I sounded like I was from Boston,” she acknowledged, to sympathetic laughs.Ms. Haley has focused intensely on New Hampshire. By the end of this week she will have made 39 stops in the Granite State, far outpacing most of the Republican field. She is one of the few 2024 Republican contenders — along with Vivek Ramaswamy — to visit the counties in the state’s North Country region, which sits less than 200 miles from the Canadian border and has woodsy, winding roads stretching through the White Mountain range.Her campaign says it is hanging its hopes on a growing network of supporters and volunteers in the far corners of the state, rather than spending money on radio or television ads — a longstanding tradition of glad-handing and retail politicking.The strategy has yet to generate much momentum. Most polls of the primary in New Hampshire show her in fourth place, behind Mr. Trump, Mr. DeSantis and former Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who has also spent a significant amount of time in the state.Ms. Haley’s supporters have expressed frustration and confusion that their preferred candidate — whose past roles as U.N. ambassador and governor prompted an event moderator to ask a crowd on Thursday to decide by applause which title he should use to introduce her — has barely polled above 4 percent in most national public polls.“We don’t understand that because she’s doing so well,” said Beverly Schofield, an 84-year-old Republican voter, clad in red, white and blue, who drove from Vermont with her daughter to see Ms. Haley in New Hampshire on Friday. “It’s very impressive that she’s doing as well as she is. But I’d like to see her move up that ladder quickly.”Ms. Haley’s standing reflects the challenges of campaigning in this particular primary more than it does her political capabilities, her supporters say. The Republican field has ballooned to a dozen candidates, splintering the anti-Trump vote, while his recent and prospective indictments seem to have only put the former president closer to capturing the nomination. Ms. Haley’s supporters are wondering how the campaign intends to turn things around“That’s the question I wanted to ask her,” said Ted Kramer, 81, a retired marketing executive who attended Ms. Haley’s town hall in North Conway. “She’s got to get the profile up.”Ms. Haley said she was comfortable with her current position in the primary race, which she described as “a marathon, not a sprint.”John Tully for The New York TimesMs. Haley pointed to previous Republican front-runners who later fizzled out, such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and former Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. The race so far has been painted largely as a two-man race between Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis, Ms. Haley said, but voters are likely to sour on one.“I know the reality of how quickly somebody can go up and how quickly they can fall,” she said. “The shiny object today is not the shiny object tomorrow. So it’s about not peaking too soon.”She added, “I’m very realistic about what the benchmarks are and what we need to overcome.”Those markers include securing the required number of donors and funds to make the debate stage in August — which she has done. She also said she would continue to focus on Iowa and New Hampshire while building on the base she has in South Carolina, another early state, where she and Senator Tim Scott, who represents the state, are aiming to leverage similar voter bases and donor networks. The two have not spoken since he launched his campaign, she said.Ms. Haley also admitted to feeling underestimated in the race. She is often included in conversations about vice-presidential contenders, though she has emphatically said she is not eyeing the position. She also said that many, particularly in the news media, failed to recognize “the street cred that I have,” listing political wins and averted crises seen during her tenure as South Carolina governor and as United Nations ambassador. “I mean, these were no small jobs,” she said.Republicans longing for an alternative to Mr. Trump made up a large portion of the crowds at Ms. Haley’s events, along with moderate Republicans and independent voters. Few who attended Ms. Haley’s events this week said they were fully committed to supporting her, and many said they wanted to test the political waters, a signature of campaigning in New Hampshire, where most primary voters can expect to hear from every candidate in person, usually more than once.Ms. Haley, eager to sway some of those who were on the fence, made policy points on the stump and condemned Democrats on race, education and inclusion of transgender athletes. She criticized both Democrats and Republicans for the handling of Covid-19 and chastised Congress, asking voters if they could point to anything their representatives in Washington had done for them.She also drew on her foreign policy background, saying that the biggest threat to the United States is China and repeatedly criticizing the Biden administration on its approach, folding in terse words for Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who is visiting the country this week.Joanne Archambault, an independent voter who lives near North Conway, said she liked Ms. Haley’s message and saw her as an authoritative speaker on policy issues. Still, she said that Ms. Haley’s talk of foreign policy distracted from domestic priorities.“I think there’s too much focus about overseas stuff, too much talk about the border and about China,” she said. “Let’s talk about the problems we are facing — you know, gun violence, abortion, let’s talk about those things. Let’s focus on this country and not what other countries are doing.”Her closing message to voters has been an entreaty to them to tell others to support her. That was good news to Mr. Murphy the South Carolina Transplant who said he was committed to voting for Ms. Haley in the primary in January.“She said tell 10 people. I’ll probably tell 20,” he said. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Iowa Republicans Set the Date for the Party’s Caucuses — and It’s Early

      by

      The state party will hold a nominating contest in January, the earliest it has been held in recent campaign cycles.The NewsIowa Republicans voted on Saturday to hold their caucuses on Jan. 15, 2024, pushing the state’s first-in-the-nation nominating contest weeks earlier than in recent years.The state party voted unanimously to hold the elections on the third Monday of the month, which coincides with the federal holiday recognizing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Jeff Kaufmann, chairman of the state party, said in a statement after the vote that the Republicans “remain committed to maintaining Iowa’s cherished first-in-the-nation caucuses and look forward to holding a historic caucus in the coming months and defeating Joe Biden come November 2024.”Iowa Democrats were “aware of the decision” but “did not have a chance to have any input” on the date selection, according to a statement from Rita Hart, the chair of the state party.“No matter what, Iowa Democrats are committed to moving forward with the most inclusive caucus process in Iowa’s history,” Ms. Hart said.Republican voters at a caucus location in Pella, Iowa, in February 2016.Eric Thayer for The New York TimesWhy It Matters: Republicans Reaffirm While Democrats ReorderRepublican presidential hopefuls have been campaigning aggressively in the state, which is seen as crucial to many candidates, including former President Donald J. Trump, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, former Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, all of whom are courting the state’s more rural and evangelical voters in an effort to gain early momentum in the race.The selected day is also the date that a judge has set for a defamation trial against Mr. Trump filed by E. Jean Carroll. Ms. Carroll (who also has filed a separate defamation suit) won a civil case against Mr. Trump in May.Iowa’s status as the first presidential contest was seemingly upended last year, when Democrats reordered their nominating calendar to prioritize states with more racial diversity and move away from the caucus system.With Mr. Biden’s approval, the D.N.C. in February voted in favor of a new calendar that propelled South Carolina — the state that saved his candidacy in 2020 — to the first primary spot on Feb. 3, 2024, from the fourth position it held in 2020. Democrats in New Hampshire and Nevada would then hold their contests three days later.Republicans did not follow suit, keeping Iowa in first position, meaning the Midwestern state remains a key battleground for Republicans as the large field of contenders try to dislodge Mr. Trump from his position as the front-runner for the party’s nomination.Background: Iowa Isn’t Always Right, but It’s Still ImportantThe date chosen by the state party is weeks earlier than it was for the past several caucuses: In 2020 the contest was held on Feb. 3, and in 2016 it fell on Feb. 1. The last time the state held its caucuses in January was in 2012, when they occurred just three days into the new year.Iowa has not selected the party’s eventual nominee, excluding incumbent presidents, since 2000, when George W. Bush won the caucuses and then the general election.Still, many Republican candidates, and voters nationwide, see the now-firmly-red state as crucial to gaining early momentum and national attention. In a year when Mr. Trump maintains a considerable lead in the primary polls, performing well with a constituency well-accustomed to being courted by politicians is seen by many candidates in the 2024 race as vital to any chance at success.What’s Next: The Date Has Changed, but Not Much ElseRepublican presidential hopefuls will continue to court Iowans in the six remaining months before the caucuses, as front-runners and long-shot candidates alike have ramped up their appearances in the state.Mr. Trump held a rally in Iowa on Friday, where he made farming issues central to his pitch for why voters should select him, a clear nod to the state’s agriculture-based economy. And Mr. DeSantis’s wife, Casey, visited Iowa on Thursday for an event held alongside the state’s Republican governor, Kim Reynolds.Several candidates will appear in the state next week for the Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines, advertised as “the Midwest’s biggest gathering of Christians seeking cultural transformation.” The event will feature appearances from candidates including Mr. Scott and Mr. Pence, as well as an interview with Mr. DeSantis and the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Can the Republican Party Reverse Course?

      by

      Readers discuss a guest essay by a former judge urging the G.O.P. to “put country over party.”To the Editor:Re “It’s Not Too Late for the Republican Party,” by J. Michael Luttig (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 25):Judge Luttig is to be commended for being a voice in the wilderness of Republican politics; however, the party isn’t worth saving. If it were, the judge would offer some of the party’s alternatives to the grievances and demonization that have been its hallmarks since long before Donald Trump.The party chose enemies over ideas a long time ago. Its leaders have shown no interest in putting forth meaningful policies while they have kept their voters distracted and convinced that, all evidence to the contrary, Hillary or gay or Jewish or Black people or drag queens or the Bidens or Mexicans are to blame for everything.Donald Trump isn’t the only problem. In fact, without his talents as a confidence man, Republicans would have to face their own failures of leadership, and the people of this country might find out that the party does have an agenda that has very little to do with improving the daily lives of its “base.”Stuart BernsteinShohola, Pa.To the Editor:Judge J. Michael Luttig has meticulously captured just about every free-floating, rambling thought that I (and probably millions of us) have had about Donald Trump, MAGA Republicans and unfortunately the bulk of the complicit Republican Party.Here, in Maine, Senator Susan Collins has never had the gumption above a “tut, tut” here and there to rise to the caliber of statesmanship and bravery of Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who went after the rabid Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s (“Declaration of Conscience” Senate speech).Remember what “leadership” was? Remember when we all, Republicans and Democrats, could be inspired and admire a politician? I take no satisfaction as a Democrat in seeing the Republican Party act as if it were the antithesis of its purported values, and rot away. I admire a worthy adversary and wish for the sake of the country we had one.I hope the few honorable, outspoken, patriotic Republicans can get their act together after the 2024 election dust settles and finally shake the extremists’ power grip on the party for good.David GainesYarmouth, MaineTo the Editor:As the progression of deepening legal issues with compelling evidence continues to plague former President Donald Trump, the growing chorus of criticism of him by former members of his administration and other notable loyalists is at once welcome and unconscionably long overdue.Some of the same people who are belatedly coming forth to castigate Mr. Trump formerly lavished praise on their unhinged idol, directly enabling his illegal and unethical conduct at great cost to the country.William Barr, probably the most notable defector, went from leading an egregiously politicized Justice Department — acting essentially as Mr. Trump’s personal attorney — to denouncing his former boss’s criminal and unethical behavior in a string of interviews. Chris Christie, now in a quest for the White House himself, is reprimanding as unfit for office the man he once obsequiously praised as he sought a cabinet appointment.Clearly, more Republicans who, reluctantly or not, embraced or tolerated Mr. Trump’s misdeeds need to finally break their silence with the same fervor they exhibited to support him.Any effort by members of his own party, however belated, that discredits the former president and short-circuits his hopes of re-election would be an indispensable contribution to the best interests of the majority of Americans.Roger HirschbergSouth Burlington, Vt.To the Editor:Finally, someone with stature addresses the “elephant” in the room. Liz Cheney sacrificed her congressional seat for principle. Why don’t the seasoned Republicans who likely will never seek office or an appointed political post again, and have nothing to lose, show some courage?I think of: Olympia Snowe, Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, George Pataki, John Danforth, Pete Wilson, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Phil Scott, Christine Todd Whitman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Hagel, Nancy Kassebaum, John Ashcroft, Dan Coats, William Cohen, Alfonse D’Amato, Jeff Flake, Bill Frist, Alan Simpson, Ted Olson, William Weld and a host of others.J. Michael Luttig could not have put it better: “It’s finally time for [Republicans] to put the country before their party and pull back from the brink — for the good of the party, as well as the nation. If not now, then they must forever hold their peace.”J.D. RosinSan FranciscoTo the Editor:Does Judge J. Michael Luttig, whose criticism of the present-day Republican Party and its elevation of Donald Trump is so unsparing and cleareyed, not recognize that they are both the inevitable products of the G.O.P.’s win-at-any-cost philosophy, which has dominated the party’s political decisions for at least the past 30 years?That was his party.Cheryl KraussBrooklynTo the Editor:Judge J. Michael Luttig’s essay is titled “It’s Not Too Late for the Republican Party,” but he shows little hope this is true, stating, “There’s no stopping Republicans now, until they have succeeded in completely politicizing the rule of law in service to their partisan political ends.” His indictment of the Republican Party is withering and spot on.Sadly, most politicians and voters currently calling themselves Republicans will ignore Judge Luttig’s indictment. In the Orwellian world of the far right, the reactionaries who have taken over the Republican Party (as the soulless pods in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” took over real human beings) will dismiss him as a RINO — though RINOs are the true Republicans.Judge Luttig surmises, “If the indictment of Mr. Trump … fails to shake the Republican Party from its moribund political senses, then it is beyond saving itself. Nor ought it be saved.” He adds, “There is no path to the White House for Republicans with Mr. Trump.”Judge Luttig is right that the Republican Party is probably beyond saving, but he might be wrong that the Republicans cannot win politically. If they do, what will save our democracy?Michael BialesActon, Mass. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Asked About I.R.S. Inquiry of F.B.I. Officials, Ex-Aide Says Under Oath

      by

      In a court filing, John Kelly, who was a chief of staff under Donald Trump, said the former president had asked about having the tax agency look into Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.John F. Kelly, who served as former President Donald J. Trump’s second White House chief of staff, said in a sworn statement that Mr. Trump had discussed having the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies investigate two F.B.I. officials involved in the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.Mr. Kelly said that his recollection of Mr. Trump’s comments to him was based on notes that he had taken at the time in 2018. Mr. Kelly provided copies of his notes to lawyers for one of the F.B.I. officials, who made the sworn statement public in a court filing.“President Trump questioned whether investigations by the Internal Revenue Service or other federal agencies should be undertaken into Mr. Strzok and/or Ms. Page,” Mr. Kelly said in the statement. “I do not know of President Trump ordering such an investigation. It appeared, however, that he wanted to see Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page investigated.”Mr. Kelly’s assertions were disclosed on Thursday in a statement that was filed in connection with lawsuits brought by Peter Strzok, who was the lead agent in the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, and Lisa Page, a former lawyer in the bureau, against the Justice Department for violating their privacy rights when the Trump administration made public text messages between them.The disclosures from Mr. Kelly, made under penalty of perjury, demonstrate the extent of Mr. Trump’s interest in harnessing the law enforcement and investigative powers of the federal government to target his perceived enemies. In the aftermath of Richard M. Nixon’s presidency, Congress made it illegal for a president to “directly or indirectly” order an I.R.S. investigation or audit.The New York Times reported last July that two of Mr. Trump’s greatest perceived enemies — James B. Comey, whom he fired as F.B.I. director, and Mr. Comey’s deputy, Andrew G. McCabe — were the subject of the same type of highly unusual and invasive I.R.S. audit.It is not known whether the I.R.S. investigated Mr. Strzok or Ms. Page. But Mr. Strzok became a subject in the investigation conducted by the special counsel John Durham into how the F.B.I. investigated Mr. Trump’s campaign. Neither Mr. Strzok nor Ms. Page was charged in connection with that investigation, which former law enforcement officials and Democrats have criticized as an effort to carry out Mr. Trump’s vendetta against the bureau. Mr. Strzok is also suing the department for wrongful termination.Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page exchanged text messages that were critical of Mr. Trump and were later made public by Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general under Mr. Trump, as he faced heavy criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill who were trying to find ways to undermine him.The sworn statements from Mr. Kelly are similar to ones he made to The New York Times in November, in which he said that Mr. Trump had told him that he wanted a number of his perceived political enemies to be investigated by the I.R.S., including Mr. Comey, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.Mr. Kelly told The Times last year that Mr. Trump’s demands were part of a broader pattern of attempts to use the Justice Department and his authority as president against people who had been critical of him, including seeking to revoke the security clearances of former top intelligence officials.In the sworn statement, Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Trump had discussed having the security clearances of Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page revoked, although Mr. Kelly did not take action on the idea. Mr. Kelly said that his notes showed that Mr. Trump discussed the investigations of the two on Feb. 21, 2018.“I did not make a note of every instance in which then President Trump made a comment about Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page,” Mr. Kelly said. “President Trump generally disapproved of note-taking in meetings. He expressed concern that the notes might later be used against him.”Mr. Kelly said that he never took any steps to follow through on Mr. Trump’s desires to have his enemies investigated.Mr. Trump has said he knew nothing about the audits of Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe and their spouses. The I.R.S.’s inspector general found last year that Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe had been randomly selected for the audits, though the inspector general’s report acknowledged some deviations from the I.R.S.’s rigorous rules for random selection when the agency made final selections of the returns that would be audited.Mr. Kelly told The Times last year that Mr. Trump had at times discussed using the I.R.S. and the Justice Department to address others in addition to Mr. Comey, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.They included, Mr. Kelly said, the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan; Hillary Clinton; and Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, whose coverage often angered Mr. Trump. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ramaswamy Investments Seem at Odds With His Position on ‘Woke’ Culture

      by

      The billionaire biotech mogul has railed against socially conscious companies. But his financial disclosure shows he has a stake in some of the leaders in the field.Vivek Ramaswamy, a Republican presidential candidate who made a fortune in the biotech industry, has caught the interest of primary voters with fiery critiques of the socially conscious practices of U.S. corporations, which he laid out in a book, “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam.”But Mr. Ramaswamy himself owns valuable investments in many companies that have embraced environmental, social and governance principles, known as E.S.G. — the kinds of “woke” corporate practices he decries — according to a financial disclosure filed with the Federal Election Commission that was released on Friday.While many of the companies in which Mr. Ramaswamy holds an interest are household names, they are also leaders in the corporate movement to address social and environmental issues.Among the companies that Mr. Ramaswamy is invested in are Microsoft (his holdings are valued from $1 million to $5 million), Home Depot ($250,000 to $500,000), Lockheed Martin ($500,000 to $1 million) and Waste Management ($500,000 to $1 million). All adhere to various E.S.G. principles, according to reports posted on their websites.Mr. Ramaswamy has argued that such goals are a distraction from earning a profit, and that social objectives should be left to elected officials.Tricia McLaughlin, a senior adviser to Mr. Ramaswamy, said that he did not manage his own stock portfolio. “The first time Vivek learned of these positions was when he saw this financial disclosure report,” Ms. McLaughlin said on Friday. “Vivek’s stock portfolio is independently managed by a third party. The filer has authority to make trades and invest in stocks without his expressed consent or knowledge.”Mr. Ramaswamy, a long-shot candidate who has said that he would go further than the Republican front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, on conservative issues, has been unusually transparent about his wealth, earlier releasing 20 years of his tax returns.But until he filed his financial disclosure with election officials, there were few details. The filing reported that Mr. Ramaswamy owned up to a $25 million investment in Rumble, the video platform that styles itself a refuge for right-wing commentators shunned elsewhere. He owns up to $300,000 in cryptocurrency, primarily Bitcoin, and an investment worth up to $100,000 in a cryptocurrency app named MoonPay. He also has interests in three private planes.Mr. Ramaswamy, 37, is a Cincinnati native who holds degrees from Harvard and Yale. He founded Roivant Sciences in 2014, a company that develops and markets drugs, and that is the primary source of his wealth. Though he stepped down as chairman in February when he announced his candidacy, earlier reporting showed that he remained one of the largest shareholders. On the federal disclosure, the value of his Roivant holdings is listed as “over $50 million,” which is the largest category used on the form.According to Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. Ramaswamy’s total worth is more than $1 billion.Besides Roivant, Mr. Ramaswamy’s portfolio has diversified into investments in major U.S. companies that many Americans would recognize from their own retirement accounts. These holdings are valued between $39.6 million and $125 million. (The amounts on the form are reported within a range.) In addition, he reported over $50 million in holdings in Strive Enterprises, an investment company he created to manage funds that invest in companies without regard to social objectives.Sales of Mr. Ramaswamy’s book “Woke, Inc.,” which lays out his case against corporations attempting to factor in social goals, earned its author $203,860 in royalties.The report suggests one area in which Mr. Ramaswamy is more modest than other members of his ultrawealthy cohort: He owns just a single residence, in Columbus, Ohio. Its value was pegged between $1 million and $5 million. More