Datasets:

vector-institute

/

newsmediabias-plus-clean

like 1

Follow

Vector Institute 33

21fb438588

USA TODAY

Hands-on Gutter Guard Testing - USA TODAY

Finding reliable information about gutter protection systems can be difficult. Gutter manufacturers and installers rarely disclose detailed product cost and warranty information online or over the phone. Furthermore, it can be extremely challenging for product reviewers to obtain product samples in the gutter guard industry, meaning few online articles have firsthand information. To remedy this problem, we decided to test major brands of gutter guards. Live testing helped us assess gutter guard performance fairly and accurately across top industry brands. We also were able to experience the pain points and benefits of each guard during the installation process. How we chose brands to test When selecting products for testing, we wanted to cover the main types of gutter guards on the market and choose the most popular models. Specifically, we targeted mesh, micro-mesh, screen, reverse-curve (also called gutter helmets or surface tension guards), brush and foam guards. We also looked for a mixture of do-it-yourself (DIY) and professionally installed products since the price point, purchasing experience and installation process differ greatly between the two categories. To determine a product’s popularity, we considered the following data points: Overall online footprint Number of customer responses Our proprietary review scores Better Business Bureau status We purchased DIY gutter guards from reputable online retailers, including Amazon, and home improvement stores, such as Home Depot and Lowe’s. For professionally installed products, we researched the most popular gutter guard companies and chose the most widely used brands. Then, we contacted these companies to request product samples. How we tested gutter guards Before physically testing the gutter guards, we needed fair and objective metrics to evaluate them. We created a scorecard to rate each product on key performance factors, including filtration ability, design and durability, overflow frequency, ease of cleaning, and look and profile. Once we had the scorecard lined out, we looked at how best to install each product. To control testing conditions and improve overall process efficiency, we created a scale model of a roof and gutter system instead of installing each guard directly onto a home. Our model measured 4 feet long, 2 feet wide and 3 feet tall. It included a 4-linear-foot K-style 5-inch gutter, a downspout, siding, fascia board and asphalt shingles with a 6/12 roof pitch. Model roof with gutters sits ready for gutter guard testing. James Kiefer, Homefront With the model roof ready to go, we purchased each gutter guard brand we wanted to test, installed them and then subjected them to a series of tests based on the scorecard factors. We recorded our results, took notes and photographed the process during testing. We couldn’t install products from some professional brands, such as those with proprietary one-piece systems. In these instances, we contacted the companies and requested floor models typically used as displays at trade shows and events. Upon receiving a satisfactory floor model for fair and accurate testing, we put these models through the same testing process. Gutter guard testing metrics The following tests assessed each gutter guard’s overall performance and quality. We conducted each test individually on all guards and assessed them against our rating scorecard. Instructions review and installation test We read the provided installation instructions and any additional guides or information on the company’s website for each gutter guard. Then, we installed the guard, following the instructions as closely as possible to assess their accuracy and reliability. During this assessment, a guard lost points if: The instructions were unclear, confusing or otherwise unhelpful The product or installation experience didn’t match the instructions Extra tools, work or materials were needed to install the product The product was unyielding, dangerous or otherwise difficult to install Products that were easy to install, had clear and concise instructions, included all the necessary materials and had an installation aligned with the instructions received full points for this assessment. If the product required professional installation, we replaced this category with one that rated its design and profile. Under assessment, we looked at the guard’s size, profile and visibility from the ground. Guards with low-profile designs (anything that is virtually level with the gutter lip) scored better than those that were bulky and easy to see from the ground. For example, we installed plastic screen guards from Amerimax. The instructions specified that the guard’s lip fits under the gutter’s edge. Unfortunately, during the installation, we discovered that the gutter guard’s lip was too small for the gutter lip and incompatible with hidden hangers. Because of these problems, this guard lost points in this category. The Amerimax plastic screen guards lost points on our scorecard for being incompatible with hidden hangers and difficult to install. James Kiefer, Homefront Material, design and durability test The next test evaluated material quality, design and durability. The specifics of this test varied slightly from guard to guard, as we wanted to assess the guard’s durability without compromising it. We began with an overall inspection of the product, examining each part and looking for areas of structural weakness, such as cracks, gaps and loose fittings. Then, we applied various stress tests, including direct application of pressure, bending, jostling and subjecting it to impacts from multiple objects and intensities. This procedure simulated different environmental factors that can affect the guard, such as wind, hail, snow, ice and falling tree limbs. Guards lost points if they: Bent permanently Broke, cracked, popped or were otherwise permanently damaged Had obvious design or structural flaws that would impact the performance of the guard Easily dislodged from the gutter Were composed of low-quality materials For example, we tested a metal screen guard from A-M Gutter Guards. This product features perforated aluminum sheets with simple, secure connectors. These sheets maintained their hold even under direct pressure, so much so that the gutters below them bent before they did. Impacts from stones, plant matter and other debris didn’t impact the guard or even dent it. Additionally, it had no obvious weaknesses that affected its performance during testing. As such, it received full marks in this category. Filtration

A close-up image of a person's hands using a power drill to install a gutter guard on a roof.

NaT

https://www.usatoday.com

https://www.usatoday.com/money/homefront/gutters/gutter-guard-testing/

['Business and Finance']

[0.9]

Unlikely

Likely

330d8924c8

CBS News

What the rejection of Ohio's Issue 1 could mean for abortion rights in the state - CBS News

Washington — In a closely watched special election, Ohio voters rejected Issue 1, which could have a major impact on whether the right to an abortion becomes enshrined in the state constitution later this fall. The defeated measure would have made it more difficult to amend the Ohio Consitution by requiring proposed amendments to receive support from 60% of voters, rather than the simple majority currently needed. The question of whether to raise the threshold landed on the ballot after Ohio's GOP-led General Assembly approved a joint resolution in May to send the matter to voters. But the effort to set the supermajority benchmark also came as abortion rights supporters were mounting their own campaign to put reproductive rights directly on the ballot in November. The two ballot measures — Tuesday's question on raising the standards to pass a constitutional amendment, and November's proposal on enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution — have garnered immense interest from voters and stakeholders nationwide. Ohio is the only state with abortion access on the ballot this year. Early voter turnout in Ohio had surged for Tuesday's special election, with nearly 700,000 people voting by mail or in-person during the early-voting period. By comparison, 288,700 people voted early for the May 2022 primary election, according to the Associated Press. Here's what to know about Issue 1, the ballot measure that was at the center of Ohio's special election. What is Issue 1 in Ohio? Attendees listen to speakers during a "rosary rally" on Sunday, Aug. 6, 2023, in Norwood, Ohio. Darron Cummings / AP State Issue 1 was a proposed constitutional amendment that would have elevated the standards to place a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment on the ballot and pass it. Proposed by a joint resolution of the Ohio legislature, the measure would have required that any proposed constitutional amendment receive approval from at least 60% of voters. The amendment would also have required any initiative petition filed after Jan. 1 seeking to change the Ohio Constitution to be signed by at least 5% of the electors of each of Ohio's 88 counties. The plan needed a majority of "yes" votes to pass. Had it met that bar, the supermajority threshold would have taken effect immediately. A summary of the argument in favor of Issue 1 prepared by two Republican lawmakers stated that a "yes" vote "protects our Constitution from deep-pocketed, out-of-state interests. By passing Issue 1, the People would have ensured constitutional changes are widely accepted and declare that Ohio's Constitution is not for sale." "Currently, special interests target Ohio, seeking to inject their own personal views and objectives into our state's most sacred document. Why? Because Ohio is one of the few states that allow these interests to directly enshrine their social preferences and corporate motives into the Constitution at the same threshold as everyday laws," they wrote. "Common sense tells us that this should not be the case." In a summary of the argument against Issue 1, a group of Democratic lawmakers said the amendment "would destroy citizen-driven ballot initiatives as we know them, upending our right to make decisions that directly impact our lives. It takes away our freedom by undermining the sacred principle of 'one person, one vote' and destroys majority rule in Ohio." "[H]ere we are, voting in August on just one question: should Ohio permanently abolish the basic constitutional right of majority rule?" the state lawmakers said, referencing a bill approved by the Ohio legislature in December that eliminated most August special elections. "Special interests and corrupt politicians say yes. They don't like voters making decisions, so they're trying to rewrite the rules to get what they want: even more power." What does the Issue 1 polling say? Three polls conducted prior to the vote examined public support for Issue 1 and found that less than half of Ohioans favored the effort to increase the threshold to change the state constitution. A Scripps News/YouGov poll conducted in June found that 38% of Ohio adults agreed with the proposal, while an Ohio Northern University from mid-July found that 42.4% of registered voters backed the plan. A third poll from USA Today Network/Suffolk University released last month found 26.2% of likely voters support Issue 1. How did Issue 1 get on the ballot? Protesters gather inside the Ohio Statehouse on May 3, 2023, in Columbus to protest a group of Republican legislators' attempt to make it harder to pass constitutional amendments. Patrick Orsagos / AP A joint resolution to require a 60%-vote to approve any constitutional amendment cleared both chambers of Ohio's Republican-led General Assembly this spring. The state's constitution allows the state legislature to propose amendments to it and, if approved by three-fifths of each house, the proposals then go before voters for their approval or rejection. The GOP-controlled state House and Senate easily approved the measures, but not without pushback from protesters who descended on the statehouse. Demonstrators opposed the effort to do away with the simple-majority threshold — 50%, plus one vote — for constitutional amendments, which has been in place since 1912. Who was behind the drive to change the threshold for constitutional amendments? A recent CBS News investigation found that the attempt in Ohio to make it more difficult to change the state constitution is one aspect of a nationwide campaign heavily backed by Richard Uihlein, a shipping supplies magnate and GOP megadonor. The investigation found Uihlein donated $1.1 million in April to a political committee that pushed Ohio lawmakers to clear the resolution to raise the standards to pass a constitutional amendment. Uihlein was also the top contributor to Protect Our Constitution, the main organization backing Issue 1. He donated $4 million to the group, out of the $4.85 million it raised in total. The main organization opposing Issue 1, One Person, One Vote, raised $14.8 million. Roughly $2.5 million of its funding came from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based group that supports progressive causes. How would Issue 1 have impacted

A crowd of people, mostly adults, are gathered outdoors, clapping and cheering, with some holding American flags. The setting appears to be a public event, possibly a rally or a demonstration. The crowd is diverse, with individuals of various ages and ethnicities.

NaT

https://www.cbsnews.com

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/issue-1-ohio-special-election-ballot-abortion-rights-state-constitution/

['Politics' 'Local/Regional']

[0.95 0.9 ]

Likely

Likely

f5be98d487

The Guardian

Higher costs and cramped conditions: the impact of Europe’s housing crisis - The Guardian

Decades in the making, Europe’s housing crisis is being felt from the Netherlands to Portugal, Greece to Germany, and in Britain. Prices and rents have soared, availability and affordability have plunged and housing has become a political issue. Between 2010 and 2022, property prices across the 27-member bloc surged by 47%, according to a 2023 Eurostat report. In some countries they almost trebled: Estonia recorded a 192% rise. Only in two member states, Italy and Cyprus, did they decline. Rents, meanwhile, rose by an average 18% over the same period, increasing in every single EU member state except Greece (where they have risen by 37% since 2018). Some of the biggest hikes were in the Baltic state of Lithuania, up 144%, and Ireland, up 84%. Partly as a consequence, the proportion of households whose total housing costs account for 40% or more of their disposable income – known to policymakers as the housing cost overburden rate – which fell during the pandemic, is climbing steadily. In Germany, where just over half the population live in rented accommodation – one of the highest proportions in the EU – the federal statistics office calculated last year that one in five households were spending at least two-fifths of their net income on rent. Germany alone is currently short of more than 800,000 apartments, the country’s statistics office has estimated, a figure that is growing steadily. Meanwhile, more than 9.5 million people, often single parents and their children, live in cramped conditions. In many EU cities the wait for social housing is 10 years or more; couples in countries such as the Netherlands, which is short of about 400,000 homes, are postponing major life events such as starting a family, or are being forced to live together after separating. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to This is Europe Free weekly newsletter The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment Enter your email address Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy . We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion Getting a foot on the property ladder has become exponentially harder. According to a report by Eurofound, the EU’s social policy agency, last year, home ownership is sliding across the bloc, down by three percentage points or more in some countries. In Ireland, the median age of buyers is now 39, compared with 35 in 2010. And generation Z is leaving the family home later than its predecessors: between 2007 and 2019, the age by which at least 50% of young Europeans were living independently rose from 26 to 28. Unsurprisingly, housing looms large among people’s chief worries, particularly young people. A 2022 Eurobarometer poll found that for more than 20% of 25- to 34-year-olds in more than a third of EU member states, housing was one of voters’ two biggest concerns – rising to 40% in Ireland.

A photograph of a narrow European street with colorful buildings, people walking, and a clear sky.

2024-05-06 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.theguardian.com

https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/06/higher-costs-and-cramped-conditions-the-impact-of-europes-housing-crisis

['International' 'National' 'Business and Finance' 'Local/Regional']

[0.85 0.85 0.75 0.7 ]

Likely

Unlikely

662f98e562

Pew Research Center

9 facts about U.S. Catholics - Pew Research Center

Ash Wednesday at the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Houston. (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images) Catholics are one of the largest religious groups in the United States, outnumbering any single Protestant denomination. The U.S. has more Catholics than all but three other countries – Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines – according to the Vatican’s Statistical Yearbook of the Church. Here are nine key facts about the U.S. Catholic population. How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to serve as a reference source on the basic demographic attributes, religious characteristics and political preferences of U.S. Catholics. The analysis draws mainly on data from the Center’s National Public Opinion Reference Surveys (NPORS) conducted in 2022 and 2023. NPORS is an annual survey of U.S. adults who are selected for participation using address-based sampling from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. Respondents may answer either by paper or online. This post also relies on a variety of surveys conducted online among respondents who are part of the Center’s American Trends Panel or other national survey panels recruited through random sampling (not “opt-in” polls). All of the surveys used in this analysis are weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, education and other categories. Today, 20% of U.S. adults describe themselves as Catholics, according to our latest survey. This percentage has been generally stable since 2014. But it is slightly lower than in 2007, when 24% of U.S. adults identified as Catholic. Overall, there were about 262 million adults in the U.S. in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This suggests that there are roughly 52 million Catholic adults nationwide. Most U.S. Catholics are White, but a third are Hispanic. The Catholic population is 57% White, 33% Hispanic, 4% Asian and 2% Black, while 3% are of another race. Since 2007, the share of U.S. Catholics who are White has dropped by 8 percentage points, while the share who are Hispanic has ticked upward by 4 points. This change has implications for the profile of Catholic Americans as a whole because White Catholics have distinctive social and political traits, as we’ll discuss in more detail below. Catholics tend to be older than Americans overall. Nearly six-in-ten Catholic adults (58%) are ages 50 and older. Among all U.S. adults in the survey, by comparison, 48% fall in this age range. But Hispanic Catholics tend to be a lot younger than White Catholics. Fewer than half of Hispanic Catholics (43%) are 50 and older, compared with about two-thirds (68%) of White Catholics. And just 14% of Hispanic Catholics are ages 65 and older, versus 38% of White Catholics. Roughly three-in-ten U.S. Catholics (29%) live in the South, while 26% live in the Northeast, 24% in the West and 21% in the Midwest. The racial and ethnic profile of the Catholic population varies considerably by region. For example, in the Midwest, 80% of Catholics are White and 17% are Hispanic. In the Northeast, 72% of Catholics are White and 19% are Hispanic. In the South, 49% are White and 40% are Hispanic. And in the West, there are more Hispanic Catholics than White Catholics (55% vs. 30%). About a third of U.S. Catholics (32%) have a bachelor’s degree. Another 28% have some college experience but not a bachelor’s degree, and 40% have a high school education or less. This distribution is similar to that of the general adult population. On average, White Catholics have higher levels of educational attainment than Hispanic Catholics. Roughly four-in-ten White Catholics (39%) have at least a bachelor’s degree, while 32% have a high school education or less. Among Hispanic Catholics, 16% have a bachelor’s degree and 59% have a high school education or less. About three-in-ten U.S. Catholics (28%) say they attend Mass weekly or more often. Larger shares of Catholics say they pray on a daily basis (52%) and say religion is very important in their life (46%). Overall, 20% of U.S. Catholics say they attend Mass weekly and pray daily and consider religion very important in their life. By contrast, 10% of Catholics say they attend Mass a few times a year or less often and pray seldom or never and consider religion not too or not all important in their life. By way of comparison, 40% of U.S. Protestants say they attend services at least weekly. And about two-thirds of Protestants pray daily (67%) and say religion is very important in their life (66%). About half of Catholic registered voters (52%) identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, while 44% affiliate with the Democratic Party. But partisan affiliation varies by race and ethnicity. Roughly six-in-ten White Catholic registered voters (61%) say they identify with or lean toward the GOP, compared with 35% of Hispanic Catholics. Conversely, 60% of Hispanic Catholics who are registered voters say they identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with 37% of White Catholics. In the 2022 congressional midterm elections, 56% of Catholics said they voted for Republican candidates, while 43% backed Democrats. And in the 2020 presidential election, Catholic voters were split down the middle: 49% backed Donald Trump and 50% voted for Joe Biden. These overall splits hide big differences between White and Hispanic Catholic voters. For example, White Catholics favored Trump over Biden by a 15-point margin in 2020, while Hispanic Catholics backed Biden over Trump by a 35-point margin. While the Catholic Church opposes abortion, about six-in-ten Catholics say abortion should be legal. This includes 39% who say it should be legal in most cases and 22% who say it should be legal in all cases. Roughly four-in-ten Catholics say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all (11%) cases. Catholics’ opinions about abortion tend to align with their political leanings. Among Catholic Democrats, 78% say abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Among Catholic Republicans, 43% say this. Catholic Democrats are a little less likely than non-Catholic Democrats to say abortion

A man in a white shirt and purple stole is holding a chalice and appears to be anointing another man's head in a church with a large stained glass window in the background.

2024-04-12 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/12/9-facts-about-us-catholics/

['National' 'Politics']

[0.85 0.75]

Unlikely

Likely

b8db4d2456

Pew Research Center

How Americans View the Situation at the U.S.-Mexico Border, Its Causes and Consequences - Pew Research Center

80% say the U.S. government is doing a bad job handling the migrant influx A view of the U.S.-Mexico border wall from Feb. 1, 2024. (Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images) How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand the public’s views about the large number of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. at the border with Mexico. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,140 adults from Jan. 16-21, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology. Here are the questions used for the report and its methodology. The growing number of migrants seeking entry into the United States at its border with Mexico has strained government resources, divided Congress and emerged as a contentious issue in the 2024 presidential campaign. Americans overwhelmingly fault the government for how it has handled the migrant situation. Beyond that, however, there are deep differences – over why the migrants are coming to the U.S., proposals for addressing the situation, and even whether it should be described as a “crisis.” Factors behind the migrant influx Economic factors – either poor conditions in migrants’ home countries or better economic opportunities in the United States – are widely viewed as major reasons for the migrant influx. About seven-in-ten Americans (71%), including majorities in both parties, cite better economic opportunities in the U.S. as a major reason. There are wider partisan differences over other factors. About two-thirds of Americans (65%) say violence in migrants’ home countries is a major reason for why a large number of immigrants have come to the border. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are 30 percentage points more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to cite this as a major reason (79% vs. 49%). By contrast, 76% of Republicans say the belief that U.S. immigration policies will make it easy to stay in the country once they arrive is a major factor. About half as many Democrats (39%) say the same. For more on Americans’ views of these and other reasons, visit Chapter 2. How serious is the situation at the border? A sizable majority of Americans (78%) say the large number of migrants seeking to enter this country at the U.S.-Mexico border is either a crisis (45%) or a major problem (32%), according to the Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21, 2024, among 5,140 adults. Related: Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border hit a record high at the end of 2023. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to describe the situation as a “crisis”: 70% of Republicans say this, compared with just 22% of Democrats. 70% of Republicans say this, compared with just 22% of Democrats. Democrats mostly view the situation as a major problem (44%) or minor problem (26%) for the U.S. Very few Democrats (7%) say it is not a problem. In an open-ended question, respondents voice their concerns about the migrant influx. They point to numerous issues, including worries about how the migrants are cared for and general problems with the immigration system. Yet two concerns come up most frequently: 22% point to the economic burdens associated with the migrant influx, including the strains migrants place on social services and other government resources. associated with the migrant influx, including the strains migrants place on social services and other government resources. 22% also cite security concerns. Many of these responses focus on crime (10%), terrorism (10%) and drugs (3%). When asked specifically about the impact of the migrant influx on crime in the United States, a majority of Americans (57%) say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the country leads to more crime. Fewer (39%) say this does not have much of an impact on crime in this country. Republicans (85%) overwhelmingly say the migrant surge leads to increased crime in the U.S. A far smaller share of Democrats (31%) say the same; 63% of Democrats instead say it does not have much of an impact. Government widely criticized for its handling of migrant influx For the past several years, the federal government has gotten low ratings for its handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. (Note: The wording of this question has been modified modestly to reflect circumstances at the time). However, the current ratings are extraordinarily low. Just 18% say the U.S. government is doing a good job dealing with the large number of migrants at the border, while 80% say it is doing a bad job, including 45% who say it is doing a very bad job. Republicans’ views are overwhelmingly negative (89% say it’s doing a bad job), as they have been since Joe Biden became president. 73% of Democrats also give the government negative ratings, the highest share recorded during Biden’s presidency. For more on Americans’ evaluations of the situation, visit Chapter 1. Which policies could improve the border situation? There is no single policy proposal, among the nine included on the survey, that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say would improve the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. There are areas of relative agreement, however. A 60% majority of Americans say that increasing the number of immigration judges and staff in order to make decisions on asylum more quickly would make the situation better. Only 11% say it would make things worse, while 14% think it would not make much difference. Nearly as many (56%) say creating more opportunities for people to legally immigrate to the U.S. would make the situation better. Majorities of Democrats say each of these proposals would make the border situation better. Republicans are less positive than are Democrats; still, about 40% or more of Republicans say each would improve

An aerial view of a divided highway with a river running through it, surrounded by urban development.

2024-02-15 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/how-americans-view-the-situation-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-its-causes-and-consequences/

['Politics' 'National']

[0.9 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

f4fc5a3f9c

Pew Research Center

Tuning Out: Americans on the Edge of Politics - Pew Research Center

Tuning Out: Americans on the Edge of Politics Untethered from partisan politics and uninterested in keeping up with political news, here is how some Americans view the current state of U.S. politics. In a fractious political environment often dominated by the loudest voices on the left and right, some people are saying: Count us out. Last year, we talked to a group of people who, while they may vote, are not strongly attached to either political party. They don’t closely follow news about politics or government, though some feel guilty when they don’t. By and large, they look at the nation’s politics as a topic better avoided than embraced. With the first votes of the 2024 election about to be cast, these are people whose voices are largely overlooked. Last May, we conducted six focus groups of adults who have soured on politics and political news. Here’s what they told us: How we did this This piece is based on six focus groups conducted in May 2023. A total of 27 Americans participated in the focus groups and were offered an incentive for participation. Researchers prepared a topical discussion guide, and a moderator guided participants through the session. The quotes featured throughout this piece are meant to provide context and broadly illustrate the themes that were discussed in the groups. Quotations are not meant to be representative of all adults who say they do not follow political news. They have been lightly edited for readability. For more information about how the groups were recruited and conducted, refer to the methodology. They have a sense that politics is everywhere – and often in a bad way. They find themselves overwhelmed by how much information they confront in their day-to-day life. “I feel like you can’t escape it. You get mailings, you get commercials. It’s just always there.” – Woman, 30s, Democratic-leaning “Go on Facebook and politics stuff just pops up. No matter where you go on the internet, there’s always some kind of ad or something that pops up [having] to do with politics.” – Man, 30s, Republican-leaning “You don’t know what to believe; it’s so much information to soak in that you sometimes don’t know if it’s true or not.” – Woman, 50s, Nonpartisan “I don’t want to watch the news all the time, but I can’t stand not knowing what’s going on.” – Man, 50s, Democratic-leaning “When I was young, I remember politics was hearing my parents talk about it, hearing about it on the news, on TV, and then reading about it like once a day in the newspaper. But now it’s like you cannot get away from it. It’s in conversations with people and if you don’t want to have conversations with people, well, it’s on Twitter [X] and it’s on Facebook.” – Woman, 30s, Republican-leaning Many – but not all – of these people vote. While they acknowledge they could be more engaged with following politics, many say they have no desire to, or say it’s important to avoid the topic to protect their mental health. “You just get tired of the arguing and bickering back and forth and watching political ads during election season. They just kind of put you off too. So, I’m still gonna vote but I don’t see myself getting more engaged in the process.” – Man, 50s, Democratic-leaning “With certain topics, I wish I was a little bit more engaged, but I try not to cross those boundaries just because I don’t feel like dealing with the different opinions sometimes. I can’t deal with the notifications 24/7, so I try to stay away from it.” – Woman, 20s, Nonpartisan “I feel like if I could get my voice out there more, I would be more involved. But it’s just hard. I’m not one of the important people, you know what I mean?” – Woman, 40s, Republican-leaning “I’d like to do better [with my own political engagement]. Because sometimes I feel like, well, I have a cousin that always wants to talk politics and sometimes she just comes out of left field and I’m like, ‘What is that? I haven’t heard that. Wait, what!?’” – Woman, 60s, Democratic-leaning “It can really affect your mental health. You start getting into heated conversation going back and forth with somebody over something you really can’t control. There’s just no point in that.” – Man, 40s, Republican Most are frustrated with the two parties. They often don’t feel represented by either party or feel that the parties are too extreme. And while some would prefer for there to be no parties at all, others wish there were more than two. “See we don’t live in a true democracy anymore when it’s only between two [parties]. Yes, you can run for president under other political parties, but you’re never gonna win unless you’re Republican or Democrat. So as far as that goes, I feel like it’s more of a democracy with an illusion of choice.” – Woman, 40s, Republican-leaning “I hate the fact that you’re forced to pick between the lesser of two evils when voting. No, I don’t want either of them. Next.” – Man, 20s, Nonpartisan “Originally the idea is that we vote for them, that they should act on behalf of the people. But once they all get in the office, it’s all about themselves. It’s never about us. Doesn’t matter what party.” – Man, 50s, Democrat “I believe that a lot of politicians do go into it with good intentions and they think they’re gonna do good and they can do this or that. But then they get involved with the worst politicians. And little by little, I think they just fall in line basically with the others and become one of the group.” – Woman, 60s, Republican-leaning Many of the participants pointed to the vitriol and negativity in politics today, noting that there is too much fighting and not enough progress being made on issues that are important to everyday people. “You

The image features a collage with a central figure pointing towards a building with the White House in the background, surrounded by silhouettes of people, a bag of money, and various symbols including stars and gears, with the text 'US VERSUS THEM' in the foreground.

2024-01-09 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/01/09/tuning-out-americans-on-the-edge-of-politics/

['Politics']

[0.95]

Likely

Likely

9290cbc72a

Pew Research Center

About half of Republicans now say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine - Pew Research Center

The Ukrainian flag flies near the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 21, 2022, the night Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed a joint meeting of Congress. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) As the war in Ukraine nears the two-year mark, about three-in-ten Americans (31%) say the United States is providing too much assistance to Ukraine in its fight against Russia, while about half say that the U.S. is providing the right amount of support (29%) or not providing enough (18%). The share of Americans who say the U.S. is giving too much support to Ukraine has grown steadily over the course of the war, especially among Republicans. How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this study to track Americans’ views of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,203 U.S. adults from Nov. 27 to Dec. 3, 2023. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology. Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology. A new Pew Research Center survey, conducted Nov. 27 to Dec. 3, 2023, among 5,203 members of the Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, finds that: 48% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the U.S. is giving too much aid to Ukraine. This share is up modestly from June, when 44% said this, and is substantially higher than it was at earlier stages in the war. Just 16% of Democrats and Democratic leaners view the current level of U.S. aid as excessive. Around four-in-ten Democrats (39%) say the U.S. is providing the right amount of aid, while around a quarter (24%) say the U.S. is not providing enough assistance. Around four-in-ten Democrats (39%) say the U.S. is providing the right amount of aid, while around a quarter (24%) say the U.S. is not providing enough assistance. Partisan differences over Ukraine aid have grown wider. In the first weeks of the war, Republicans were only 4 percentage points more likely than Democrats to say the U.S. was providing too much aid to Ukraine (9% vs. 5%). Today, Republicans are 32 points more likely to say this. Public attention to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is little changed in recent months. Six-in-ten Americans, including similar shares of Republicans (62%) and Democrats (61%), say they follow news about the invasion at least somewhat closely. How much of a threat to the U.S. is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? A third of Americans say Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a major threat to U.S. interests. A similar share (34%) say it is a minor threat, while 10% say it is not a threat. These views have changed only modestly since June. But in March 2022, half of Americans said Russia’s invasion posed a major threat to U.S. interests. As has been the case for the last year, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say Russia’s invasion is a major threat (40% vs. 27%). But people in both parties are less likely to say this now than in the early days of the war in March 2022. Views of the Biden administration’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine Around four-in-ten U.S. adults (39%) say they approve of the Biden administration’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while a similar share (41%) disapprove. Two-in-ten say they are not sure. Disapproval of the administration’s response has increased slightly (from 35% to 41%) since June. A majority of Democrats (59%) approve of the administration’s response, while 22% disapprove. In contrast, a slightly larger majority of Republicans (63%) disapprove of the administration’s response, while 21% approve. In both parties, somewhat larger shares now disapprove of the Biden administration’s response to the invasion than did so in June, when 57% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats said they disapproved. Note: This is an update of a post originally published Jan. 31, 2023, and updated on June 15, 2023. Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

An image of a person riding a bicycle in front of a flag with a yellow and blue color scheme, with the Capitol building in the background.

2023-12-08 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/08/about-half-of-republicans-now-say-the-us-is-providing-too-much-aid-to-ukraine/

['Politics' 'International']

[0.9 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

1d85fd030e

Pew Research Center

Americans' Trust in Scientists, Positive Views of Science Continue to Decline - Pew Research Center

Among both Democrats and Republicans, trust in scientists is lower than before the pandemic How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand how Americans view science, as well as their levels of confidence in groups and institutions in society. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,842 U.S. adults from Sept. 25 to Oct. 1, 2023. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology. Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology. A new Pew Research Center survey finds the share of Americans who say science has had a mostly positive effect on society has fallen and there’s been a continued decline in public trust in scientists. In this report, we cover: Key findings Impact of science on society Overall, 57% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society. This share is down 8 percentage points since November 2021 and down 16 points since before the start of the coronavirus outbreak. About a third (34%) now say the impact of science on society has been equally positive as negative. A small share (8%) think science has had a mostly negative impact on society. Trust in scientists When it comes to the standing of scientists, 73% of U.S. adults have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. But trust in scientists is 14 points lower than it was at the early stages of the pandemic. The share expressing the strongest level of trust in scientists – saying they have a great deal of confidence in them – has fallen from 39% in 2020 to 23% today. As trust in scientists has fallen, distrust has grown: Roughly a quarter of Americans (27%) now say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, up from 12% in April 2020. Ratings of medical scientists mirror the trend seen in ratings of scientists generally. Read Chapter 1 of the report for a detailed analysis of this data. How scientists compare with other prominent groups Why does public trust in scientists matter? People with greater trust in scientists are more likely to align their own beliefs and actions with expert guidance and understanding. For instance, those with high trust are more likely to have gotten vaccines for COVID-19 and the flu. They are also more likely to say human activity contributes to climate change. In addition, scientific leaders are concerned that differences in levels of trust by things like party identification, race and ethnicity, and education could contribute to the benefits of science being spread unevenly across society. The Center survey of 8,842 U.S. adults conducted Sept. 25-Oct. 1, 2023, finds that, despite recent declines in ratings, scientists and medical scientists continue to be held in high regard compared with other prominent groups in society. Smaller shares of Americans express confidence in business leaders, religious leaders, journalists and elected officials to act in the public’s best interests. As with scientists, most of these groups have seen their ratings decline in recent years. Americans have expressed low trust in federal government and other institutions, like Congress, for decades. And political polarization – the widening gap between the views of Republicans and Democrats across a broad range of issues and attitudes – has come to be a dominant feature of American political life. Differences between Republicans and Democrats in ratings of scientists and science Declining levels of trust in scientists and medical scientists have been particularly pronounced among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents over the past several years. In fact, nearly four-in-ten Republicans (38%) now say they have not too much or no confidence at all in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. This share is up dramatically from the 14% of Republicans who held this view in April 2020. Much of this shift occurred during the first two years of the pandemic and has persisted in more recent surveys. Confidence in scientists has also moved lower among Democrats. The share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents with a great deal of confidence in scientists – which initially rose in the pandemic’s first year – now stands at 37%, down from a high of 55% in November 2020. But unlike Republicans, a large majority of Democrats (86%) continue to express at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. The overall differences in partisan views remain much more pronounced today than they were prior to the coronavirus outbreak. One of the starkest illustrations of polarization in views of science is the drop in the share of Republicans who view the societal impact of science positively. Fewer than half of Republicans (47%) now say that science has had a mostly positive effect on society. In 2019, 70% of Republicans said that science has had a mostly positive effect. A majority of Democrats (69%) continue to say science has had a mostly positive effect on society, though this share is 8 points lower than it was in 2019. Republicans were largely critical of the country’s response to the coronavirus outbreak. For instance, large shares said too little priority was given to respecting individuals’ choices, supporting businesses and economic activity, and meeting the needs of K-12 students. In addition, many Republicans felt that public health officials’ personal views had too much influence on policy and that officials were too quick to dismiss views that challenged their scientific understanding. Government investments in science Despite declines in ratings of scientists and science, a large majority of Americans continue to see government investments in

A bar chart showing the percentage of U.S. adults who say science has had a mostly positive, mostly negative, or equal positive and negative effect on society from March 2016 to October 2023.

2023-11-14 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/

['Health' 'Science']

[0.85 0.8 ]

Likely

Likely

a519391060

Pew Research Center

How Americans view money in politics - Pew Research Center

Widespread dissatisfaction with the role of money in American politics is one of the many themes in Pew Research Center’s recent report on Americans’ dismal views of the nation’s political landscape. How we did this This analysis summarizes key findings about money and politics from the recent Pew Research Center report “Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics.” We conducted the study to better understand how Americans view U.S. politics today and explore in depth how the public thinks about the quality of their political representation and the relationship between political actors and the people they represent. The analysis is based on a survey of 8,480 adults from July 10 to July 16, 2023. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology. Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology. Explore Americans’ views of the political system This article draws from our major report on Americans’ attitudes about the political system and political representation, based on surveys conducted this summer. For more, read: The report chapters on money in politics and problems with the political system The full report Large shares of the public see political campaigns as too costly, elected officials as too responsive to donors and special interests, and members of Congress as unable or unwilling to separate their financial interests from their work as public servants. Here are seven facts about how Americans view the influence of money on the political system and elected officials, drawn from our recent report. Most Americans favor spending limits for political campaigns. Roughly seven-in-ten U.S. adults (72%) say that there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns. Just 11% say individuals and organizations should be able to spend as much money as they want, and 16% are not sure. Support for spending limits crosses ideological and demographic lines. Across all groups, by margins of at least three-to-one, more people say there should be limits than say there should not. Nearly six-in-ten Americans say it’s possible to have laws that would effectively reduce the role of money in politics. About two-in-ten (21%) say it’s not possible to legislate this effectively. A similar share (20%) are not sure. Liberal Democrats are particularly likely to say it’s possible to have laws that would reduce the role of money in politics. About three-quarters (76%) say this, compared with 57% of conservative or moderate Democrats and 52% of Republicans. There are no ideological differences on this question among Republicans. In an open-ended question, 11% of Americans volunteer that the biggest problem with elected officials is that they’re too influenced by money in politics. An additional 9% describe elected officials as corrupt and 16% say they don’t work for the people they represent. These concerns are among the top responses to this question. In a separate open-ended question about the political system as a whole, 15% say that the biggest problem is greed or corruption among elected officials. Americans overwhelmingly say that the cost of political campaigns makes it hard for good people to run for office. More than eight-in-ten Americans (85%) say this is a good description of the U.S. political system today, including identical shares of Republicans and Democrats. A similar share of the public (84%) says that “special interest groups and lobbyists have too much say in what happens in politics” is a good description of the political system. Self-interest – especially the desire to make money – is one of the main reasons people think most elected officials ran for office. More than six-in-ten (63%) say that all or most of the people who currently serve as elected officials ran for office to make a lot of money. Majorities also say that all or most officials ran for office to seek a higher-level office in the future (57%) or to seek personal fame and attention (54%). Far fewer say that all or most elected officials ran to address issues they care about (22%) or to serve the public (15%). Roughly eight-in-ten Americans say members of Congress do a bad job of keeping their personal financial interests separate from their work in Congress. The public also rates members of Congress poorly on listening to the concerns of people in their districts, working with members of the opposing party and taking responsibility for their actions. Campaign donors and lobbyists are widely viewed as having too much influence on members of Congress. Eight-in-ten U.S. adults say the people who donate money to political campaigns have too much influence on the decisions members of Congress make. And 73% say lobbyists and special interest groups have too much influence. Large majorities of Republicans and Democrats alike say campaign donors, lobbyists and special interest groups have too much influence. By contrast, 70% of Americans say the people who live in representatives’ districts have too little influence over the decisions their representatives make. Note: Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology.

A bar chart showing opinions on election spending limits with three categories: 'There should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend', 'Individuals and organizations should be able to spend as much money as they want', and 'Not sure'.

2023-10-23 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/23/7-facts-about-americans-views-of-money-in-politics/

['Politics']

[0.95]

Unlikely

Unlikely

baa49bf5cc

Pew Research Center

How many US Latinos have graduate degrees? What the data says - Pew Research Center

In 2021, nearly 2.5 million Latinos in the United States held advanced degrees such as master’s degrees or doctorates. This represented a huge increase over 2000, when 710,000 Latinos held advanced degrees. The shift reflects Latinos’ broader increase in postsecondary enrollment and rising educational attainment. Despite the large increase in the number of Latinos with advanced degrees, they accounted for just 8% of all advanced degree holders in the U.S. in 2021. This was far below their 19% share of the overall U.S. population, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to examine the demographic characteristics of Latinos who hold a graduate degree. This analysis draws on data from the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and the 2010 and 2021 American Community Surveys (ACS), accessed through the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) from the University of Minnesota. While looking at the share of populations with a graduate degree, we examined only individuals 25 and older because formal education is not often completed before age 25. While looking at the overall number of graduate degree holders, there is no age filter applied. All displayed numbers are rounded. Shares and percent changes are calculated using unrounded numbers. Figures of 100,000 or more are rounded to the nearest 10,000; figures less than 100,000 are rounded to the nearest 5,000. Here are some facts about Latinos who hold graduate degrees: Among Latinos ages 25 and older, 7% held a graduate degree as of 2021. This was up from 4% in 2000, but still only half the share among all Americans ages 25 and up (14%). U.S.-born Hispanics 25 and older were more likely than foreign-born Hispanics to have a graduate degree in 2021 (8% vs. 5%). Overall, U.S.-born Hispanics have more formal education than Hispanic immigrants. In 2021, a majority of U.S.-born Hispanics 25 and older (56%) had at least some college experience, compared with only 31% of foreign-born Hispanics. Among Latinos who hold a graduate degree, most hold a master’s as their highest level of education. Among the nearly 2.5 million Latinos who had earned an advanced degree as of 2021 (either in the U.S. or elsewhere), 1.8 million – or 72% – held a master’s degree as their highest degree. These included degrees such as Master of Arts, Master of Science, Master of Social Work and Master of Business Administration. An additional 440,000 Latinos with an advanced degree, or 18%, had a professional degree beyond a bachelor’s degree as their highest level of education. These included degrees such as Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Dental Surgery, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and Juris Doctor (law). Overall, Latinos accounted for 8% of professional degree holders in the U.S. in 2021. Another 250,000 Latinos with advanced degrees, or 10%, had a doctoral degree, such as a Ph.D. or Ed.D. Among all Americans, 72% of those with a graduate degree have a master’s degree as their highest level of education, while 17% have a professional degree and 12% have a doctorate. Hispanic Americans have seen the fastest growth in advanced degrees of any major racial or ethnic group. That includes a 291% increase in the number of Hispanic women holding an advanced degree and a 199% increase in that number for Hispanic men between 2000 and 2021. By comparison, there has been slower growth in graduate degrees among White, Black and Asian Americans. Women have fueled the growing number of Hispanics with graduate degrees. Between 1990 and 2021, the number of Hispanic women with an advanced degree increased by more than a million. The number of Hispanic men with an advanced degree also grew rapidly, though the gain was smaller – about 860,000. In 1990, about 60,000 fewer Hispanic women than Hispanic men had an advanced degree. A decade later, that gender gap was almost closed. By 2010, women outnumbered men among Hispanics with such degrees. And as of 2021, about 290,000 more Hispanic women than men held a graduate degree. Most Latinos with graduate degrees are U.S. born, but immigrants account for more than a third of the total. Mexicans are the largest group of immigrant Latinos with graduate degrees, numbering about 250,000 in 2021. They are followed by Cubans, Colombians, Venezuelans and Dominicans. Venezuelans are the most highly educated of Latino immigrant origin groups. In 2021, 22% of Venezuelan immigrants ages 25 and older had a graduate degree. An additional 36% of Venezuelans held a bachelor’s degree. Among Latino immigrants with an advanced degree, about 110,00 have a doctorate as their highest level of education (12% of advanced degrees among Latino immigrants) and 200,000 (22%) have a professional degree beyond a bachelor’s. (It’s not clear how many Latino immigrants have earned their degrees outside the U.S.) These doctorate and professional degree shares are slightly higher for immigrants than U.S.-born Latinos with graduate degrees. U.S.-born Latinos who hold doctoral and professional degrees make up 9% and 15%, respectively, of U.S.-born Latinos with advanced degrees. Nearly half of all Hispanics with graduate degrees (48%) live in 10 metro areas. In fact, more than 500,000 Latinos with graduate degrees live in just two metro areas: New York (280,000) and Miami (230,000). Notably, the list of metro areas with the most Latino graduate degree holders differs from the top 10 metro areas by Latino population overall. For example, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., are on the list of top metro areas for Latinos with graduate degrees, but not for Latinos overall. Both cities are hubs for jobs that may require advanced education, such as in technology or policy.

A group of graduates in black and yellow gowns and caps are taking a selfie, with one person holding a smartphone. The setting appears to be outdoors with greenery in the background.

2023-10-03 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/03/key-facts-about-us-latinos-with-graduate-degrees/

['National' 'Other']

[0.95 0.75]

Unlikely

Unlikely

476de2d50a

Pew Research Center

Views of a woman president compared with a man - Pew Research Center

The survey asked whether a woman president would be better, worse, or neither better nor worse than a man when it comes to several leadership traits. For each trait asked about, majorities say that a woman president would be neither better nor worse or that the president’s gender doesn’t matter. For those who do see a gender difference, larger shares say a woman president would be better than say she would be worse than a man. Some 39% say a woman president would be better at working out compromises. A similar share (37%) say a woman would be better at maintaining a respectful tone in politics. About a third say a woman president would be better than a man at being honest and ethical (34%) and standing up for what she believes in, despite political pressure (32%). Some 27% say a woman would be better at working well under pressure. By gender By 11 percentage points or more, women are more likely than men to say that a woman president would be somewhat or a lot better than a man at every leadership trait asked about. There are particularly large differences between the shares of men and women who say a woman president would be better at working out compromises and working well under pressure. Nearly half of women (47%) say a woman president would be better at working out compromises. A notably smaller share of men (30%) say the same. And women are twice as likely as men to say that a woman president would be a lot or somewhat better at working well under pressure (36% vs. 18%). By partisanship Democrats and Democratic leaners are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say a woman president would do a lot or somewhat better than a man at each leadership trait. By 18 percentage points, Democrats are more likely to say a woman president would be better at working out compromises, maintaining a respectful tone in politics,and being honest and ethical. Even though greater shares of Democrats say a woman president would be better at these leadership traits, about one-in-five or more Republicans say a woman president would be better than a man at each of the traits asked about. These shares are larger than the shares of Republicans who say a woman would be worse than a man at most of these traits. Gender differences among Republicans and Democrats Within each party, women are more likely than men to say that a woman president would be a lot or somewhat better than a man at each leadership trait. Among Republicans, differences between men’s and women’s views are especially large when it comes to working out compromises (22% vs. 39%) and working well under pressure (12% vs. 29%). There are also differences of 11 points or more in the shares of Democratic men and women who say a woman president would be better than a man at each of the traits we asked about. On every leadership trait, Democratic women are more than twice as likely as Republican men to say that a woman president would be a lot or somewhat better than presidents who are men. Similar shares of Republican women and Democratic men say a woman president would be better than a man at working out compromises and standing up for what she believes in, despite political pressure. The only trait for which Republican women (29%) are more likely than Democratic men (24%) to say a woman would do better is working well under pressure. How a woman president would compare with presidents who are men in handling several policy areas Half or more of Americans say that, when it comes to handling education, health care, gun policy, economic issues, crime, and national security and defense, a woman president would be neither better nor worse than a man or that the president’s gender doesn’t matter. Among those who do see a gender difference, more say a woman president would be better than say she would be worse than a man at handling most of these policy areas. This is especially the case when it comes to: Education: 46% of U.S. adults say that a woman would handle this somewhat or a lot better than presidents who are men; only 3% say a woman would do worse. Health care: 45% say a woman president would do better than a man in this area, while just 5% say a woman would do worse. By gender Women are more likely than men to say that a woman president would be a lot or somewhat better than a man at handling every key policy area by a difference of 10 percentage points or more. When it comes to economic issues and to national security and defense, about twice the share of women as men say that a woman president would do better than a man. Among both men and women, the policy areas with the largest shares saying a woman president would do better are education and health care. In turn, the policy area with the smallest shares of both men and women saying a woman president would do better is national security and defense. By partisanship For each policy asked about, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that a woman president would do a lot or somewhat better than a man. The difference is widest when it comes to gun policy. Democrats are about three and a half times more likely than Republicans to say a woman president would do better in this area (44% vs. 12%). Gender differences among Republicans and Democrats Among both Republicans and Democrats, women are more likely than men to say that a woman president would do better in all the policy areas asked about. How a woman president would impact the world’s respect for the U.S. The survey asked how having a woman as president would impact how the rest of the world sees the United States. A majority say that

A woman stands behind a podium with the Presidential Seal, addressing an audience with American flags in the background.

2023-09-27 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/09/27/views-of-having-a-woman-president/

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.8 ]

Unlikely

Likely

113e02744b

Pew Research Center

Data on Women Leaders in the U.S. - Pew Research Center

As women’s representation in U.S. politics has grown, 53% of Americans say there are still too few women in high political office in the United States, and many see significant obstacles for women candidates. Our 2023 report on women leaders in politics explores Americans’ views about gender and political leadership, as well as views about the barriers women face. Related: Attitudes toward women in business leadership Below, we’ve charted the most up-to-date data on the share of women in top U.S. political, business and higher education positions over time. U.S. Senate Women in the U.S. Senate, 1965-2023 % of U.S. senators who are women 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Starting date of congressional term Share this chart: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Note: Percentages are the share of women senators at the outset of each term of Congress. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of Congressional Biographical Directory data. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Women in the U.S. Senate, 1965-2023 % of U.S. senators who are women Starting date of congressional term Share of U.S. senators who are women 1965 2% 1967 1% 1969 1% 1971 1% 1973 0% 1975 0% 1977 0% 1979 1% 1981 2% 1983 2% 1985 2% 1987 2% 1989 2% 1991 2% 1993 6% 1995 9% 1997 9% 1999 9% 2001 12% 2003 14% 2005 14% 2007 16% 2009 17% 2011 17% 2013 20% 2015 20% 2017 21% 2019 25% 2021 26% 2023 25% Note: Percentages are the share of women senators at the outset of each term of Congress. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of Congressional Biographical Directory data. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Chart Data Share At the start of the 118th Congress in 2023, there were 25 women serving in the U.S. Senate, just shy of the record 26 women senators sworn in on the first day of the previous Congress. (The count for the previous Congress includes Vice President Kamala Harris and former Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler. Both were sworn in on the first day and left the Senate shortly after.) Of the 25 women senators: 16 are Democrats and nine are Republicans. 22 are White, two are Asian American and one is Hispanic. No Black women currently serve in the Senate, nor do any American Indian or Alaska Native women. The first-ever woman in the Senate was Rebecca Latimer Felton, D-Ga., who was appointed to the seat as a political maneuver in 1922 and served just one day. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan., who served in the Senate from 1978 to 1997, was the first woman senator who was elected for a full term without having a spousal connection to Congress. U.S. House Women in the U.S. House, 1965-2023 % of U.S. representatives who are women 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Starting date of congressional term Share this chart: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Note: Percentages are the share of women representatives at the outset of each term of Congress. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of Congressional Biographical Directory data. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Women in the U.S. House, 1965-2023 % of U.S. representatives who are women Starting date of congressional term Share of U.S. representatives who are women 1965 2.3% 1967 2.5% 1969 2.3% 1971 2.8% 1973 3.2% 1975 4.1% 1977 4.1% 1979 3.7% 1981 4.1% 1983 4.8% 1985 5.1% 1987 5.3% 1989 5.7% 1991 6.4% 1993 10.8% 1995 10.8% 1997 11.7% 1999 12.9% 2001 13.6% 2003 13.6% 2005 14.9% 2007 16.3% 2009 17.0% 2011 16.6% 2013 17.9% 2015 19.3% 2017 19.1% 2019 23.4% 2021 27.3% 2023 28.5% Note: Percentages are the share of women representatives at the outset of each term of Congress. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of Congressional Biographical Directory data. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Chart Data Share On the first day of the 118th Congress, 124 women were voting members in the House of Representatives, making up 28.5% of the chamber’s voting membership. In addition, four women serve as nonvoting delegates to Congress, representing American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of the women voting representatives sworn in on the first day of the session: 91 are Democrats and 33 are Republicans. 26 are Black, 18 are Hispanic, seven are Asian American, two are Native American and one is multiracial. Jeannette Rankin, R-Mont., was the first woman to be elected to Congress, taking office in 1917. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is the only woman to have served as speaker of the House. She was speaker from 2007 to 2011, served as the minority leader in the Republican-controlled House from 2011 to 2019 and was elected speaker again from 2019 to 2023. State legislatures Women in state legislatures, 1971-2023 % of state legislators who are women 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Share this chart: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Source: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Women in state legislatures, 1971-2023 % of state legislators who are women Year Share of state legislators who are women 1971 4.5% 1973 6.4% 1975 8.0% 1977 9.1% 1979 10.3% 1981 12.1% 1983 13.3% 1985 14.8% 1987 15.7% 1989 17.0% 1991 18.3% 1993 20.5% 1995 20.6% 1997 21.6% 1998 21.8% 1999 22.4% 2000 22.5% 2001 22.4% 2002 22.7% 2003 22.4% 2004 22.5% 2005 22.7% 2006 22.8% 2007 23.5% 2008 23.7% 2009 24.3% 2010 24.5% 2011 23.7% 2012 23.7% 2013 24.2% 2014 24.3% 2015 24.3% 2016 24.4% 2017 25.0% 2018 25.4% 2019 28.9% 2020 29.3% 2021 30.8% 2022 31.00% 2023 32.70% Source: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Chart Data Share Women make up 29.9% of state senate seats and 33.7% of state house or assembly seats. Three women serve as state senate president, and another 13 as senate presidents pro tempore. An additional eight are speakers of state houses. In 2019, Nevada became the first state with a majority-women state legislature. Women currently hold a 62% majority of the Nevada state

The image shows two stylized figures, one in white and one in black, with the white figure holding a flag. The background is a solid light blue color. The Pew Research Center logo is at the bottom left corner.

NaT

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/fact-sheet/the-data-on-women-leaders/

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.6 ]

Likely

Unlikely

4351365125

Pew Research Center

Views of American politics, polarization and tone of political debate - Pew Research Center

In many ways, Americans’ emotions toward politics today are as negative as their evaluations of the country’s political system. Majorities say they always or often feel exhausted (65%) and angry (55%) when thinking about politics these days, while relatively few report feeling hopeful (10%) or excited (4%) with this much frequency. Despite the public’s weariness with politics, most Americans still believe voting can make a difference. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) say voting can have at least some effect on the country’s future, though just 20% say it can affect it a lot. And more people say voting can bring about positive change than say that about volunteering for an organization or political group, donating to charity or a political campaign, or running for office. Politics in a single word or phrase: An outpouring of negative sentiments When asked to describe politics in the United States these days in a single word or phrase, an overwhelming majority of Americans (79%) express a negative sentiment. Just 2% offer a positive word or phrase, while 10% say something neutral. The word “divisive” (and variations such as “dividing”) appears most frequently among the responses, with 8% saying this. An additional 2% use the related term “polarized.” Second-most frequent is “corrupt” (chosen by 6% of respondents), consistent with the views many Americans express elsewhere in the survey that politicians are looking out only for their own interests. Other common words include those that suggest that politics today just doesn’t work, with “messy,” “chaos,” “broken” and “dysfunctional” each among the top 15 words. And many respondents are even more negative in their views: “terrible,” “disgusting,” “disgrace” and the phrase “dumpster fire” each are cited by at least 1% of survey respondents. Negative emotions prevail when Americans think about politics Nearly two-thirds of adults (65%) say they always or often feel exhausted when they think about politics these days. Another 25% sometimes feel exhausted, while 9% rarely or never feel this way. A majority (55%) also always or often feels angry when thinking about politics; just 11% say they rarely or never feel this way. A much smaller share of the public reports frequently feeling positive emotions when thinking about politics: One-in-ten always or often feel hopeful, and just 4% feel excited about this frequently. A majority of adults (56%) say they rarely or never feel hopeful, and 78% rarely or never feel excited when thinking about politics these days. The most politically engaged are the most exhausted and angry Those who have the highest levels of engagement with politics are also the most likely to report exhaustion and anger when they think about politics these days. Among highly politically engaged adults, 72% report feeling exhausted by politics always or often. The shares who say this decline as political engagement decreases: 68% of adults with a medium level of engagement and 56% of those with a low level of engagement feel exhausted always or often. A similar pattern holds for anger: 69% of highly engaged adults say they always or often feel angry when thinking about politics, compared with 55% of those with a medium level of engagement and 43% of those with a low level of engagement. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are slightly more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to say they always or often feel angry when thinking about politics these days. But in both parties highly engaged adults are more likely to feel negative than those who are less engaged. For example, highly politically engaged Republicans are 24 percentage points more likely than Republicans with a low level of engagement to always or often feel angry about politics (72% vs. 48%). And highly engaged Democrats are 23 points more likely to say this than Democrats with a low level of political engagement (65% vs. 42%). Americans say the tone of political debate in the country has worsened The public feels that the tone and nature of political debate has become less respectful and fact-based over the last several years. An overwhelming 84% majority of adults say political debate has become less respectful over the last several years, while only 4% say it has become more respectful. About one-in-ten (12%) say it hasn’t changed. Similarly, 78% say political debate has become less fact-based over the last several years, while only 5% say it has become more fact-based. Just 16% say it has not changed much. Large majorities of adults in all political and demographic groups say that the tone and nature of political debate has become less respectful and fact-based in recent years. Public evaluations today are nearly identical to views four years ago. Which political topics get too much – and too little – attention? Large majorities of Americans say several political topics receive too little attention: 78% say there is too little attention to important issues facing the country; 66% say the same about the policies that local elected officials are working on; 64% say policies that federal officials are working on get too little attention. By contrast, a majority of Americans (57%) say disagreements between Republicans and Democrats receive too much attention. With a little more than a year before the 2024 presidential election, 39% say the campaign has gotten too much attention, while nearly as many say it has gotten the right amount of attention. About one-in-five (22%) say next year’s election has received too little attention. Republicans and Democrats hold very similar views about whether too much or too little attention is paid to each of these topics. For example, 81% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats (including those who lean to each party) say that too little attention is paid to important issues facing the country. And more than six-in-ten in both parties say too little attention is being paid to the policies elected officials in both their local area and in Washington, D.C., are working on. Similar majorities in both parties say that too much attention is given to disagreements between the parties (59% of Republicans and 55%

The image depicts a group of people standing in the shape of the United States, with a political figure at a podium, a dollar bill, and a polling place sign with voting hours.

2023-09-19 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-feelings-about-politics-polarization-and-the-tone-of-political-discourse/

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Unlikely

Likely

136e29e160

Pew Research Center

Do political parties represent interests of people? Could a third party or independent candidate help? - Pew Research Center

The Democratic and Republican parties are both viewed unfavorably by majorities of Americans. And while most adults say they feel at least somewhat well-represented by at least one of the two parties, a quarter (25%) say neither party represents the interests of people like them even somewhat well. Reflecting dissatisfaction with the major parties, even among some loyal partisans, many Americans continue to be open to the possibility of having more political parties. Younger adults and those with loose partisan attachments are particularly likely to express a desire for more parties. Among all U.S. adults, 37% say “I wish there were more political parties to choose from” describes their views extremely or very well; another 31% say it describes their feelings somewhat well. Additional parties, however, are not seen as a promising fix for the country’s gridlock. Only about a quarter of Americans (26%) say having more than two major parties would make it easier to solve the country’s problems. A nearly identical share (24%) say it would make this harder. And just a third think it is likely an independent candidate will win the White House in the next 25 years; 66% view this possibility as very or somewhat unlikely. How different are the Republican and Democratic parties? A narrow majority of Americans (54%) say there is a great deal of difference between what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for. Another 35% say there is a fair amount of difference in their values, while just 10% say there is hardly any difference between the two parties. The share seeing a great deal of difference between the parties hasn’t changed much in recent years, but Americans remain more likely to see major differences between the parties than they were a few decades ago. These views continue to vary by age, political engagement and the strength of a person’s ties to a party. Age Among adults ages 18 to 29, fewer than half (41%) say there is a great deal of difference in what the parties stand for. Older age groups are more likely to see big differences between the parties, with those 65 and older most likely to say this. Level of political engagement Two-thirds of the most politically engaged Americans think there is a great deal of difference between the parties. Slightly more than half of those with medium engagement (54%) and 42% of those with low engagement say the same. Political engagement is based on people’s interest in politics, as well as how often they follow government and public affairs and discuss politics. Strength of partisanship Nearly three-quarters of strong Republicans (73%) and 72% of strong Democrats say there is a great deal of difference between the parties, compared with smaller shares of those who affiliate with a party, but not strongly, and those who lean to a party. Views of how well the parties represent people’s interests Large shares of Americans who identify with the Republican or Democratic Party say they feel well-represented – though relatively few feel very well-represented. Those who only lean toward a party, by contrast, tend to be more skeptical of how well their party represents them. 71% of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say their party represents their interests very or somewhat well. Those who affiliate with the Republican Party are more likely to express this view (82%) than those who lean toward the GOP (55%). There are similar differences between Democrats and Democratic leaners. More than eight-in-ten Democrats (85%) say they feel well-represented, compared with 58% of Democratic-leaning independents. Most Americans feel represented by at least one of the parties Among all U.S. adults, roughly a third say they feel well-represented by the Democratic Party, but not the Republican Party; about as many (30%) feel represented by the Republican Party but not the Democratic Party. A quarter (25%) say neither party represents them well, while 9% feel well-represented by both parties. About four-in-ten independents and those who identify with other parties (41%) say neither major party represents people like them well. Identical shares of independents who lean toward the GOP and the Democratic Party (38% each) say neither party represents them well. Demographic differences in people’s views of which party, if any, represents them well Americans’ views of how well the Republican and Democratic parties represent the interests of people like them vary across race, ethnicity, age, education and community type. These patterns largely mirror groups’ party identification and voting patterns. More Republican-oriented demographic groups, such as older people, White adults and rural residents, are more likely to say the Republican Party, rather than Democratic Party, represents them well. The reverse is true for Democratic-oriented groups, such as Black, Hispanic and Asian adults, as well as people with a postgraduate degree. While three-in-ten adults under age 50 say neither party represents them well, a smaller share of people 50 and older (20%) say this. What if there were more political parties? Independents and those who identify with other parties are more supportive of the idea of having more parties to choose from. Nearly half of all independents (47%) say they wish for more parties. However, a larger share of independents who lean toward the Democratic Party say this than among those who lean toward the Republican Party (56% vs. 43%, respectively). People who identify as Democrats also are more interested than Republican identifiers in having additional parties. Democratic identifiers are 10 percentage points more likely than GOP identifiers to say that wishing for more parties describes their views extremely or very well (35% vs. 25%). Republicans and Democrats (including leaners) ages 18 to 49 are about 20 points more likely than older members of their parties to say they wish there were more political parties to choose from in this country. About half of Democrats under age 50 (51%) say this, as do 42% of their Republican peers. By comparison, 31% of Democrats and 23% of Republicans 50 and older say the same. Would more parties make solving problems easier

The image depicts a diverse group of people standing in the shape of the United States, with a political figure speaking at a podium, a dollar bill, and a polling place sign with voting hours.

2023-09-19 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-well-the-major-parties-represent-americans-the-publics-feelings-about-more-political-parties/

['Politics']

[0.95]

Unlikely

Likely

ca742306ae

Pew Research Center

2. Views of the U.S. political system, the federal government and federal-state relations - Pew Research Center

In evaluating the current and future state of politics in the United States, Americans express largely negative views. And trust in the federal government, which has been low for nearly two decades, hovers near record lows. Only 4% of Americans now say the political system is working extremely or very well, with nearly three-quarters saying it isn’t. A majority (63%) say they have little or no confidence in the future of the U.S. political system. Views of Congress, the Supreme Court and the political parties also remain deeply – and in some cases, historically – negative. Meanwhile, there are wide partisan differences in views of several aspects of federal-state relations. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they are very or extremely concerned that a person’s rights and protections might vary depending on which state they are in. By contrast, a much larger share of Republicans than Democrats express concern that the federal government is doing too much on issues better left to state governments. Evaluations of the political system Only 4% of the public says the political system in the U.S. is working extremely or very well today, while 23% say it is working somewhat well. About seven-in-ten (72%) say the system is working not too (45%) or not at all (27%) well. Looking to the future of the system, about six-in-ten Americans (63%) say they have not too much or no confidence at all. A third say they have some confidence, and just 4% express a lot of confidence. Age Younger adults are somewhat more likely than older adults to say the political system is working well: 35% of adults under age 30 say the system is working at least somewhat well, compared with 29% of those 30 to 49 and 24% of those 50 and older. But older people are more likely to express confidence when it comes to the future of the U.S. political system. About four-in-ten adults 65 and older (43%) say they have at least some confidence in the future of the political system. That drops to three-in-ten among adults under 30. Party Republicans are more likely than Democrats to express negative views of the political system. Roughly eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (81%) say the political system is working not too or not at all well, including more than a third (37%) who say it is working not at all well. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 64% say the political system is working either not too or not at all well, with 19% saying it is not working well at all. Older Republicans are particularly likely to say the system is not working well: 88% of Republicans 50 and older say this, compared with 77% of those 30 to 49 and 61% of those under 30. Democrats do not differ by age on this question. Republicans also express less confidence in the future of the U.S. political system: 68% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats say they have not too much or no confidence at all in its future. While Republicans of all age groups are about equally likely to have confidence in the political system’s future (31% have a lot of or some confidence), older Democrats are more likely to say this than younger Democrats. A majority of Democrats 50 and older (54%) say they have at least some confidence, compared with 37% of those under 50. Trust in the federal government Just 16% of Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time. While public trust in government has been low for nearly two decades, the current measure is among the lowest in more than 70 years of polling. Trust in the federal government is down 4 percentage points from last year and was somewhat higher in 2020 and 2021. The current measure is on par with public views in 2019. For more on trust in the federal government over the last 70 years, please visit our trust interactive. Trust in government by party As in the past, trust in government is higher among those whose party holds the presidency. Today, a quarter of Democrats say they trust the government to do what is right at least most of the time, compared with just 8% of Republicans. Democrats’ trust in government is now substantially higher than it was during the Trump administration but is down 8 points from the spring of 2021. In contrast, Republicans’ trust in government dropped between 2020 and 2021 but has changed little over the last few years. Republicans’ current level of trust in the federal government is among the lowest since the question was first asked in the 1950s. Prior to Joe Biden’s presidency, GOP trust in government had only hit similar lows during the Obama administration. Feelings toward the federal government As has been the case for more than a decade, a majority of Americans (59%) say they feel frustrated toward the federal government. About two-in-ten (21%) say they feel angry toward the government, while 18% say they are basically content. These views have changed only modestly in recent years. A slightly higher share express anger today than did so last year and the year before. Anger is now slightly lower than it was in the summer of 2020. Feelings about the federal government by party The share of Democrats and Democratic leaners saying they are basically content with the government is similar to the share who said the same a year ago (27% today, 29% then). In 2021, Democrats were 16 percentage points more likely to say they felt content toward the government. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (64%) express frustration toward the government, a share unchanged in the last year but 12 points higher than in 2021. The share of Democrats who say they are angry remains low – 9% say this today – but is up 5 points since 2021. About a third of Republicans and Republican leaners (35%)

The image depicts a group of people standing in the shape of the United States, with a political figure speaking at a podium, a dollar bill, and a 'Polling Place Vote Here' sign, all set against a cloudy sky.

2023-09-19 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/views-of-the-u-s-political-system-the-federal-government-and-federal-state-relations/

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial' 'National']

[0.95 0.75 0.65]

Unlikely

Likely

610534f223

Pew Research Center

What people think about Congress, the president, their state governor and local leaders - Pew Research Center

While trust in the federal government hovers near a historic low, public views of Congress, the Supreme Court and the president also are quite negative. However, people’s ratings of the job performance of their own congressional representative – in contrast with views of Congress as a whole – are more positive than negative. Their assessments of their state’s governor also are positive, on balance. Yet both Democrats and Republicans are far more positive about both their governor and their member of Congress when that person shares their partisanship. By more than two-to-one (56% to 26%), Americans say their local elected officials are doing a good job. Views of the branches of the federal government Congress About seven-in-ten Americans (72%) say they have an unfavorable view of Congress, with 26% saying they have a favorable view. While public views of Congress have been more negative than positive for over a decade, the share of Americans giving Congress an unfavorable rating is now among the highest in nearly four decades of polling. Throughout much of the 1980s, ’90s and early 2000s, Congress was viewed more favorably than unfavorably. Views were more evenly split in the late 2000s and began to shift in a negative direction over the next several years. Views of Congress by party There is no partisan gap in ratings of Congress today, with 26% of both Republicans and Democrats expressing a favorable view of Congress. Partisans’ ratings of Congress often shift as control of the two chambers shifts. For instance, Democratic favorability of Congress was higher in 2021 and 2022, when the party held control of both the House and Senate. Conversely, Republican favorability of Congress is now slightly higher than it was in 2022, prior to the GOP taking control of the House. But it remains lower than it was in 2017 and 2018 (when Republicans last held control of both chambers). House and Senate rated similarly by the public, but partisan gaps reflect chamber control The House of Representatives and the Senate are both viewed somewhat more positively than “Congress”: About a third of Americans view each chamber positively, while 26% say the same of Congress. This reflects that both Republicans and Democrats feel somewhat more positive about the chamber their party controls than about “Congress.” For example, while the share of Republicans expressing a positive view of the Senate is identical to the 26% who say this about Congress, 38% of Republicans say they have a favorable view of the House. Democrats rate both chambers more positively than “Congress.” Still, the pattern is similar, with the Democratic-controlled Senate viewed more positively than the GOP-controlled House (39% vs. 30%). Supreme Court Views of the Supreme Court are at their most negative point in more than three decades, with 54% of Americans now saying they have an unfavorable view of the court. The court’s favorable rating has declined 26 percentage points since 2020, primarily driven by a decline in the share of Democrats and Democratic leaners rating the court favorably. Views of the president President Joe Biden’s approval rating has hovered below 40% for the last few years, and ratings for his immediate predecessor – Donald Trump – were similarly more negative than positive. Presidents in prior decades tended to have higher approval ratings. This is, in part, reflective of the rising partisan divide in presidential job approval, which has grown steadily in the past few decades – mostly a result of people in the “out party” becoming less likely to approve of the president. Through 2022, an average of 82% of Democrats approved of how Biden had handled his job as president, while just 7% of Republicans did. These views are about the reverse of Trump’s approval over his time in office. In contrast, during George W. Bush’s presidency, an average of 23% of Democrats approved of his job performance, and during Bill Clinton’s presidency an average of 27% of Republicans approved of Clinton. Americans’ ratings of their House member, governor and local officials Overall, Americans rate the performance of their own elected officials more positively than negatively. A 56% majority of U.S. adults say their local elected officials are doing a good job, while fewer than half as many (26%) say they are doing a bad job. About two-in-ten (19%) say they are not sure. Roughly half of the public (51%) says their state’s governor is doing a good job, while 37% say the governor is going a bad job. Around one-in-ten (12%) say they aren’t sure about their governor’s job performance. Americans are less likely to offer an opinion of the member of Congress who represents their district, with about a third (32%) declining to do so. But ratings of these officials also are more positive (41% good job) than negative (27% bad job). Ratings of House member, by party Just as Americans are more approving of the president when they share the president’s party, they are also more likely to say their other elected leaders are doing a good job when they are of the same party. This pattern is evident in Americans’ views of members of the House of Representatives and is even more pronounced in views of governors. Overall, similar shares of Republicans (44%) and Democrats (41%) say their district’s House member is doing a good job. However, Republicans in House districts represented by a Republican are far more likely to approve of the job performance of their representatives (52% good job) than are Republicans who live in places with Democratic House members (30% good job). Similarly, about half of Democrats who live in a district represented by a Democrat (49%) say their House member is doing a good job, while just 29% of Democrats who are represented by a Republican say the same. Ratings of governors, by party The partisan gap in views of state governors is even wider. Nearly three-quarters of both Democrats and Republicans who are represented by a governor who shares their partisanship say that governor does a

The image depicts a group of people standing in the shape of the United States, with a cloud above them containing symbols of American politics such as the Capitol building, a dollar bill, and the Presidential Seal. A sign in the cloud reads 'POLLING PLACE VOTE HERE! 6 AM to 7 PM TODAY'. The sky is cloudy, and the overall tone is one of civic engagement and democratic participation.

2023-09-19 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-americans-view-congress-the-president-state-and-local-political-leaders/

['Politics']

[0.95]

Unlikely

Likely

bac38514d0

Pew Research Center

Views of the Republican Party and Democratic Party - Pew Research Center

The U.S. public’s views of both the Republican and Democratic parties are more unfavorable than favorable, with a record number of Americans (28%) now expressing unfavorable views of both parties. Yet most Republicans and Democrats characterize their own party in positive terms, saying that it respects democracy and governs honestly and ethically. And most say their own party generally has good ideas. Party favorability ratings About six-in-ten Americans (61%) say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, and a nearly identical share (60%) rate the Democratic Party unfavorably. For close to two decades, views of the Republican Party have been consistently more unfavorable than favorable, with little shift in the last few years. But current evaluations are among the most negative in nearly three decades of Pew Research Center polling – and throughout the mid-1990s and early 2000s, the GOP was seen more favorably than not by the public. The negative turn in evaluations of the Democratic Party is more recent than for the Republican Party, with public views more mixed for much of the last decade and a half – and in positive territory for most of the mid-1990s through 2000s. In recent years, views of the Democratic Party have been more unfavorable than favorable and are now at their most negative point in the last three decades. For 28% of Americans, both major parties get negative marks Nearly a third of Americans (28%) report holding negative views of both the Republican and Democratic parties. This is little changed since last year, but it is up considerably from a few years ago and is higher than at any other point in our nearly 30 years of polling. Adults under 50 and political independents are more likely than others to have unfavorable views of both parties About a third of adults ages 18 to 49 (35%) have unfavorable views of both of the major parties. This drops in older age groups: 24% of those 50 to 64 and an even smaller share (16%) of those 65 and older hold this combination of negative views. Nearly half of those who identify as politically independent or with something other than the Democratic or Republican Party (46%) view both parties negatively. Within this group, similar shares of those who lean Democratic (43%) and those who lean Republican (45%) rate both parties unfavorably. (Republican leaners who rate only one party positively overwhelmingly tilt to the GOP, while the reverse is true among Democratic leaners.) Those who consider themselves Democrats or Republicans are much less likely to rate both parties negatively, with about eight-in-ten partisan identifiers viewing their own party positively. By contrast, independents and others who lean to a party have consistently been less likely to view that party positively. Most characterize their party positively Most Americans characterize the party they identify with or lean toward in positive terms, viewing it as respectful of democracy, governing honestly and tolerant of different kinds of people. Far fewer say these traits characterize the other party. Large majorities in both partisan coalitions say “respects the country’s democratic institutions and traditions” describes their party very or somewhat well (79% of Republicans and Republican leaners and 82% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say this). Majorities also say their party is “respectful and tolerant of different types of people,” though Democrats (83%) are more likely than Republicans (72%) to say this characteristic applies to their own party. About seven-in-ten in both parties say their party “governs in an honest and ethical way” (71% of Democrats, 68% of Republicans). Sizable minorities see flaws in their party: 48% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats say their party “too often makes excuses for members with hateful views,” and about four-in-ten in both coalitions say their party “supports policies that interfere too much in people’s lives (41% of Republicans, 40% of Democrats). Still, even larger shares (at least two-thirds) say these negative attributes describe the other party. Quality of the parties’ ideas Clear majorities of Republicans and Democrats say their parties have at least some good ideas, while fewer than a quarter say the other party has some good ideas. Within each partisan coalition, independents who lean toward the party are much less likely than those who identify with the party to say it has good ideas. About six-in-ten leaners in each party say the party has at least some good ideas, compared with more than eight-in-ten Republican and Democratic identifiers who say this. Overall, most Americans (74%) say at least one of the two parties has some or a lot of good ideas, while 25% say that neither party does. Independents and others who don’t identify with the major parties are particularly likely to say that neither party has good ideas: 39% say this, including similar shares of Republican-leaning independents (35%) and Democratic-leaning independents (36%). In contrast, just 15% of Republican and 12% of Democratic identifiers say neither party has good ideas.

The image depicts a large group of people in the shape of the United States, with a blurred face, a dollar bill, a podium with the seal of the President of the United States, and a sign that says 'POLLING PLACE VOTE HERE! 6 AM to 7 PM TODAY'. The background is a cloudy sky.

2023-09-19 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/the-republican-and-democratic-parties/

['Politics']

[0.95]

Likely

Likely

8f03b16530

Pew Research Center

Government shutdown? Congress’ history of spending bill delays - Pew Research Center

The new federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, and Congress hasn’t passed any of the dozen appropriations bills it’s supposed to enact every year. Nor has it passed a stopgap spending law to buy itself more time. That raises the prospect of yet another forced shutdown of large chunks of the federal government – which, if it happens, would be the fourth in the past decade. How we did this With the federal government once again staring at a funding gap, we decided to update our historical look at the federal budgeting and appropriations process – and Congress’ chronic difficulties in adhering to its own rules. For this analysis, we used Congress.gov, an official online repository of legislation and legislative data. We identified every appropriations bill enacted since 1976, when the new process laid out in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act (CBA), began to take effect. We coded each of these laws as a regular, continuing or supplemental appropriation. We also noted which appropriations area or areas each measure covered, as well as the date it became law, so we could compare it against the deadlines laid out in the CBA. Similarly, we identified all budget resolutions agreed to since 1975 and when they passed relative to the CBA deadlines. For explanations of how the budget and appropriations process is supposed to work, we relied primarily on a series of reports by the Congressional Research Service. We used historical spending data published by the Office of Management and Budget to calculate mandatory and discretionary spending shares. Congress’ chronic inability to follow its own appropriations process is hardly new. In fact, in the nearly five decades that the current system for budgeting and spending tax dollars has been in place, Congress has passed all its required appropriations measures on time only four times: fiscal 1977 (the first full fiscal year under the current system), 1989, 1995 and 1997. And even those last three times, Congress was late in passing the budget blueprint that, in theory at least, precedes the actual spending bills. In short, the typical appropriations process isn’t the orderly one laid out in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. Instead, it’s a hodgepodge of late budget blueprints, temporary spending measures to keep the government running, and sprawling omnibus appropriations packages that often are passed in the waning days before one Congress ends and the next one begins. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. First step: The budget resolution Timetable of the congressional budget process (in law, if not always in practice) First Monday in February: President submits proposed budget. Feb. 15: Congressional Budget Office submits report on economic and fiscal outlook to the House and Senate budget committees. Six weeks after president submits budget: Other House and Senate committees submit their views and estimates to the budget committees. April 1: Senate Budget Committee reports concurrent resolution on the budget. April 15: House and Senate agree to a concurrent resolution on the budget. May 15: Annual appropriations bills may be considered in the House. June 10: House Appropriations Committee reports its last annual appropriations bill. June 15: Congress completes action on reconciliation legislation. June 30: House completes action on all annual appropriations bills. Oct. 1: Fiscal year begins; all annual appropriations bills enacted by this date. Source: Adapted from “Introduction to the Federal Budget Process,” report #R46240, Congressional Research Service. Once the president submits a budget proposal – which is supposed to happen (but often doesn’t) by the first Monday in February – the House and Senate start work on a budget resolution. This is a concurrent resolution, agreed to by both chambers but not presented to the president. While it doesn’t have the force of law, the budget resolution serves as an overall revenue and spending plan for the coming fiscal year. It guides lawmakers as they assemble the detailed appropriations bills. But even this initial step has often proven problematic. Although the Congressional Budget Act sets an April 15 target date for the budget resolution, Congress has seldom met that deadline. The budget resolution, in fact, has been late for 30 of the past 49 fiscal years, counting fiscal 2024. The resolution for fiscal 2021 was delayed the longest. It didn’t pass until February 2021 – more than five months into the fiscal year, and only two months before the next year’s resolution was due (that one was late too). Increasingly, Congress effectively punts on the budget resolution. In nine of the past 15 years, the House and Senate have instead adopted a variety of legislative substitutes called deeming resolutions. A deeming resolution is used when the two chambers can’t agree on a budget resolution, and typically only binds each chamber’s own appropriators. Born in disagreement, they often foreshadow future spending conflicts between the two chambers. (For the upcoming fiscal year, provisions in this summer’s debt-ceiling deal effectively serve as a budget resolution, although House appropriators are pushing to spend billions less than that deal authorizes.) Next step: The appropriations bills After a budget resolution is adopted, Congress is supposed to pass a series of separate bills funding various federal agencies and activities. For more than a decade, the number of spending bills has stood at 12, one for each pair of subcommittees on the House and Senate appropriations committees. The deadline for doing that is Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year starts. But that hasn’t actually happened since 1996, when the final three appropriations bills for fiscal 1997 (one of them a six-bill omnibus package) became law on Sept. 30, the day before the new fiscal year began. Since then, Congress has never passed more than five of its 12 regular appropriations bills on time. Usually, it’s done considerably less than that: In 11 of the past 13 fiscal years, for instance, lawmakers have not passed a single spending bill by Oct. 1. Instead, Congress regularly buys itself extra time by relying on continuing resolutions (CRs). Continuing resolutions typically extend funding levels from the prior

A bar chart showing the percentage of stand-alone appropriations bills enacted by the October 1 deadline each fiscal year, as of September 13, 2023. The years displayed are 1977, 1987, 1997, 2007, 2017, and 2023.

2023-09-13 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/congress-has-long-struggled-to-pass-spending-bills-on-time/

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

cb902c9cdb

Pew Research Center

Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power - Pew Research Center

Diablo Canyon, the only operational nuclear power plant left in California, is seeking to extend operations past its scheduled decommissioning in 2025. (George Rose/Getty Images) As the first new U.S. nuclear power reactor since 2016 begins operations, more Americans now say they favor expanding nuclear power in the United States than a few years ago, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. How we did this To measure public attitudes in the United States toward the use of nuclear power, we analyzed data from a survey of 10,329 U.S. adults conducted from May 30 to June 4, 2023. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology. Here are the questions used for the analysis, along with responses, and its methodology. This post also incorporates findings from a Center survey of 10,701 U.S. adults conducted March 13-19, 2023. Here are the questions used in that survey, along with responses, and its methodology. We tracked the number of U.S. nuclear power reactors over time by analyzing data from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Power Reactor Information System. The IAEA classifies a reactor as “operational” from the date of its first electrical grid connection to the date of its permanent shutdown. Reactors that face temporary outages are still categorized as operational. Annual totals exclude reactors that closed that year. A majority of Americans (57%) say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity in the country, up from 43% who said this in 2020. Americans are still far more likely to say they favor more solar power (82%) and wind power (75%) than nuclear power. All three energy sources emit no carbon. Advocates for nuclear power argue it could play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions from electricity generation. Critics highlight the high cost of nuclear power plant projects and the complexities of handling radioactive waste. Support for nuclear power has increased among both parties since 2020. Half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now say they favor expanding nuclear power, an increase from 37% in 2020. And two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners now favor more nuclear power, up 14 percentage points since 2020, when 53% said they support more nuclear power. When asked about the federal government’s role, 41% of Americans say it should encourage the production of nuclear power. Some 22% think the federal government should discourage the production of nuclear power, and 36% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it. The share of Americans who think the federal government should encourage nuclear power production is up 6 points from last year. Still, a far larger share of Americans think the federal government should encourage the production of wind and solar power (66%). Gender, partisan differences in views of nuclear power Attitudes on nuclear power production have long differed by gender and party affiliation. Men are about twice as likely as women to say the federal government should encourage the production of nuclear power (54% vs. 28%). Similarly, men are far more likely than women to favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity (71% vs. 44%). Views differ by gender globally, too, according to a Center survey conducted from fall 2019 to spring 2020. In 18 of the 20 survey publics, men were more likely than women to favor using more nuclear power as a source of domestic energy. In the U.S., Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor more nuclear power and to say the federal government should encourage its production. Two-thirds of Republicans say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, compared with half of Democrats. Republicans have supported nuclear power expansion in greater shares than Democrats each time this question has been asked since 2016. The 17-point partisan difference on nuclear power is smaller than those for other energy sources, including fossil fuel sources such as offshore oil and gas drilling (48 points) and coal mining (47 points). A look at U.S. nuclear power reactors The U.S. currently has 93 nuclear power reactors, plus one that’s under construction in Georgia. These reactors collectively generated 18.2% of all U.S. electricity in 2022, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Half (47) of the United States’ nuclear power reactors are in the South, while about a quarter (22) are in the Midwest. There are 18 reactors in the Northeast and six in the West, according to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The number of U.S. reactors has steadily fallen since peaking at 111 in 1990. Nine Mile Point-1, located in Scriba, New York, is the oldest U.S. nuclear power reactor still in operation. It was first connected to the power grid in November 1969. Most of the 93 current reactors began operations in the 1970s (41 reactors) or 1980s (44), according to data from the IAEA. (The IAEA classifies reactors as “operational” from their first electrical grid connection to their date of permanent shutdown.) One of the many reasons nuclear power projects have dwindled in recent decades may be perceived dangers following nuclear accidents in the U.S. and abroad. For example, the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident led the Japanese government to greatly decrease its reliance on nuclear power and prompted other countries to rethink their nuclear energy plans. More recently, Russian military attacks in Ukraine have raised fears of nuclear power plant accidents in the area. Note: Here are the questions used for the analysis, along with responses, and its methodology. This is an update of a post first published March 23, 2022.

An aerial view of a nuclear power plant with a large cooling pool, surrounded by hills and the ocean in the background.

2023-08-18 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/

['Politics' 'National']

[0.8 0.7]

Unlikely

Unlikely

f9f0e9964f

Pew Research Center

Majorities of Americans Prioritize Renewable Energy, Back Steps to Address Climate Change - Pew Research Center

But many foresee problems ahead with transition to renewables and oppose breaking from fossil fuels altogether Wind turbines, a key power source for the Coachella Valley, operate near Palm Springs, California. (Mario Tama/Getty Images) How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ views of climate, energy and environmental issues. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,329 U.S. adults from May 30 to June 4, 2023. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology. Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology. A new Pew Research Center survey finds large shares of Americans support the United States taking steps to address global climate change and back an energy landscape that prioritizes renewable sources like wind and solar. At the same time, the findings illustrate ongoing public reluctance to make sweeping changes to American life to cut carbon emissions. Most Americans oppose ending the production of gas-powered vehicles by 2035 and there’s limited support for steps like eliminating gas lines from new buildings. This report comes about a year after the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act introduced policies and incentives meant to dramatically reduce the country’s reliance on fossil fuels, a signature part of the Biden administration’s efforts on climate change. The survey takes stock of how Americans feel about related questions on climate, energy and environmental policy, including proposed changes to how Americans power their homes and cars and what to do about the impacts communities face from extreme weather. The Pew Research Center survey of 10,329 U.S. adults conducted May 30 to June 4, 2023, finds: 74% of Americans say they support the country’s participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. 67% of U.S. adults prioritize the development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen power over increasing the production of fossil fuel energy sources. By sizable margins, Americans support a number of specific policy proposals aimed at reducing the effects of climate change through targeting greenhouse gas emissions and carbon in the atmosphere: Overwhelming majorities support planting about a trillion trees around the world to absorb carbon emissions (89%) and requiring oil and gas companies to seal methane gas leaks from oil wells (85%). 76% favor providing a tax credit to businesses that develop carbon capture technologies and 70% support taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions. 61% favor requiring power plants to eliminate all carbon emissions by the year 2040. Still, there are limits to public support for major changes to the way homes, cars and the electrical grid are powered. Only 31% of Americans currently support phasing out the use of fossil fuel energy sources altogether. Another 32% say the U.S. should eventually stop using fossil fuels, but don’t believe the country is ready now. And 35% think the U.S. should never stop using fossil fuels to meet its energy needs. Less than half of the public (40%) favors phasing out the production of gas-powered cars and trucks. Support for this policy is 7 percentage points lower than it was two years ago. And underscoring the strong feelings big changes to American life can engender, 45% say they would feel upset if gas-powered cars were phased out; fewer than half as many (21%) would feel excited. When it comes to the construction of new buildings, slightly more Americans oppose (51%) than favor (46%) requiring most new buildings to run only on electricity, with no gas lines, a recent flashpoint in state legislatures and national climate conversations. Republicans and Democrats continue to offer competing visions on climate and energy issues. Deep Republican skepticism toward a renewable energy transition is a major factor behind much of the overall public’s reluctance to make a sharp break from fossil fuels. But views within both party coalitions defy simple categorization. And some of the most far-reaching policies aimed at addressing climate change and carbon emissions garner a less-than-enthusiastic response from Democrats, as well as outright opposition from Republicans. A closer look at the two major party coalitions on climate and energy issues Key views among Republicans 73% say they would be upset if gas-powered vehicles were phased out. 58% say expanding oil, coal and natural gas production should be the country’s energy priority. And yet ... 67% favor a business tax credit for developing carbon capture technologies. 70% support more solar panel farms and 60% favor more wind farms. Within the GOP ... There are sizable differences in views on climate and energy between moderates and conservatives. Those under 30 express the least support for fossil fuel energy sources. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents prioritize oil, coal and natural gas development over renewable energy sources and have deep concerns (especially around prices) about what a transition to renewable energy would mean for the country. Some proposed changes, like phasing out new gas-power vehicles provoke a strong negative response: 73% of Republicans say they would be upset by this. And stacked up against other national issues, climate change consistently ranks as a low priority for Republicans. But these attitudes do not preclude Republican support for climate policies and renewable energy altogether. Two-thirds favor a business tax credit for the development of carbon capture technologies and majorities support more solar panel and wind farms, when these energy sources are not placed in competition with fossil fuel development. Within the GOP, moderates and young Republicans often offer the most support for action on climate change and a shift toward renewable energy, though they make up a relatively smaller share of all Republicans and GOP leaners compared with conservatives and older Republicans. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly back the

An image of a wind farm with a sign for Wendy's and Pilot in the foreground, with a background of wind turbines and a mountainous landscape.

2023-06-28 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/majorities-of-americans-prioritize-renewable-energy-back-steps-to-address-climate-change/

['National' 'Weather and Environment']

[0.85 0.75]

Unlikely

Likely

a50e4cc4f1

Pew Research Center

2. Expert essays on the expected impact of digital change by 2035 - Pew Research Center

Most respondents to this canvassing wrote brief reactions to this research question. However, a number of them wrote multilayered responses in a longer essay format. This essay section of the report is quite lengthy, so first we offer a sampler of a some of these essayists’ comments. Liza Loop observed, “Humans evolved both physically and psychologically as prey animals eking out a living from an inadequate supply of resources. ... The biggest threat here is that humans will not be able to overcome their fear and permit their fellows to enjoy the benefits of abundance brought about by automation and AI.” observed, “Humans evolved both physically and psychologically as prey animals eking out a living from an inadequate supply of resources. ... The biggest threat here is that humans will not be able to overcome their fear and permit their fellows to enjoy the benefits of abundance brought about by automation and AI.” Richard Wood predicted, “Knowledge systems with algorithms and governance processes that empower people will be capable of curating sophisticated versions of knowledge, insight and something like ‘wisdom’ and subjecting such knowledge to democratic critique and discussion, i.e., a true ‘democratic public arena’ that is digitally mediated.” predicted, “Knowledge systems with algorithms and governance processes that empower people will be capable of curating sophisticated versions of knowledge, insight and something like ‘wisdom’ and subjecting such knowledge to democratic critique and discussion, i.e., a true ‘democratic public arena’ that is digitally mediated.” Matthew Bailey said he expects that, “AI will assist in the identification and creation of new systems that restore a flourishing relationship with our planet as part of a new well-being paradigm for humanity to thrive.” said he expects that, “AI will assist in the identification and creation of new systems that restore a flourishing relationship with our planet as part of a new well-being paradigm for humanity to thrive.” Judith Donath warned, “The accelerating ability to influence our beliefs and behavior is likely to be used to exploit us; to stoke a gnawing dissatisfaction assuageable only with vast doses of retail therapy; to create rifts and divisions and a heightened anxiety calculated to send voters to the perceived safety of domineering authoritarians.” warned, “The accelerating ability to influence our beliefs and behavior is likely to be used to exploit us; to stoke a gnawing dissatisfaction assuageable only with vast doses of retail therapy; to create rifts and divisions and a heightened anxiety calculated to send voters to the perceived safety of domineering authoritarians.” Kunle Olorundare said, “Human knowledge and its verifying, updating, safe archiving by open-source AI will make research easier. Human ingenuity will still be needed to add value – we will work on the creative angles while secondary research is being conducted by AI. This will increase contributions to the body of knowledge and society will be better off.” said, “Human knowledge and its verifying, updating, safe archiving by open-source AI will make research easier. Human ingenuity will still be needed to add value – we will work on the creative angles while secondary research is being conducted by AI. This will increase contributions to the body of knowledge and society will be better off.” Jamais Cascio said, “It’s somewhat difficult to catalog the emerging dystopia because nearly anything I describe will sound like a more extreme version of the present or an unfunny parody. ... Simulated versions of you and your mind are very likely on their way, going well beyond existing advertising profiles.” said, “It’s somewhat difficult to catalog the emerging dystopia because nearly anything I describe will sound like a more extreme version of the present or an unfunny parody. ... Simulated versions of you and your mind are very likely on their way, going well beyond existing advertising profiles.” Lauren Wilcox explained, “Interaction risks of generative AI include the ability for an AI system to impersonate people in order to compromise security, to emotionally manipulate users and to gain access to sensitive information. People might also attribute more intelligence to these systems than is due, risking over-trust and reliance on them.” explained, “Interaction risks of generative AI include the ability for an AI system to impersonate people in order to compromise security, to emotionally manipulate users and to gain access to sensitive information. People might also attribute more intelligence to these systems than is due, risking over-trust and reliance on them.” Catriona Wallace looked ahead to in-body tech: “Embeddable software and hardware will allow humans to add tech to their bodies to help them overcome problems. There will be AI-driven, 3D-printed, fully-customised prosthetics. Brain extensions – brain chips that serve as digital interfaces – could become more common. Nanotechnologies may be ingested.” looked ahead to in-body tech: “Embeddable software and hardware will allow humans to add tech to their bodies to help them overcome problems. There will be AI-driven, 3D-printed, fully-customised prosthetics. Brain extensions – brain chips that serve as digital interfaces – could become more common. Nanotechnologies may be ingested.” Stephen Downes predicted, “Cash transactions will decline to the point that they’re viewed with suspicion. Automated surveillance will track our every move online and offline, with AI recognizing us through our physical characteristics, habits and patterns of behaviour. Total surveillance allows an often-unjust differentiation of treatment of individuals.” predicted, “Cash transactions will decline to the point that they’re viewed with suspicion. Automated surveillance will track our every move online and offline, with AI recognizing us through our physical characteristics, habits and patterns of behaviour. Total surveillance allows an often-unjust differentiation of treatment of individuals.” Giacomo Mazzone warned, “With relatively small investments, democratic processes could be hijacked and transformed into what we call ‘democratures’ in Europe, a contraction of the two French words for ‘democracy’ and ‘dictatorship.’ AI and a distorted use of technologies could bring mass-control of societies.” warned, “With relatively small investments, democratic processes could be hijacked and transformed into what we call ‘democratures’ in Europe, a contraction of the two French words for ‘democracy’ and ‘dictatorship.’ AI

A robotic hand is shown reaching out to a human hand against a blue background.

2023-06-21 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/06/21/expert-essays-on-the-expected-impact-of-digital-change-by-2035/

['Technology' 'Other']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Unlikely

474f3678a4

Pew Research Center

Inflation, Health Costs, Partisan Cooperation Among the Nation's Top Problems - Pew Research Center

Democrats hold edge on many issues, but more Americans agree with Republicans on economy, crime, immigration (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images) How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand Americans’ views of the problems facing the country, Joe Biden’s job performance and more. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,115 adults from June 5-11, 2023. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology. Here are the questions used for the report and its methodology. The public’s list of the top problems facing the nation includes inflation, health care affordability, drug addiction and gun violence. Yet the ability of Republicans and Democrats to work together rates about as high on the problems list as these other concerns. And it is one of the few, among 16 problems included, on which there is no partisan divide. The Pew Research Center survey, conducted June 5-11 among 5,115 members of the Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, finds wide differences in perceptions of most national problems. Inflation remains the top concern for Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, with 77% saying it is a very big problem. The state of moral values, illegal immigration and the budget deficit also are seen as top problems by at least two-thirds of Republicans. For Democrats and Democratic leaners, gun violence is the top concern, with about eight-in-ten (81%) saying it is a very big problem. The affordability of health care ranks second (73% say this). Democrats are more than four times as likely as Republicans to say that climate change is a very big problem in the country (64% vs. 14%). Democrats are also much more likely to say gun violence and racism are very big problems. By contrast, Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to say that illegal immigration is a very big problem (70% vs. 25%). They are also about 30 percentage points more likely than Democrats to say that the state of moral values and the budget deficit are very big problems. Among the other findings from the new survey: Most Americans expect the budget deficit to grow larger. The share of Americans who rate the budget deficit as a very big national problem has risen modestly since last year, from 51% to 56%. Relatively few Americans expect the deficit to be lower in coming years: 70% say that, in about five years, it will be larger than it is today; 18% expect it to be about the same size as it is today, while just 11% say it will be smaller. Democrats have sizable advantages on climate, health care policy; Republicans lead on economy, crime, immigration. The public is more likely to say they agree with the Democratic Party on a number of issues, including abortion policy, health care policy and climate change policy. However, the Republican Party holds a 12-point advantage on economic policy: 42% say they agree with the GOP, 30% say they agree with the Democratic Party. The GOP holds similar leads on crime and immigration. Biden job approval little changed. Currently, 35% of Americans approve of President Joe Biden’s job performance, while 62% disapprove. Biden’s job approval has changed little in the past year. The survey also finds low job ratings for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (34% approve) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (32%). Please visit detailed tables for a current view of Biden’s approval rating among subgroups. More Americans agree with GOP on economic policy, crime and immigration policy, but Democrats have edge on several other issues About four-in-ten Americans (41%) say they agree with the Democratic Party on climate change policy, while substantially fewer (27%) agree with the GOP; nearly a third (31%) say they agree with neither party. The Democrats’ advantage is similar on abortion policy and health care policy (12 points each). Republicans hold advantages on policies addressing the economy (12 points), crime (10 points), immigration (10 points) and the budget deficit (8 points). Neither party has a significant edge on education policy, gun policy or foreign policy. For the most part, the shares agreeing with each party on issues has not changed much over the past year. However, the GOP’s 10-point advantage on immigration policy represents a shift since last July, when roughly equal shares of Americans say they agreed with each party (38% agree with GOP, 37% agree with Democrats). In addition, while Democrats hold an 8-point advantage on policies affecting LGBT people (37% agree with the Democratic Party, 29% with the GOP and 33% with neither party), this is narrower than Democrats’ 20-point lead last July. Top problems facing the country Majorities of Americans say 8 of the 16 issues included on the survey are “very big problems” facing the country. These range from economic concerns, such as inflation, affordability of health care and the budget deficit, to drug addiction, gun violence and violent crime. Majorities also view the ability of Democrats and Republicans to work together (62%) and the state of moral values (54%) as very big national problems. The share saying health care affordability is a very big problem is up 9 percentage points since May 2022, when 55% said this. The shares saying that gun violence and violent crime are very big problems have also increased since last year (by 9 percentage points and 5 points respectively). Racism, domestic and international terrorism, unemployment, and the condition of infrastructure rate lower on the public’s list of very big national problems. Still, for these and other issues asked about on the survey, majorities rate each as at least moderately big problems. Older Americans remain more likely than younger Americans to say that a

A man and a woman are standing in front of the United States Capitol building, with the Capitol's dome and a statue visible against a clear blue sky.

2023-06-21 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/21/inflation-health-costs-partisan-cooperation-among-the-nations-top-problems/

['Politics' 'Health']

[0.85 0.75]

Unlikely

Unlikely

bca0d3cda5

Pew Research Center

Americans' views on the Black Lives Matter movement - Pew Research Center

Today, 51% of U.S. adults say they support the Black Lives Matter movement, a decrease from 56% a year ago. The share who say they strongly support the movement dropped from 26% in 2022 to 22% in the new survey. The decrease in overall support is mostly due to the declining share of White adults who say they support the movement. The shares of Black and Hispanic adults who express support have stayed about the same since 2022. (The sample size for Asian adults was too small for separate analysis in 2022.) Support for the Black Lives Matter movement As in previous years, support for the Black Lives Matter movement differs along demographic and partisan lines. About eight-in-ten Black adults (81%) say they support the movement at least somewhat, compared with smaller shares of Hispanic (61%), Asian (63%) and White (42%) adults who say the same. Adults younger than 30 are more likely than those in all other age groups to support the movement. More than eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners (84%) say they support the movement. In turn, 82% of Republicans and GOP leaners oppose it. Views by race and ethnicity among Republicans and Democrats Across racial and ethnic groups, Democrats are more likely than their Republican counterparts to say they support the Black Lives Matter movement. But there are some differences by race and ethnicity within each political party. Roughly eight-in-ten or more White, Black, Hispanic and Asian Democrats support the movement, but Black Democrats are the most likely to express strong support. Some 47% of Black Democrats say they strongly support the movement, compared with 40% of White, 35% of Asian and 33% of Hispanic Democrats. In contrast, Black Republicans are more likely than their White, Hispanic and Asian counterparts to support the movement. Some 45% of Black Republicans say they support it, followed by 28% each among Hispanic and Asian Republicans and 14% among White Republicans. Words that describe the Black Lives Matter movement A third of Americans say the word dangerous describes the Black Lives Matter movement extremely or very well, and 34% say the same about the word divisive. Smaller shares describe the movement as empowering (26%) and inclusive (18%). Views by race and ethnicity White adults are more likely than Black, Hispanic or Asian adults to say the words dangerous and divisive describe the Black Lives Matter movement extremely or very well. Black adults are the least likely racial or ethnic group to say this. In fact, 50% of Black adults say dangerous doesn’t describe the movement too well or at all well. Black, Hispanic and Asian adults are all more likely than White adults to say the word empowering describes the movement extremely or very well. And Black and Asian adults are more likely than White adults to say the same about the word inclusive. In turn, 43% of White adults say inclusive doesn’t describe the movement too well or at all well, a larger share than any other racial or ethnic group. Views by party A majority of Republicans say the words dangerous (59%) and divisive (54%) describe the Black Lives Matter movement extremely or very well. Smaller shares of Democrats say the same about each of these words (9% and 15%, respectively). Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the words empowering (42% vs. 11%) and inclusive (27% vs. 11%) describe the movement extremely or very well. Majorities of Democrats say these words describe the Black Lives Matter movement at least somewhat well. How effective has the Black Lives Matter movement been? About three-in-ten Americans (31%) say they understand the goals of the Black Lives Matter movement extremely or very well. Four-in-ten say they understand the goals somewhat well, while 27% say they don’t understand the goals too well or at all well. Roughly a third of Americans (32%) say the Black Lives Matter movement has been extremely or very effective at bringing attention to racism against Black people. Smaller shares say the movement has been highly effective at increasing police accountability (14%), improving the lives of Black people (8%) and improving race relations (7%). In fact, more than half of Americans say the movement hasn’t been too or at all effective in improving the lives of Black people or improving race relations (57% and 61%, respectively). Views by race and ethnicity About half of Black adults (48%) and 46% of Asian adults say the movement has been extremely or very effective in bringing attention to racism against Black people in the United States. Smaller shares of Hispanic (33%) and White adults (27%) have this view. Black, Hispanic and Asian adults are more likely than White adults to say the movement has been highly effective at increasing police accountability, improving the lives of Black people and improving race relations. But only about a quarter or fewer in each racial or ethnic group say the movement has been highly effective in these areas. White adults are the most likely to say the movement hasn’t been too effective or hasn’t been effective at all when it comes to each of these areas. In fact, most White adults say the movement hasn’t been effective at improving race relations (68%) or improving the lives of Black people (63%). Smaller but sizable shares ranging from 41% to 51% among Black, Hispanic and Asian adults also say the movement hasn’t been effective at improving race relations or the lives of Black people. Views by party Half of Democrats say the Black Lives Matter movement has been extremely or very effective at bringing attention to racism against Black people, while 14% of Republicans share this view. Democrats are also 11 percentage points more likely than Republicans to say the movement has been highly effective at increasing police accountability (20% vs. 9%). Only about one-in-ten or fewer among both Democrats and Republicans say the movement has been highly effective at improving the lives of Black people or improving race relations in the U.S.

An aerial view of a city street with the words 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' painted in large yellow letters on the road.

2023-06-14 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/06/14/views-on-the-black-lives-matter-movement/

['Politics' 'National']

[0.9 0.8]

Likely

Likely

310b83673d

Pew Research Center

Asian Americans' Views of Affirmative Action - Pew Research Center

Most are skeptical of considering race and ethnicity in college admissions (Thai Liang Li/Getty Images) How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the views of Asian Americans toward affirmative action. This in-depth analysis uses data from a nationally representative survey of Asian American adults, two nationally representative surveys of U.S. adults, and a qualitative study of Asian Americans. The analysis is the latest in the Center’s series of in-depth analyses of public opinion among Asian Americans. The first is a nationally representative survey of 7,006 self-identified Asian adults conducted online and by mail from July 5, 2022, to Jan. 27, 2023. Asian respondents include those who identified as more than one race or as Hispanic. Here is the methodology used for the survey of Asian Americans. The second is a nationally representative online survey of 5,132 U.S. adults that includes 367 English-speaking, single-race, non-Hispanic Asians conducted on the Center’s American Trends Panel from Dec. 5 to 11, 2022. Identical questions about affirmative action generally and the use of high school grades, standardized test scores, athletic ability, family income, gender and race and ethnicity in college admissions decisions were asked on the 2022-23 survey of Asian American adults and the December 2022 survey of all U.S. adults. This allows for a comparison of Asian American adults’ views with those of other groups of Americans. The third survey is another nationally representative online survey of 5,079 U.S. adults conducted on the Center’s American Trends Panel from March 27 to April 2, 2023. It includes 368 English-speaking, single-race, non-Hispanic Asians. For survey questions from all three surveys used in this analysis, see the topline questionnaire. Survey results were complemented by 66 focus groups of Asian adults conducted before the 2022-2023 survey of Asian Americans, from Aug. 4 to Oct. 14, 2021. The groups were made up of 264 recruited participants from 18 Asian origin groups. Focus group discussions were conducted in 18 languages and moderated by members of their origin groups. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. The Center’s Asian American portfolio was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from The Asian American Foundation; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Henry Luce Foundation; the Doris Duke Foundation; The Wallace H. Coulter Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Long Family Foundation; Lu-Hebert Fund; Gee Family Foundation; Joseph Cotchett; the Julian Abdey and Sabrina Moyle Charitable Fund; and Nanci Nishimura. We would also like to thank the Leaders Forum for its thought leadership and valuable assistance in helping make this survey possible. The strategic communications campaign used to promote the research was made possible with generous support from the Doris Duke Foundation. Terminology The terms Asian and Asian American are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity. Ethnicity and ethnic origin labels, such as Chinese and Chinese origin, are used interchangeably in this report for findings for ethnic origin groups, such as Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese. For this report, ethnicity is not nationality. For example, Chinese in this report are those self-identifying as being of Chinese ethnicity, rather than necessarily being a current or former citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Ethnic origin groups in this report include those who self-identify as one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity. The term Asian origin groups is used throughout this report to describe ethnic origin groups. Immigrants in this report are people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who are not U.S. citizens. The terms immigrant and foreign born are used interchangeably to refer to this group. U.S. born refers to people born in the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories. As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether colleges can continue to consider race and ethnicity in admissions, a new national survey of Asian adults finds that Asian Americans have mixed views of affirmative action and related issues. On one hand, about half of Asian adults who have heard of affirmative action (53%) say it is a good thing, while 19% say it is a bad thing, and 27% say they don’t know whether affirmative action is good or bad. On the other hand, about three-quarters of all Asian adults (76%) say race or ethnicity should not factor into college admissions decisions. For views on affirmative action from the general public, view our report “More Americans Disapprove Than Approve of Colleges Considering Race, Ethnicity in Admissions Decisions.” While not all Asian Americans have heard of affirmative action, most have. Nearly three-in-four (74%) say they have heard the phrase before, with awareness varying some across Asian demographic subgroups: About eight-in-ten Filipino (83%) and Japanese (82%) adults say they have heard the phrase, compared with only 57% of Vietnamese Americans. Meanwhile, 91% of U.S.-born Asians say they have heard the phrase affirmative action, while 67% of Asian immigrants say they have. Even if not all Asian adults have heard the phrase affirmative action, support for the general concept among Asian Americans spans education, immigration, age and other demographic subgroups, according to the national survey of 7,006 U.S. Asian adults conducted in six languages between July 5, 2022 and Jan. 27, 2023. Views about affirmative action among those who have heard the phrase vary slightly across origin groups: Indian adults (60%) are more likely than Korean (50%), Vietnamese (48%) and Chinese (45%) adults to say affirmative action is a good thing. Chinese adults who have heard of affirmative action are among the least likely to say it is a good thing – 27% of Chinese adults who have heard the phrase

A group of graduates wearing black caps and gowns, seated in rows, with a blurred background suggesting a large gathering.

2023-06-08 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2023/06/08/asian-americans-hold-mixed-views-around-affirmative-action/

['Politics' 'National' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.9 0.8 0.7]

Unlikely

Unlikely

e9717d747e

Pew Research Center

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace: A Survey Report (2023) - Pew Research Center

A majority of U.S. workers say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, but relatively small shares place great importance on diversity in their own workplace (Cecilie Arcurs/Getty Images) How we did this Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand how adults in the United States think about diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the workplace. This analysis is based on survey responses from 4,744 U.S. adults who are working part time or full time, are not self-employed, have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job, and whose company or organization has 10 or more people. The data was collected as part of a larger survey of workers conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023. Everyone who took part is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology. Read more about the questions used for this report and the report’s methodology. Terminology References to workers or employed adults include those who are employed part time or full time, are not self-employed, have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job, and whose company or organization has 10 or more people. References to White, Black and Asian adults include those who are not Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race. References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor’s degree or more. “Some college” includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree. References to disabled workers include those who say a disability or handicap keeps them from fully participating in work, school, housework or other activities. All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party. Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and those who say they lean toward the Republican Party. Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and those who say they lean toward the Democratic Party. Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates. For a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%), focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. But opinions about DEI vary considerably along demographic and political lines. Most workers have some experience with DEI measures at their workplace. About six-in-ten (61%) say their company or organization has policies that ensure fairness in hiring, pay or promotions, and 52% say they have trainings or meetings on DEI at work. Smaller shares say their workplace has a staff member who promotes DEI (33%), that their workplace offers salary transparency (30%), and that it has affinity groups or employee resource groups based on a shared identity (26%). Majorities of those who have access to these measures say each has had a positive impact where they work. Related: How Americans View Their Jobs This nationally representative survey of 5,902 U.S. workers, including 4,744 who are not self-employed, was conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023, using the Center’s American Trends Panel. The survey comes at a time when DEI efforts are facing some backlash and many major companies are laying off their DEI professionals. Some key findings from the survey: Relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace. About three-in-ten say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) or ages (28%). Roughly a quarter say the same about having a workplace with about an equal mix of men and women (26%) and 18% say this about a mix of employees of different sexual orientations. About three-in-ten say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) or ages (28%). Roughly a quarter say the same about having a workplace with about an equal mix of men and women (26%) and 18% say this about a mix of employees of different sexual orientations. More than half of workers (54%) say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing DEI. Smaller shares say their company or organization pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), and 17% say they’re not sure. Black workers are more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI. They’re also among the most likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78% of Black workers say this), while White workers are the least likely to express this view (47%). Smaller shares say their company or organization pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), and 17% say they’re not sure. Black workers are more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI. They’re also among the most likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78% of Black workers say this), while White workers are the least likely to express this view (47%). Women are more likely than men to value DEI at work. About six-in-ten women (61%) say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, compared with half of men. And larger shares of women than men say it’s extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation. About six-in-ten women (61%) say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, compared with half of men. And larger shares of women than men

A person stands in front of a group of diverse individuals in a professional setting, gesturing with their hands, possibly leading a discussion or presentation.

2023-05-17 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/

['National' 'Other']

[0.95 0.7 ]

Unlikely

Unlikely

019fb7b22a

RealClearPolitics

Dishonest, Duplicit and Deceptive: Senate Border ‘Deal’ - RealClearPolitics

Biden’s defiant refusal to secure U.S. borders has again led to violence against Americans – this time the vicious beating of two NYC police officers by a mob of illegal immigrants, who were later released without bail. It is outrageous that our leaders continue to allow non-citizens to hurt Americans and to steal from our citizens – and anyone who supports the McConnell-Schumer-Lankford so-called border “deal” is supporting exactly this kind of insanity. Although senators are being pressured to agree to this deal without the opportunity to read, review, or amend its text, a few “bullet points” have been leaked. From these it is clear the deal is not designed to close the border, but to deceptively strengthen Biden’s open border “policies.” The deal would allow 4,000 to 5,000 illegals to cross into the U.S. per day before expulsion measures begin. That’s 150,000 per month and 1.8 million per year! It is shocking that senators would actually propose legislating any number of illegal crossings into the United States. In effect, this deal would codify Biden’s reckless open border policies and compromise a future president’s ability to enforce border security. Further testament to the duplicity of the deal is that Republican and Democratic leaders have both made it clear they do not want a committee or an open amendment process to evaluate or amend the language of the legislation. Neither will they commit to a designated time period to allow senators to actually review the text before they are required to vote. These are the very reasons why Americans distrust (loathe?) Washington – politicians often act secretively without the interests of the American people at heart. And, these are also the very reasons that House Republicans and conservatives oppose the deal. False narratives claiming that Republicans won’t support the deal because it gives Biden credit, or that Republicans would rather get political revenge than fix the border, are just that – false and strategically spread by the left’s media elite in order to boost Biden’s miserable approval ratings. Blaming former President Donald Trump for the Republicans’ distaste of the Senate deal, and for Biden’s negligence to secure the border, is nothing but a transparent election stunt. Moreover, the deal does not address the Biden administration’s abuse of parole authority –abuses like the incredibly long backlog of asylum cases assigned court dates years into the future (while illegals disappear into the U.S.). Nor does the deal address Democratic schemes to allow illegal immigrants to vote in municipal, state, and federal elections. Biden claiming to support the deal because it gives him “new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed” is also deceptive and dishonest bunk. President Biden could use existing law to secure the border; he simply does not want to and has made the decision to stick to it. In reality, he has presidential authority to close the border now under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to restrict entry to the U.S. and remove and detain illegal immigrants. Former President Donald Trump did just that – used the laws and authority available to him to close the border – and illegal crossings dropped to historic lows and immigrants remained below the border (Remain in Mexico policy) while their asylum claims were processed. Biden, on the other hand, rescinded Trump’s national emergency declaration at the border as soon as he was sworn in, stopped construction of the border wall, rescinded Remain in Mexico, and screamed to the world that U.S. borders were open. Not only will Biden not use his authority to close the border, he purposely caused the crisis. Sen. Ron Johnson recently said that trying to close the border with the Biden administration is like negotiating with arsonists to put out the fire they started. If the Senate wants to secure the border, it should adopt H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023. The proposed act, which passed through the House, closes loopholes in law and policy to make it harder for future presidents to open our borders and cause another Biden border crisis. It imposes strict limits to asylum, puts into law Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, builds a border wall, and has accountability mechanisms to make sure the law is enforced. Why do our elected leaders, representatives of the people, continue to allow non-citizens, some of whom are dangerous criminals, to flow across the border and hurt or steal from our citizens? How do they sleep at night knowing that record numbers of Americans have died from fentanyl-related deaths due to the drugs streaming across our open borders? The McConnell-Schumer-Lankford deal will only continue this reckless lack of U.S. national security. Make no mistake, any politician who supports this deal will suffer terribly at the election polls this fall.

An aerial view of a large group of people gathered in a desert-like area with a border wall in the background, vehicles parked on the left side, and a clear sky above.

2024-02-03 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/03/dishonest_duplicit_and_deceptive_senate_border_deal_150432.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

19492047db

RealClearPolitics

Prof. Moyn’s Jeremiad Against Limited Government - RealClearPolitics

America’s progressive left and much of the so-called new right resent the idea of limited government. They see it as a pernicious ideology that they like to call liberalism, worse, neoliberalism, and, at the extreme, neoconservatism. In fact, they object to an essential principle of American constitutional government and the modern tradition of freedom. The progressive left and new right alike deplore the conviction that some worthy and even essential tasks – for some the regulation of pronouns, for others the regulation of religion – lie beyond government’s proper purview. Such limitations, they complain, constrain their high-minded ambitions to reorient society toward the highest good or justice in the fullest sense. Consistent with the progressive spirit, enthusiasts on the left want to employ government to redistribute property and power, inculcate egalitarian norms, and emancipate individuals from inherited beliefs and established hierarchies. In line with an aspiration as old as the republic, the new right envisages a government that fortifies the religious beliefs and practices that produce virtuous citizens and upstanding human beings. Both the progressive left and the new right suppose that the case against government perfecting or redeeming individuals rests on a heedless skepticism about social justice, or moral virtue, or salvation. Sometimes it does. But it needn’t. For example, the American form of limited government – based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence and instituted by the Constitution – reflects a reasonable skepticism about politics combined with firm beliefs about the moral dignity of the individual. The reasonable skepticism that undergirds the American experiment in ordered liberty doubts that the left, the right, or whoever momentarily controls the levers of government should be entrusted with the authority to inscribe in law the last word about how to live a good life. This skepticism pays attention to the testimony of history and the evidence across cultures: Human minds are fallible, men and women tend to place their private interests ahead of the public interest, and individuals – especially those who run for and win election to high office – compete for wealth, status, and power. Appreciating that our flawed intellects, self-seeking, and pride in standing out and surpassing others tend to corrupt judgment, America’s founders designed political institutions to withstand, and even take advantage of, the wayward proclivities woven into human nature. At the same time, our political institutions are grounded in a bold moral conviction: Human beings are by nature free and equal. This does not mean free in all respects and equal in all ways, but rather equal in unalienable rights – the rights shared by all human beings. American constitutional government’s overriding purpose – moral through and through – is to secure those rights for the nation’s citizens. Recognizing that enjoying the benefits and fulfilling the duties of citizenship in a free society depend on character, the Constitution’s framers largely left the responsibility of forming responsible men and women to families, communities, civic associations, and religious institutions. This division of labor among individuals, civil society, and the state reflected the conviction – borne out by considerable observation, experience, and study – that political officials in a large, diverse, commercial republic were ill-suited to fostering virtue and lacked the training and disposition to resolve venerable debates about the highest ends of a human life. This division of labor advances the common good in a free society, which is the protection of basic rights and fundamental freedoms. That, in turn, enables citizens to pursue, consistent with a like liberty for others, their diverse understandings of the highest good in and through their many and varied communities. Members of the progressive left and new right overlook, misunderstand, or suppress the mixture of reasonable skepticism and firm moral conviction that underlies limited constitutional government in America. Sam Moyn’s recent book exacerbates the problem. In “Liberalism Against Itself: Cold War Intellectuals and the Making of Our Times,” which was published last year and provoked lively discussion, the Yale University professor of law and history harshly criticized an eclectic mix of eminent intellectuals from the 1940s to the 1990s for their defense of limited government. Of all his book’s peculiar features, the most striking is Moyn’s treatment of limited government as a disastrous departure from the Enlightenment and the liberal tradition. In reality, Cold War liberalism rediscovered fundamental principles – part of the rich heritage of the Enlightenment and the larger modern tradition of freedom of which it is a part – on which the United States was founded. Moyn focuses his discussion of Cold War liberalism’s betrayals around six distinguished intellectuals who have rarely been grouped together: Harvard University political theorist Judith Shklar, Oxford University professor of moral and political thought Isaiah Berlin, philosopher of science and defender of the open society Karl Popper, historian of modern thought Gertrude Himmelfarb, student of classical and modern political thought Hannah Arendt, and Columbia University literary critic Lionel Trilling. Other than the opportunity for a few cheap shots at their Zionism – or failure to criticize Zionism – provided by their varying relations to Judaism, there is little reason to base an assessment of Cold War liberalism on Moyn’s collection of intellectuals rather than on one that revolves around, say, Friedrich Hayek, Reinhold Niebuhr, Raymond Aron, Jean J. Kirkpatrick, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moyn aspires “to transcend the catastrophic legacies of Cold War liberalism.” The catastrophe, he argues, consists in Cold War liberalism’s repudiation of the Enlightenment’s “account of the highest life.” Mistaking the part of the Enlightenment he likes best for the era’s essence, Moyn espouses an “emancipatory project” that makes a priority of “perfectionism and progressivism.” This sweeping transformational endeavor requires government and society to collaborate to establish “the economic conditions for the substantive enjoyment of liberty and equality.” Moyn’s monism, however, permits only one legitimate way to substantively enjoy liberty and equality – through a life that breaks free of tradition and established norms to embrace “our creative self-making as the highest life.” The “ambitious liberal reinvention of politics

An old, handwritten document with the title 'Article V.' in large, ornate script. The paper is yellowed with age, and the handwriting is in a dark ink.

2024-02-04 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/04/prof_moyns_jeremiad_against_limited_government_150435.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Likely

6dca0e122b

RealClearPolitics

No Labels: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription? - RealClearPolitics

When the leaders of the Democratic Party, under the guise of “saving democracy,” prop up a doddering 81-year-old incumbent president by banning intra-party debates, manipulating their primary calendar, kicking the opposition party’s frontrunner off the ballot, going after his bank roll and trying to put him in prison – all while demonizing independent candidates and blocking their ballot access – America has a problem. And that’s only on one side. The Republican Party, meanwhile, is hell-bent on nominating a candidate who didn’t carry a single swing state in 2020 while losing the popular vote by 7 million votes. It’s a verdict the loser didn’t accept, leading to an infamous riot at the U.S. Capitol, a snubbing of the inauguration, and thousands of criminal charges, some against the former president himself. Yet he’s running again, this time refusing to debate any GOP challengers and vowing retribution against any candidate, donor, or rank-and-file Republican unwilling to accept his coronation 10 months before the general election. Americans desire a better option. Two-thirds of Democrats did not want Joe Biden to seek reelection. About half of GOP voters said the same thing about Donald Trump. Nonetheless, our country is headed for the longest general election campaign in history between two old and polarizing candidates. One Democratic pollster called it “almost a cruel joke.” Is there any alternative? Some political reformers think so. Their efforts began 13 years ago at a confab of good-government types who gathered in New York City to launch an organization devoted to regenerating America’s putrefied politics. What ailed voters, they proclaimed, was the toxicity of the nation’s two dominant political parties. These idealists weren’t launching a third party – they were adamant on that point – but instead promoting a better approach to governance, particularly on Capitol Hill. In their Kennedy-esque re-imaginings of the world, civility would replace splenetic posturing; government shutdowns would give way to reasonable budget compromises; ideological purity would take a back seat to sensible pragmatism. This new organization, No Labels, was to be the answer to an increasingly liberal Democrat Party and a Republican Party veering inexorably rightward. No Labels’ mantra was: “Not left. Not right. Forward.” None of what they outlined was novel. It was how Washington operated for decades after World War II. But in the 21st century, Congress’ collegial muscles had atrophied. No Labels aimed to restore them, with help from a bipartisan congressional alliance, the “Problem Solvers Caucus.” Solving problems in Washington almost always involves each side giving a little. That was growing more difficult in an environment where ad hominem name-calling was becoming the norm. As it turns out, rhetorical restraint wasn’t just good manners, as the conveners in New York noted. It was a necessary component of a functioning democracy. One of the speakers at that mid-December 2010 rollout was New York Times columnist David Brooks, who called for a “code of gentlemanly behavior” in political discourse. Former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, a moderate Democrat from Kansas, expounded on that theme. “I’m not arguing for fundamental, radical change,” Glickman said. “What I’m arguing for is a grassroots movement for political leaders to reach across the aisle.” An inability to do so was manifesting itself in destructive ways, not the least of which were the periodic federal government shutdowns becoming commonplace in Washington, along with an addiction to deficit spending by officials in both the legislative and executive branches unwilling to face simple mathematical facts, let alone make tough choices. “Our future is currently threatened by a range of unsustainable policies and a broken political system,” proclaimed former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, an advocate of fiscal restraint. “We are here today as founders of a new movement designed to shock that political system in order to get America back on track.” In the ensuing election cycles, the nation’s leading political institutions did not get back on track. Nor did they merely go off the rails. They jumped the shark. Capital Follies Today, insults and incivility, amplified by social media, are daily Capitol Hill fare. Members of Congress are challenged in primaries simply for attempting to work with the other side. Impeachment has become one more partisan campaign tool, along with censure, stripping members of committee assignments, and loose talk about packing the Supreme Court. Presidential debates descended to the level of the Jerry Springer Show. Burdened with the self-imposed “Hastert rule,” the House of Representatives routinely thwarts the will of the chamber’s majority. (For the uninitiated, the Hastert rule states that a House speaker cannot permit a vote on any bill that doesn’t have the support of a majority in the speaker’s political party – even if it would pass overwhelmingly on a vote by the full House. Undemocratic by definition, it’s named after a serial child molester. You cannot make this stuff up.) On the Republican side of the aisle, the speaker’s gavel has become an albatross: Two of the three previous Republican speakers have stepped down – and a third was deposed after less than a year when eight renegade right-wingers joined all the Democrats to force Kevin McCarthy out. What made the coup against McCarthy possible was a procedural gimmick even stupider than the Hastert rule: A single member can now call for an up or down vote on retaining the speaker – as Mike Johnson may find out any day. Government shutdowns are now essentially regularly scheduled events. (The next one is planned for March.) Not that any of them have produced fiscal sanity. The $13 trillion national debt that alarmed David Walker in 2010 more than doubled. The federal deficit was $129 billion in December alone. And though the trillion-dollar deficits of President Obama’s first term in office helped give No Labels its impetus, 2010 was about the time conservatives stopped talking about deficit spending. The old Clinton-era mantra “It’s the economy, stupid” gave way to less manageable ethos: “It’s the culture, stupid.” Into that cauldron leapt a New York real estate man and reality

A panel of four individuals seated at a table with microphones, in front of a backdrop that reads 'Fighting for FREEDOM TO CHOOSE A PRESIDENT 2024 NO LABELS'. The individuals are wearing suits and ties, and there is an American flag in the background.

2024-02-02 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/02/no_labels_right_diagnosis_wrong_prescription_150429.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.85]

Unlikely

Unlikely

7f9d7a7245

RealClearPolitics

A Last Chance in Qatar - RealClearPolitics

Deterrence, once forfeited, leads progressively to reactive foreign policy. Having ignored entreaties to establish a credible deterrent in the Middle East late last year, the Biden Administration is now backed into a reactive corner that gives few good strategic alternatives and little hope of reversing a budding regional war across the Levant. The military options all look bleak. Will a U.S. attack on Iran expand this conflagration across the entire Middle East? Congressional hawks are already busy demanding this response, and at least one presidential candidate feels a frontal assault has enough political currency to aid her ailing campaign. Late last year, I warned that U.S. servicemembers would be killed in this lackluster attempt at appeasement. Five U.S. service members have now died, all in January. Two Navy SEALs died tragically conducting one of their most dangerous missions, and three soldiers were killed alongside 40 others wounded in Jordan this weekend. Karine Jean-Pierre’s misguided statement that these heroes died for “the administration” unveils a lack of awareness that U.S. servicemembers take an oath to the Constitution, not the current Executive Branch leadership. Conservative politicians have rightfully pilloried Jean-Pierre for her remarks, but the counterpoint can be fairly made that the second part of the Oath states, “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me...”These five brave servicemembers were doing just that. They are the latest tragic examples of the long line of American warriors who have died during all epochs of American history to fulfill the common defense compact made in the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble. This ultimate sacrifice is necessary to ensure all nations are free, but it is the gravest duty of governmental leadership and must be accompanied by a serious and earnest geopolitical plan. Even now, the current administration is not serious about the risk of Middle East escalation, and some political conservatives can only see retaliatory attacks on Iran that are sure to set the Middle East ablaze conclusively. Iran is now actively at proxy war with the U.S. and making every effort to goad the U.S. into a regional war that will be difficult, if not impossible, to win. Presidential promises to “retaliate” with no clear strategic direction, little support from Americans, and a misfocused and understaffed Department of Defense will do little more than provoke a broader conflagration. Into this dismal situation steps CIA Director William Burns, who is meeting this week with the Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, Mossad Director David Barnea, and Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel. This significant meeting may be the last hope to stop the developing Middle East train wreck. William Burns is an accomplished American diplomat with a distinguished record of foreign affairs service. Unlike some of his high-profile predecessors, he has maintained an admirably neutral political profile. Most significantly, his previous work indicates he has a view of geopolitical events based on political realism that doesn’t match the misinformed idealism of the administration he faithfully serves. His magnum opus, “The Back Channel,” points out that President Putin had legitimate concerns about NATO expansion before his invasion of Ukraine, a realism-based argument echoed by many conservatives. Burns has been diligently working “back channels” since the horrid Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. He already met with the Qatari prime minister and Mossad director in December 2023 and has quietly emerged as the U.S. point man to broker a peace deal. Barnea and al-Thani have also been meeting regularly over the course of the crisis, putting Doha in the central role of mediating a hostage release and possible peace agreement. Adding Cairo to these meetings is crucial because of their purchase with Hamas. Hamas leadership will reportedly meet with Abbas Kamel this week. Qatar continues to play a unique role in balancing divergent Middle East constituencies. On the one hand, it recently and quietly renewed an agreement to host Al Udeid Air Base, America’s largest Middle East base, for another decade. Americans have been based here since late 2001, and it remains a quiet enabler of Western attempts to assure regional peace. On the other hand, Qatar continues to host Hamas leadership and enable their Israeli-targeted terrorist endeavors. Doha’s continued attempts to play both sides are proving useful for this week’s back-door negotiations but can also backfire if regional war ensues. It is a risky geopolitical position. Outside the policy lane, there’s a grassroots effort underway to persuade Qatar’s leaders to do more to wield their influence to achieve a breakthrough in the Hamas hostages negotiations. Even Kathie Lee Gifford has added her voice to this movement. For now, failed U.S. deterrence and an emboldened Iran have shattered American hopes for peace in a situation increasingly spiraling out of control. American servicemembers are dead, and Gaza remains under attack as Hamas continues to illegitimately hold Israeli hostages. There is a lot at stake in this “back channel” meeting; it may be the last hope for peace, and many lives depend on its outcome.

A man in a suit sits at a table with a microphone in front of him, in a room with a painting in the background.

2024-02-02 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/02/a_last_chance_in_qatar_150431.html

['Politics' 'International' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.9 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

f0f4cd0d20

RealClearPolitics

Looking at Trump’s Running Mate Prospects - RealClearPolitics

As Donald Trump tightens his grip on the Republican nomination – even with Nikki Haley still in the race – politicos are ready to play their favorite quadrennial parlor game: Who will be the vice-presidential nominee? In 2016, Trump’s selection of Mike Pence as his running mate was a surprise; Pence had supported Ted Cruz in that year’s nomination contest. But Pence had two assets Trump wanted: congressional experience and the ability to lock in social conservatives. This odd couple worked pretty well, until Pence refused to overturn the 2020 electoral vote count, arousing Trump’s ire and stoking his obsession with absolute loyalty. The number two slot is more important this year than ever. Given the advanced ages of Trump and President Biden, and the uncertainties of Trump’s legal troubles, Republicans need a capable vice-presidential nominee with solid credentials. This is especially true if they want to make Vice President Kamala Harris’ purported lack of suitability for the top job a central issue against the Democratic Party ticket. Predicting running mates is tricky; nobody really knows the innermost feelings of presidential candidates, or whom they really respect and secretly distrust. Nevertheless, let’s look at Trump’s veep prospects, in no particular order: Former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, 52. Strengths: National campaign experience, foreign policy know-how, former Trump administration official. Could help Trump where he’s lacking, with independents and college graduates. Weaknesses: Can Trump trust her? Would she walk the plank when needed? Has his “birdbrain” epithet made it a nonstarter (in both directions)? It’s hard to envision Haley as Trump’s running mate, especially while they’re beating up on one another. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, 58. Strengths: Appealing personality, low negatives. Proved allegiance to Trump by endorsing him over former ally Haley, who appointed him senator. Trump wants to increase black voter support, thinks Scott could help. Weakness: Scott’s lackluster presidential campaign reinforced his image as a lightweight. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, 39. Strengths: Trump called her a “killer,” and may want a woman running mate not named Haley. A Harvard graduate, Stefanik’s questioning of university presidents led to celebrated resignations – and conservative acclaim. Chair of House Republican Caucus. Weaknesses: Wants job too badly. To please the former president, calls convicted Jan. 6 rioters “hostages” and supports expunging both Trump impeachments. But earlier on, Stefanik opposed key Trump policies on taxes, climate change, and the travel/immigration ban on Muslim countries. May be too young. Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, 67. Strengths: Impressive accomplishments in business and government. Red-tape cutter; proficient on energy, education, cybersecurity issues. Trump respects billionaires, really likes those who support him. Weakness: Ran for president and didn’t scratch the surface of Republican voters’ collective consciousness. Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, 39. Strengths: New face. Former U.S. Marine, author of best-selling book “Hillbilly Elegy.” Yale law graduate, venture capitalist. Communicates appealing brand of populist conservativism. Called the “voice of the Rust Belt.” Weaknesses: Only one year of Senate experience under his belt. A “never-Trump guy” in 2016, but changed his tune when he ran for office and needed Trump’s support, which he got. Like Stefanik, not yet 40. Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, 57. Strengths: Won important gubernatorial victory in blue state. Sensible, genuine conservative. Presidential timber in his own right. Weakness: Lost last year’s effort to turn Virginia’s state legislature red. Also has scant political experience. Taller than Trump. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, 46. Strengths: Combat veteran, U.S. Army captain, won Bronze Star. Serious conservative, House and Senate experience, two Harvard degrees. Weakness: Opposed overturning 2020 electoral vote count – perhaps a fatal flaw in Trump World? Gov. Ron DeSantis, 45, and Sen. Marco Rubio, 52. Each has an obstacle to being on the ticket. For starters, they live in Florida, as does Trump – and the Constitution prohibits electors of a state from awarding electoral votes to both presidential and vice-presidential candidates who are legal residents of the same state. In addition to this roadblock, which could only be overcome if one of the ticket mates would change their legal residence, DeSantis really wouldn’t add anything to Trump’s ticket. Rubio might excite Hispanic voters – and he endorsed Trump over DeSantis – but do Republicans want to make it easy for the Democrats to reprise the childish “small hands” talk of 2016? Likewise, the damage done by the Florida governor’s catastrophic presidential campaign is too soon and too raw. Others that have been mentioned: Former presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy of Ohio, 38; Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, 52; Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, 54; Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, 64; Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas, 41; Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, 66; and Kari Lake of Arizona, 54, who is busy running for the Senate. This list could change a hundred times. It’s just the beginning.

A man in a suit stands at a podium with a blurred face, pointing towards a screen with 'TEAM TRUMP' graphics and flags of Nevada and the United States.

2024-01-29 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/29/looking_at_trumps_running_mate_prospects_150397.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

6e52605a17

RealClearPolitics

Mr. Troiano Doesn’t Go to Washington, But Ms. Peltola Does - RealClearPolitics

You might call it arrogant for any 25-year-old to think he had a shot at winning a U.S. House seat – especially as an independent, without the support of either major party, and with no family fortune or wealthy patron. But I prefer to say that I ran to represent Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District in 2014 out of idealism, not arrogance. I decided to run for office after spending my college years advocating for a bipartisan solution to our nation’s growing debt, only to watch political gamesmanship and gridlock result in a government shutdown in 2013. I saw my Congressman, Republican Tom Marino, as an embodiment of the problem. Though I was also a Republican at the time, I believed my only shot at blocking Marino’s free pass to reelection, and giving voters another choice, was to run as an independent. I campaigned seven days a week for ten months with the help of a scrappy, four-person team of fellow twentysomethings. We lived and worked out of a three-story house in Williamsport that, unbeknownst to us when we signed the lease, was adjacent to a drug den. Although I was from a different part of the district, I knew we had to be based in the district’s only city to have a chance at collecting the 7,500 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. I collected nearly half of those myself, and when things got desperate I stood my First Amendment ground at a county fair, when police threatened to arrest me for soliciting. My used Toyota RAV4, a hand-me-down from my grandpa, logged over 30,000 miles crisscrossing our large district. There was always one more door to knock, one more call to make, one more thank-you note to write. Along the way we won endorsements from twenty-two mayors in the district, which gave us hope. Anything is possible in politics, right? Well, maybe not anything. I ended up in third place with 22,734 votes. Still, my 13% share was the best performance by an independent House candidate running against two major party candidates in more than two decades. Even the most cynical pundits were shocked. The biggest surprise to me, however, was not how hard it was for a candidate outside of the political duopoly to gain traction – but the realization that my opponent was only a symptom of a much greater problem in our politics. “Congress has an 8% approval rating, yet 90% of members get reelected,” I said during the only debate of my House race. “We find ourselves with a Congress that is both gridlocked and corrupt because we have failed to hold our leaders accountable.” In hindsight I was right about the first part but not the second. It’s not that voters fail to hold our leaders accountable; it’s that the system prevents us from doing so. Pennsylvania is one of the fifteen states in which independent voters do not have a guaranteed right to participate in partisan primaries. In 2010, Marino won his first primary with just 41% of a three-way vote. This meant that he didn’t really represent a majority of voters in the district, or even a majority of Republicans. He merely represented a plurality of GOP primary voters – only 59,279 of them in a district with a total voting-age population of approximately 560,000, or about 10 percent. That’s who controlled his fate. That’s who he’d have to please if he wanted to stay in Congress. My campaign taught me that the only way to increase accountability and improve representation in our government would be to fix our broken election system – specifically the broken system of partisan primaries that represent the Primary Problem in our politics today. And as I’ve learned since then, the road to primary reform doesn’t require a constitutional amendment or federal legislation, and the path to transformational impact doesn’t require winning in all fifty states. In fact, we can dramatically improve Congress if just six additional states abolish partisan primaries by 2026, which would bring the total to ten. With twenty senators and a few dozen representatives from these states freed from the grips of the political fringes and able to form new coalitions to actually govern, we can begin to address the major challenges that seem unsolvable today. Alaska is the latest state where primary reform has become a reality and barriers to entry for nontraditional candidates like I was a decade ago have been torn down – with dramatic consequences at both the state and national levels. Alaska’s politics is just as unique as its geography, as I learned firsthand when I visited for the first time in the summer of 2017, to meet Governor Bill Walker and his wife, Donna. By this time, I was leading Unite America – a nonpartisan organization that invests in election reform nationally. The state capital of Juneau is home to just 31,000 people and is accessible only by plane or boat. I arrived at the governor’s mansion fifteen minutes before my appointment, figuring I would need time to get through security. I walked up to the door and knocked. No one answered, so I knocked again. Governor Walker himself opened the door, with a glass of wine in hand. There wasn’t a staff member in sight. Walker was the country’s only independent governor and had assembled a bipartisan cabinet. “We are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Alaskans – who are committed to doing whatever is in the best interest of Alaska,” he told me. We spent an hour discussing how his model of governance could help inspire a movement across the country. Walker is the opposite of a born politician. At age twelve, he became a janitor to help his family recover from a devastating earthquake in 1964. He later became a carpenter for his family’s construction business to put himself through college, eventually becoming an attorney. At age twenty-seven, in 1979, he became mayor of his hometown in Valdez. He returned to politics in

A woman stands in front of the United States Capitol building, smiling and looking upwards.

2024-01-30 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/30/mr_troiano_doesnt_go_to_washington_but_ms_peltola_does_150400.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

3c56a7c858

RealClearPolitics

Learning To Do Democracy - RealClearPolitics

Not long ago, over a dinner with college students, I asked if they longed for a normally functioning government. Their collective answer was, “We don’t know what normal government looks like. The government we have today is the government we have had our entire lives.” As much as we may lament the current chaotic state of the union, most people of my generation can imagine something much saner. That’s because we lived in a time when the government, if not perfect, worked better. But can we get back to sane government if young people don’t know what to demand and don’t have the muscle memory to play their appropriate part in restoring it? Helping prepare students for citizenship should be an imperative for educational institutions, from kindergarten to college. Unfortunately, most schools are flunking. An inventory of rampant political dysfunction touches on every facet of American life. Respect for government institutions has plummeted because the people who serve in those institutions don’t show respect for them. Republican legislators can’t work with each other, let alone with the opposition party. The life expectancy for Republican speakers of the House of Representatives is about the same as for kamikaze pilots in World War II. The difference is that kamikazes had a better record of accomplishing their mission. Other tactics are more consequential. For instance, the Founding Fathers envisioned impeachment as a last resort. Impeachment is now becoming a routine tool for amplifying political disagreements. Behind vendetta politics is the idea that it is better to kneecap political institutions than get anything done through debate and compromise. This intolerance spreads to the way citizens behave. Politically mixed marriages are increasingly viewed as heretical. In 1958, one-third of Democrats wanted their daughters to marry a Democrat, and one-fourth of Republicans wanted their daughters to marry a Republican. In 2016, those percentages increased sharply to 60% for Democrats and to 63% for Republicans. Last fall, a survey by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute found that 23% of Americans agreed that “things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” The word for this is “insurrection.” We have passionate opinions about our government, and yet a stunning degree of ignorance about it. To take an example from a recent American Bar Association survey on civic literacy, only 59% of respondents correctly identified John Roberts from a four-person list as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One of the others on the list was Justice Clarence Thomas, who was selected by almost one-quarter of respondents. A 2018 study by the Institute for Citizens & Scholars found that about one-third of Americans could achieve a 60% passing score on the government test required for U.S. citizenship. The test offered no reassurance that things are getting better. About three out of four senior citizens (65 years and older) passed. Only 19% of those under the age of 45 would have qualified for citizenship. How will we solve social, economic, and political problems if we do not have rudimentary knowledge of our government, never mind familiarity with the historical roots of democratic systems? We cannot preserve democracy, and its problem-solving abilities, if we don’t know what democracy looks and feels like. Here is where education comes up short. The mission of education is to teach students how to think, not what to think. But the latter often takes precedence. Universities ought to model good civic behavior. Instead, they have become partisan playgrounds. University presidents are expected to take sides on Gaza, abortion, and climate change. Conservatives score political points by calling out campus liberals for illiberally stifling debate of alternatives. There is justification for this criticism. But the goal of many on the political right is not to move the university into a safe place for everyone to speak freely. It is to remake the curriculum to suit their own political preferences. If political polarization has raised the stakes for providing courses that teach citizenship, it is not the only factor that has inhibited such instruction. In a famous 1959 essay, C.P. Snow – a celebrated British novelist, physicist, and government administrator – argued the humanities had taken precedence over science in higher education. British elites, he said, were not equipped to manage the science-driven challenges of the modern world. Today, the problem is the opposite. Humanities and social sciences are being marginalized. The emphasis on campuses is STEM – science, technology, engineering, and math. These fields attract federal funding. English departments find it much more difficult to acquire business-endowed programs than do departments of construction engineering. No sensible person would suggest that sciences and engineering are not needed. But sciences cannot teach us everything we need to know. History, literature, sociology, and political science help us understand the evolution and practice of democracy. The need for civics education does not begin in college. It begins much earlier when values are being formed. Here, too, the signs are distressing. Civics is scarcely taught in elementary and middle schools. As of last fall, only six states required high schools to provide two semesters of civics, according to CivxNow, a national coalition promoting civics education. Thirty-four states, plus the District of Columbia, required a single semester. The rest required less or nothing at all. The consequences are predictable. The 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that only 22% of eighth graders were proficient in civics. Less than half of the students who took the NAEP test reported they had taken a class focused on civics or government. Here again, the emphasis on STEM has diverted resources. This, for instance, is the emphasis of the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2002. Federal investment in civics amounts to 50 cents per student, CivxNow says; STEM instruction receives more than $50 per student. The solutions for K-12 education rest in part on attracting qualified teachers. Students who study under civics teachers who have a high level of confidence

A close-up of a printed document with the title 'Learning To Do Democracy - RealClearPolitics' visible at the top. The document is partially visible with the right side cut off, showing only the top portion.

2024-01-26 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/26/learning_to_do_democracy_150384.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

1903cd3393

RealClearPolitics

Bulwark Writers Double Down on Trump as Democracy’s Destroyer - RealClearPolitics

Is a Trump victory in election 2024 destined to end democracy in America? How should a responsible citizen respond to the nation’s likely descent into dictatorship? Does the determination to save America from imminent abrogation of the rule of law justify bending or breaking the law? These are questions I raised recently at RealClearPolitics in “‘Flight 93 Election’ Anti-Trumpers Imperil the Rule of Law.” Taking issue with Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan’s lengthy essay, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending,” I argued that the distinguished historian and foreign policy analyst was wrong and irresponsible to contend that all signs point to Trump’s consolidation of tyrannical government should he win in November. Anti-Trump intellectuals, I maintained, should stop declaring that a Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable, both because it is not and because their sky-is-falling rhetoric encourages extreme and even lawless measures to avert imaginary catastrophes. Ronald Radosh and Gabriel Schoenfeld expressed their displeasure with my view in “Anti-Trump Means Anti-Democracy? You Can’t Be Serious.” Their article appeared in The Bulwark, which was “founded in 2019 by Sarah Longwell, Charlie Sykes, and Bill Kristol” and boasts of practicing journalism “with honesty and good faith.” The article’s sub-headline accuses me of advancing a “bizarre and disingenuous ‘I’m rubber, you’re glue’ argument.” This echoes Radosh and Schoenfeld, who state that I take “disingenuousness to a new height” and engage in “shameful” obscurantism. In replying to The Bulwark editors’ and writers’ disparagement of my reasoning and impugning of my character, I will restrict myself to defending my arguments and exposing their flawed ones. Radosh, a CUNY professor emeritus of history, and Schoenfeld, a Niskanen Center senior fellow, distort my central contention. I do not maintain the absurdity that to oppose Trump is to threaten democracy. Rather, I criticize Kagan’s position, and that of other anti-Trump intellectuals, which is that to support Trump is to facilitate dictatorship. The Bulwark, moreover, either misapprehends the playground taunt “I’m rubber, you’re glue” that it directs at me, or misapprehends my thinking, or both. To say, “I’m rubber, you’re glue” means, as kids of a certain generation well understood, that only the one who hurls the accusation is guilty of it. In contrast, the very title of my essay indicates, and the opening paragraphs develop the point, that some anti-Trump intellectuals resemble pro-Trump intellectuals like Michael Anton in his 2016 polemic, “The Flight 93 Election,” by arguing that a vote for the other side is a vote for dictatorship. Rather than simplistically “flipping the script,” as Radosh and Schoenfeld write, I went out of my way to argue that intellectuals on both sides were playing with fire by proclaiming that voters face a stark choice: Do the right thing and choose the writer’s candidate or destroy democracy in America. Radosh and Schoenfeld also assert that I dismiss concerns about a Trump presidency: “As for Trump, Berkowitz assures us that there is little call to worry about his dictatorial proclivities.” I offered no such assurance. Character matters, and presidents go wrong in any number of ways. Nevertheless, I explained, it is unreasonable to insist that a second term in the White House will empower Trump to overthrow the American regime. This is not to say that we have nothing to fear from dictatorial proclivities in our chief executives. We should always be on guard against the disposition to govern outside of and counter to the rule of law. Such dispositions tend to be amply concentrated in individuals who manage to win election to the presidency. That is an underlying lesson of the constitutional separation of powers. It applies to President Biden – with his lawless immigration policy, his unconstitutional forgiveness of student-loan debt, and his Justice Department’s efforts to sneak past the judiciary a sweetheart immunity deal for his son – as it would to a reelected President Trump. Radosh and Schoenfeld fare no better in addressing my three main criticisms of Kagan’s summons to resist an incipient Trump dictatorship. “First,” I wrote at RCP, “history provides scarce evidence of democracies deteriorating into dictatorships without the cooperation of the military, government bureaucracy, business world, media, and universities.” Radosh and Schoenfeld do not offer examples from history to counter my claim. Instead, they charge me with drastically misrepresenting the character of the U.S. government: “Berkowitz exaggerates grotesquely in calling the federal bureaucracy ‘overwhelmingly progressive’ (has he ever visited the Pentagon?).” I have. Have they? Radosh and Schoenfeld provide no evidence to contradict my claim that the federal bureaucracy is overwhelmingly progressive. Contrary to their snide reproach, the Pentagon bureaucracy (as opposed to the rank-and-file military, whose members lean right and are well-schooled in the laws of armed conflict, which teach that they are obliged to disregard unlawful orders) corroborates my generalization. The Pentagon bureaucracy’s top echelon has assiduously pursued a diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda. Meanwhile, members of the rest of DoD’s sprawling bureaucracy, who return in the evening to their homes in D.C.’s Maryland and northern Virginia suburbs, typically possess conventionally left-of-center opinions. As a veteran national security adviser on Capitol Hill who works frequently with the Defense Department told me, to suppose that the Pentagon bureaucracy would back Trump’s arrogation of despotic power is “like saying the parental board of Georgetown Day School will embrace a Trump dictatorship.” My second main criticism was that “Kagan offers not a word about the political forces that provoked voters to back Trump in 2015 and gave his candidacy new life in 2023.” Radosh and Schoenfeld follow suit. Unable or unwilling to put themselves in the position of a typical Trump voter, they are oblivious to the boost that elites’ disdain gives to Trump among working class voters and others who support him. My critics, moreover, are impervious to the impact of the false Russia collusion narrative advanced in 2016 by the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration Justice Department and FBI. Likewise, they ignore the effects of social media giants’ suppression a few weeks before the 2020 presidential

A man in a dark suit and red tie stands in front of a dark background with blue curtains.

2024-01-21 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/21/bulwark_writers_double_down_on_trump_as_democracys_destroyer_150353.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.9 ]

Likely

Likely

3d2d9a45df

RealClearPolitics

Let the Primaries Continue - RealClearPolitics

Nikki Haley is right. New Hampshire is supposed to be the first primary on the presidential year calendar, not the last. Even before Tuesday’s decisive victory by Donald Trump, the incessant calls among party regulars and the press for the also-rans to quit (sometimes even before the first votes were counted) seem discordant to the point of being un-American. Don’t we root for underdogs? Is it over when the fat lady does her warmup exercises? Aren’t comeback stories to be celebrated? What the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary established – and what Haley keeps repeating to Trump’s intense chagrin – is that she is the last candidate standing other than the former president. That should make it a two-person race. And the general election is not until November. Also, the United States is a vast and diverse country, while Iowa and New Hampshire are small and overwhelmingly white. This is spin, yes, but also factual. Here are more facts: Quitting the campaign now means ceding the nomination to someone under criminal indictment in four jurisdictions, a man who has yet to participate in a single debate in this election cycle, a man who will be 78 years old by the time Republicans hold their nominating convention in Milwaukee next summer. In her fiery speech last night in which Haley conceded New Hampshire, but nothing else, she alluded to Trump’s “senior moment” when the former president confused Haley with Nancy Pelosi. “The other day Donald Trump accused me of not providing security at the Capitol on January 6,” Haley said. “Now, I’ve long called for mental competency tests for politicians over the age of 75. Trump claims he’d do better than me on one of those tests. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. But if he thinks that, then he should have no problem standing on a debate stage with me.” And with that, former Gov. Haley laid down the gauntlet. “This race is far from over,” she said. “There are dozens of states left to go, and the next one is my sweet state of South Carolina.” Politics as practiced in South Carolina is actually the opposite of sweet. It’s mean and nasty, and when she lived there Haley had the whole kitchen sink thrown at her: the sexist rumors and racist whispers along with the run-of-the-mill dirty tricks that epitomize campaigns there. Yet she won twice as governor, bucking the GOP establishment to do so. In office, she staked out conservative positions on social issues, cut taxes (despite Ron DeSantis’ claims to the contrary), rid the state of its Confederate flag, and filled a vacant Senate seat with a black Republican before accepting a cabinet-level position in the Trump administration. In sum, Haley was well-regarded among South Carolina voters when she left office and was also one of the few Republicans who managed to emerge from service in the Trump administration with her reputation intact. And yes, she was at 2% in the polls when she joined a crowded 2024 field and is the now last woman standing against the presumptive favorite. So she has a case to make. But the man who beat her by double digits in New Hampshire has a much stronger case. Donald Trump won more than 50% of the Iowa caucus votes in a four-person field. He also got more than 50% of the vote Tuesday in New Hampshire, a state that allows independents to vote in Republican (or Democratic) primaries. Among registered Republicans, exit polls showed Trump besting Haley by a margin of 3-1. This is nothing new. In 2016, Trump came out of nowhere – it was unclear he was a Republican when the campaign started – to win 36 out of 48 GOP primaries. He amassed 1,447 convention delegates that year to 551 for Ted Cruz, 167 for Marco Rubio, and 161 for John Kasich. As the incumbent president in 2020, Trump was unchallenged for the nomination. To most rank-and-file Republican voters, Trump is the de facto incumbent in 2024. Most Republican officeholders understand this. The evidence is everywhere. Marco Rubio endorsed Trump, not DeSantis, the governor of his own state. That black South Carolina senator appointed by Haley? That’s Tim Scott, of course. Scott not only endorsed Trump after dropping out himself, he was standing behind Trump Tuesday night when Trump spent most of his victory speech excoriating Haley for having the temerity to stay in the race. It was a bizarre performance even by Trump’s standards. In his patented stream-of-consciousness oratorical style, Trump not only used a vulgarity, which is common for him in this campaign, but he sounded more angry than ebullient. The source of that ire was Haley’s own upbeat speech moments before. Trump said so himself. “This is not your typical victory speech,” he said. “But let’s not have somebody take a victory [lap] when she had a very bad night.” Happy warrior, Trump is not. It doesn’t seem to matter. Sen. Scott, who is definitely a happy warrior, was invited on stage by Trump to disparage Haley. It was a telling moment. “You must really hate her,” Trump said. Scott, who is not a hater, stepped to the microphone, looked at Trump, and said, “I just love you.” Eight years into the Trump era, Democrats, “Never-Trump” Republicans, and most of the media still can’t get their minds around this appeal. Apparently, it’s easier to compare Trump to Hitler – Joe Scarborough did that as recently as Tuesday morning – than examine the rhetoric and the policies of the political establishment that created the appetite for this man. The surprise in 2015 and 2016 was genuine. The continued bafflement is more like denial. When Trump burst on the political scene eight years ago, Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer and political writer Jon Meacham, a liberal Republican, remarked that seeing Trump win primaries was like being aboard a hijacked airplane and half the passengers “are rooting for the hijackers.” It was a funny line, and sincere, but it

A man in a dark suit and a woman in a pink dress are shaking hands in a formal setting with flags of the US Navy and a red flag in the background.

2024-01-24 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/24/let_the_primaries_continue_150376.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.85]

Unlikely

Likely

046f7ab6a0

RealClearPolitics

Haley and Trump Battle for Future of GOP in New Hampshire - RealClearPolitics

SALEM, New Hampshire — Nikki Haley, the business-friendly moderate, insisted that in America, coronations are out of character, while Donald Trump, the billionaire populist, prepared for one, arguing that Republicans must unify around him and his inevitable return to the White House. Even Chris Sununu admitted things had gotten confusing. “It is really a role reversal,” said the New Hampshire governor who has led Haley on a whirlwind tour of his state. On the eve of the first in the nation primary, Sununu told MSNBC that Trump “was supposed to be the anti-establishment guy, but no, now Nikki is. She is the one bucking the trends.” Sitting across from Sununu, Jen Psaki, President Biden’s former press secretary turned talk show host, nodded along. Welcome to the topsy-turvy realignment of the Republican presidential primary. It could end in the next 24 hours. For Haley, New Hampshire may very well be “do or die.” She is the last rival standing to the political and cultural phenomenon that is Trump. He has largely remade the GOP in his own image such that he can pack stadiums with adoring fans while also corralling party brass from across the country to stump on his behalf. In New Hampshire alone, his procession has included old-guard governors, new-right firebrands, and even the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee. A stop on Sunday at the Rochester Opera House was literally packed to the rafters. Allegations of elitism flew back and forth between the former president and his former ambassador to the United Nations. “What I will say to Donald Trump,” Haley said inside the chic Artisan Hotel in Salem, “is if you have that political elite, you can keep them because that’s never who I wanted to work for.” At her last stop of the day, she told a crowd of more than 700 supporters that she “always wanted to serve the people.” An hour north, at the Margate Resort in Laconia, Trump accused Haley of making “an unholy alliance with RINOs, Never Trumpers ... globalists and radical left communists to get liberals and Biden supporters to vote for her in the Republican primary.” Whomever New Hampshire voters believe could determine the nomination and direction of the country. Analysts and allies agree that if Haley is to mount a real challenge, it must start in the Granite State. She trails in the RealClearPolitics Average by more than 18%. Regardless, Greg Moore reported that “the vibe is good.” State director of Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian group founded by the billionaire Koch brothers, Moore told RCP that public polling in New Hampshire “has been terrible” of late. More than 100 doorknockers from AFP have fanned out across the state in support of Haley, and Moore insists the state is winnable. “From a demographic perspective,” he said, “it is essentially a white-collar suburb.” Trump enjoys his strongest support in rural America, Moore said, noting his double-digit win in Iowa. But he traditionally lags in suburban areas like New Hampshire, he added of the state whose electorate is made up of as much as 40% independent voters. The state, Moore concluded, “magnifies the effects of where he underperforms.” Ohio Sen. JD Vance told RCP that the contest boils down to whether Republicans want to return to “the party of Dick Cheney,” the former vice president, or the economic and foreign policy populism of Trump. A venture capitalist and author of the best-selling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” before politics, Vance said that the GOP old guard, particularly in the Senate, “have presided over the decline of the country.” A U.S. Marine and graduate of Harvard Law School, Vance is also reportedly on the short list for VP. Vance said that Trump forces the GOP establishment “to recognize that if the old way of doing politics had worked for the average Republican voter, then Jeb Bush would have won in 2016.” Fresh off a tour of New Hampshire in support of the former president, he added that if conservatism wasn’t in need of an update, “Nikki Haley would be winning in 2024, but that is not working.” He chalked up lingering resistance to Trump to the fact that for established Republicans, “it is hard to admit failure.” Failure is a favorite topic of Sununu as he travels the state. Republicans can’t whip inflation, reduce gas prices, and get mortgage rates under control, the Haley campaign regularly argues, if they lose to Biden again. “We lost in 2018 and in 2020,” the governor bellowed in Salem, laying those electoral failures at the feet of the former president. “We were going to get that ‘big red wave’ in ’22. Hey Donald Trump, where the F is the red wave? Give me a break!” A central plank of the Haley pitch is that she is best positioned to win outright, thus sparing Republicans another “nail-biter of an election.” According to the RealClearPolitics Average, Trump beats Biden in a theoretical head-to-head matchup by two points.Haley, in a similar contest, leads the president by a little more than a point. Another unmentioned factor: Trump’s legal troubles. A recent Ipsos/Reuters poll, meanwhile, found that more than half of Americans, 58%, would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a crime by a jury. Haley insisted at the last stop that she was the one building a coalition to last. Retired Army Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc, a veteran of 10 tours in Afghanistan, who ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2020 with Trump’s support, has endorsed Haley and was seated in the Artisan Hotel audience. “He’s as conservative as they get,” she said. “And then you have Chris Sununu, who’s a moderate,” she continued, “but the point is, we’ve got everybody.” Trump has his own big tent, and it includes established MAGA royalty, none more prominent than his namesake. Inside a quaint winery outside the town of Hollis, Donald Trump Jr. told an at-capacity crowd that as the son of a billionaire, he was “very self-aware.” He still

A group of people holding signs for political candidates Joe Biden and Nikki Haley, with a sign for Trump in the foreground.

2024-01-23 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/23/haley_and_trump_battle_for_future_of_gop_in_new_hampshire_150367.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.9 ]

Likely

Likely

0ccdb99bef

RealClearPolitics

In the Matter of Quotable Inaugurals - RealClearPolitics

It’s snowing in Washington, D.C., as I write these words – just as it was 63 years ago when John Fitzgerald Kennedy prepared to take the oath of office as the 35th U.S. president. Inauguration addresses are on my mind this morning: One year from today, God willing, we shall hear another one. Americans were already enthralled with John F. Kennedy by Jan. 19, 1961. Although he’d won by the narrowest of margins in 1960 (and Richard Nixon did not direct a mob to pressure Congress to delay certification of the vote), by the time of his inauguration the glamorous 43-year-old senator from Massachusetts and his young family had captured the public imagination. The day after JFK arrived in Washington, D.C., in 1961, it began snowing. The city was snarled. Some 10,000 cars were stranded in the streets. Herbert Hoover, with his customary bad luck, was flying from Miami, but was turned back. Thirty of President Dwight Eisenhower’s aides were stuck overnight in the White House. At the inaugural ceremony the next day, a space heater on the podium short-circuited, nearly starting a fire. The sun came out, making the U.S. Capitol a lovely study in blue-over-white, but it was so bright that 86-year-old Robert Frost couldn’t read the poem he’d written in the glare and recited one from memory instead. Then came Jack Kennedy, handsome as a movie star, hatless even in that biting cold. Particular about his appearance, Kennedy didn’t want to wear the silk top hat he’d picked out, which turned into a significant sartorial decision. But if most men would never really wear formal hats again in this country, the stirring words of Kennedy’s inaugural address would ring in Americans’ ears for decades afterward. “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty,” Kennedy vowed in his 1961 inaugural address, lines that built to the speech’s dramatic climax: “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” With those words, John F. Kennedy helped launch the modern American presidency. Presidential communications had always been a component of the job, and inaugural addresses are the best forum they’ll ever have. Our most revered chief executives – Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt come to mind – certainly understood this. Television forever altered the dynamics of being communicator-in-chief, however, and John F. Kennedy was the man for the moment. Two decades later, Ronald Reagan would become known as the Great Communicator, but to be successful all presidents must master the art of explaining where they want to go and why the American people should follow them. This is easier said than done. Except in the case of Donald Trump, who inexplicably gave a campaign speech instead of a traditional inaugural address, most inaugural addresses are quickly forgotten. What sound in real-time like eloquent calls for unity dissipate under the weight of the partisan politics that follow. Or worse: Sweeping oratory and evocative policy ideas can simply run aground on the rocky shoals of political realism. “We are led, by events and common sense,” George W. Bush said in his second inaugural address, “to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.” This struck many liberals, and some conservatives – not all of them pacifists – as ominous overreach. Some of the Bush criticism was over the top, and for Democrats who still revered the Kennedy name, evidence of selective amnesia (“pay any price” JFK said, “bear any burden”). Yet here’s the thing. Inaugural addresses are written for a contemporaneous audience, and they are meant to be heard aloud. In this way, they are a throwback to the days of Lincoln or, at least, FDR, whose speeches were absorbed via radio. But they are also transcribed, and we can read them at our leisure many years after the fact. With the perspective of hindsight, both Kennedy and Bush may have overestimated what is possible in the world, at least militarily. Six decades, later, for instance, most presidential scholars now consider President Eisenhower’s farewell address, delivered three days before Kennedy’s inaugural, to be more substantive than Kennedy’s evocative speech. This is not a new insight. “With 50 years’ perspective and with countless wars and mindless governmental spending to look back upon, Ike’s words serve us better than JFK’s,” Leslie H. Gelb, a president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a seminar at the Newseum 13 years ago. I was present at that 2011 session and recall how panelist James Fallows agreed. “Kennedy’s speech will always be exciting to listen to, Eisenhower’s is very important to read,” Fallows told me afterward. “Of course, both of these were memorable and very effective speeches, but in different ways,” Fallows added. “Kennedy’s was mainly inspiration and memorable for its tone and certain ringing phrases – starting with ‘Ask not ...’ But as an assessment of long-term challenges in American life, Eisenhower’s is the more memorable document.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette executive editor David M. Shribman, writing about those addresses that same week, was struck by how they challenge modern stereotypes about the two presidents. “[F]rom the distance of a half century the two speeches ... make us question our historical memories, which often paint Eisenhower as the steely pragmatist and Kennedy as the dreamy romantic,” Shribman wrote. “Instead, it was Eisenhower who said he was praying for a world where ‘in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the

A black and white image of a man in a suit standing at a podium with microphones, addressing an audience.

2024-01-19 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/19/in_the_matter_of_quotable_inaugurals_150352.html

['Politics']

[0.95]

Likely

Likely

3caf3b06af

RealClearPolitics

The Task of Journalism in a Free Society - RealClearPolitics

By the summer of 2016, Donald Trump had secured the Republican nomination for president. In the eyes of the elite media, a Trump presidency no longer seemed an outlandish fantasy but rather a menacing if unlikely outcome. Angry and anxious, prominent journalists asked in earnest whether the old norms – report the facts, get the story right, separate news gathering from opining – were still adequate. The obvious answer should have been yes. One could accurately report Trump’s loopy and alarming statements, his many character flaws, and his dubious policy pronouncements – along with his preternatural ability to give voice to many people’s discontent with elites of both parties – without embellishing the facts, inventing misdeeds, and adopting an oppositional stance. Instead, having convinced themselves that Trump posed a fatal threat to democracy in America and apparently doubting that citizens could be trusted to evaluate the facts about his candidacy on their own, some of our most prestigious journalistic outlets decided to scrap the old norms. They downplayed or obscured Hillary Clinton’s unlawful use of a private email server to conduct State Department business (including the transmission of highly classified information) while sugarcoating the extraordinary indulgences Clinton and her team received from investigators in the Obama administration FBI and Department of Justice. At the same time, elite journalists took the lead in convicting Trump in the court of public opinion of Russia collusion based on a dossier of tall tales marketed to the public and the FBI by the Clinton campaign. As part of The 1735 Project – a special RealClearPolitics series that explores the precipitous decline in public trust in the media, the consequences for freedom and democracy, and remedies to the deepening crisis – RCP Washington Bureau Chief Carl Cannon recently revisited questions that journalists raised in 2016 concerning the norms that should guide their coverage of Trump. In “The Art of Covering Politicians Who Lie,” Cannon observed that elite journalists largely concur with the elastic new legal theory advanced by the Biden administration Justice Department’s criminal indictment of Trump for his conduct in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riots: A president breaks the law by lying to the public to hold onto power. Cannon identifies three problems with the theory shared by Special Counsel Jack Smith and prominent journalists. First, it flies in the face of the First Amendment, which above all protects political speech, including political speech that is hateful and untrue. Second, the theory presupposes knowledge of Trump’s state of mind on Jan. 6. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a lie as “a false statement made with intent to deceive,” notes Cannon. But there is reason to suppose that Trump’s singular personality led him to ignore the chorus of voices on his own staff and instead embrace the far-fetched theories of informal advisers Rudy Giuliani and then-Chapman University Law School Professor John Eastman that the election had been stolen and that on Jan. 6 he was within his rights under the Constitution to challenge the results in the House of Representatives. Third, as Cannon reminds with several colorful examples – FDR, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton, for starters – U.S. presidents and their loyal minions have routinely uttered falsehoods to the public for political gain. Acknowledging that “Donald Trump presented problems of a whole new order of magnitude,” Cannon also recognized that many Trump supporters take his boasts, embroideries, and outright fabrications – his grandiosity and narcissism – with a grain of salt. Showing more than telling, Cannon indicates that the old norms were adequate to covering Trump and still furnish the best approach to keeping citizens informed. Select journalists could (and did) accurately report his wild exaggerations, boorish behavior, and ignorance of policy and governance without boasting of their fidelity to a new and higher ethic. The new standards, however, gave many in the elite media leave to embroider Trump’s questionable conduct and participate in the fabrication of treasonous deeds. Adhering to the old norms would have required trust in the public and understanding of the journalist’s vital but limited role in a liberal democracy. To recover an appreciation of the journalist’s calling, one could hardly do better than read “The Noise of Typewriters: Remembering Journalism,” in which Lance Morrow offers elegiac observations on what journalism once was and restrained ruminations on what it has become. An award-winning essayist of uncommon perceptiveness and elegance, Morrow provides in “The Noise of Typewriters” a loose and flowing meditation on the mechanics of publishing newspapers and magazines; the peculiarities and indispensable contributions of publishers, editors, and reporters; and the frustrations and joys, the tedium and rush, the private vanity and public spiritedness of writing and disseminating the first draft of history. Bringing a light touch to profound issues and eminent individuals and eliciting striking insights from seemingly casual occurrences and ordinary people, Morrow’s explorations of ideas, events, and people revolve around a simple proposition: The purpose of journalism is to search for and communicate the truth. A senior fellow at Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center whose occasional writings now appear in the Wall Street Journal and City Journal, Morrow joined Time magazine in 1965. Over the course of more than three decades, he covered culture and politics in America and diplomacy and war abroad. The search for and communication of the truth, the veteran journalist well knows, are no simple matters, particularly on a looming deadline. Nevertheless, “Journalism in the twentieth century proceeded on the assumption that there was such a thing as objective reality,” Morrow writes. “But in the writing and editing, objective reality tended to become subjective reality; facts were well enough, but important facts needed to be evaluated, judged – characterized.” Accordingly, journalism required both the intelligence to distinguish between the way the world really is and how we would like it to be and the moral character to respect the distinction: “A journalist needs a disciplined reverence for the facts, because the temptations of storytelling are strong and seductive.” Those temptations,

Two men in a busy office setting with one stretching his arm. The environment is professional with desks, computers, and a busy atmosphere.

2024-01-14 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/14/the_task_of_journalism_in_a_free_society_150321.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Unlikely

13be551da9

RealClearPolitics

Winner of the DeSantis-Haley Debate - RealClearPolitics

After two hours of going at each other with hammer and tong, there was a clear winner at the debate between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley at Drake University last night sponsored by CNN. But he wasn’t in the building. Instead, Donald Trump was across town, speaking at a town hall hosted by a different cable network, floating the tantalizing claim that he has already chosen his running mate. If it seems brazen to make an announcement before the first primary season votes have been cast, there’s a reason: With less than a week before the Iowa caucuses, Trump maintains a sizeable – possibly insurmountable – lead over his nearest rivals. A big victory for Trump next Monday night would put him in a position to run the table of early states and cruise toward the nomination – notwithstanding his mounting legal difficulties. And, as has been the case so often through the primary process, the bickering and infighting among his main challengers that took place on the debate stage in Des Moines last night only served to help the former president’s campaign. They didn’t waste any time on niceties, either. In his opening statement, DeSantis rehashed Haley’s recent remarks in New Hampshire where she seemed to acknowledge Trump’s looming victory in Iowa by telling New Hampshire voters that they can “correct” Iowa’s caucus results. “We don’t need another mealy-mouthed politician who just tells you what she thinks you want to hear just to try to get your vote, then to get into office and to do her donors’ bidding,” DeSantis said. Haley, anticipating the salvo, fired off one of her own, directing the audience to her campaign’s opposition research site, the subtly named DeSantislies.com. “You’re going to see the fact that he has switched his policies multiple times, and we’ll call that out tonight. But every time he lies, Drake University, don’t turn this into a drinking game, because you will be overserved by the end of the night.” With that, they were off and running. In DeSantis’ telling, Haley isn’t really a conservative, can’t be trusted, and routinely caves to the desires of her “woke” corporate donors at every opportunity. Haley countered by attacking DeSantis’ own credibility, portraying him as an inveterate liar, and repeating the name of her opposition website with such frequency over the next two hours (it seemed longer) she conjured up memories of Al Gore’s notorious Social Security “lock box.” The candidates clashed on everything from education and abortion to illegal immigration and spending. One of the sharpest exchanges came over Ukraine and the latest $106 billion aid package currently being debated by Congress. Haley accused DeSantis of doing an about face on his support for Ukraine, saying he was “copying Donald Trump” and that he was distorting the issue of aid for Ukraine and presenting the public with a false choice. “This is the lie they're telling the American people over and over again,” Haley said. “It is so wrong to say this. They're saying you have to choose between Ukraine or Israel, or Israel and securing the border. You do not have to choose when it comes to national security.” DeSantis responded by saying Haley, who served as U.N. ambassador in the Trump administration, has no plans to try to end the conflict and is willing to spend billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars far into the future while ignoring needs at home. “Where is some of that money going? They've done tens of billions of dollars to pay salaries for Ukrainian government bureaucrats. They've paid pensions for Ukrainian retirees with your tax dollars? We've got homeless veterans. We have all these problems,” DeSantis said. “This is the U.N. way of thinking that we're somehow globalists and we have unlimited resources to do,” DeSantis added. “You know, I think here's the problem. You can take the ambassador out of the United Nations, but you can't take the United Nations out of the ambassador.” For her part, Haley seemed to relish taking swipes at DeSantis’ campaign struggles, using them to undercut his frequent boasts of being a competent chief executive with an impressive record of achievement. “He has blown through $150 million.” Haley said, more than once. “I don't know how you do that ... he has nothing to show for it. He spent more money on private planes than he has on commercials trying to get Iowans to vote for him. If you can't manage a campaign, how are you going to manage a country?” There were more tense exchanges over school choice, transgender issues, the Disney Company, Black Lives Matter, and China. So many insults and name-calling that it had the strange effect of making the candidates seem authentic in at least one way: Their mutual dislike seemed genuine. At one point Haley turned to DeSantis and said, “You’re so desperate. You’re just so desperate.” But just as Chris Christie noted hours before by suspending his campaign in New Hampshire: When all the candidates not named “Trump” slice and dice in these debates, it only benefits one man. And as DeSantis and Haley walked off stage battered and bloody, Donald J. Trump, the real winner of the debate, sat less than two miles away entirely unscathed.

Two individuals stand at podiums with microphones, one in a dark suit and red tie, the other in a light pink dress, against a blue background with 'CNN' branding.

2024-01-11 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/11/winner_of_the_desantis-haley_debate_150313.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.75]

Likely

Unlikely

6c8c222aaf

RealClearPolitics

Like It or Not, 2024 Is the Year of Trump - RealClearPolitics

Ladies and gentlemen, start your election engines. Ready or not 2024 is here, and that means you are in for the ride of your life! The all-important Iowa caucuses are here in just two weeks, and by the end of the month New Hampshire voters may have slammed shut the door for any candidate other than Donald Trump to grab the Republican Party presidential nomination. But that’s all right, we don’t need plain politics to make this election year interesting. For that we have the Democrats’ rigged indictments and novel legal theories. There are four criminal trials scheduled throughout the year, any one of which could force Trump off the campaign trail long enough to significantly alter the election. Then there is the absurd effort to remove Trump from the ballot in multiple states due to an inventive reading of the 14th Amendment’s ban on Confederate rebels holding office in the U.S. government. And if that weren’t enough, House Republicans have ordered up an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden that will compete with Trump’s legal woes for your attention. Does the GOP with its slim majority in the House have enough votes to actually impeach Biden? Possibly not, but it may not matter as long as the mainstream media covers the inquiry with a degree of fairness. There is nothing appetizing about the Bidens’ dealings with foreign entities over the last two decades, and voters may choose to spew out their already lukewarm affection for the Democratic candidate. So where to begin? It has to be declared upfront that the election cycle takes precedence over the legal cycle and even the impeachment cycle. Remember, there is nothing to prevent Trump from running for president even if he is a convicted felon. There is nothing to prevent him from taking office if he is a convicted felon. So the only way such a conviction might impact the election is if voters reject the former president as a result of something they learn from the legal proceedings that turns them against Trump. But as I showed in my last column, voters are already well informed about Trump’s eccentricities, and they prefer him over more “normal” candidates. Instead, they became even more enthusiastic about Trump’s candidacy as soon as the Deep State brought its first indictment against him in March of 2023. The verdict that matters is already in: A plurality of U.S. voters apparently agrees with Trump that the legal persecution being waged against him is election interference, and they aren’t happy about it. So let’s focus on the likely outcome of the Iowa GOP caucuses on Jan. 15 and ponder how the election race might proceed from there. A Fox Business poll on Dec. 20 was typical. Trump led with 52%, Ron DeSantis had 18%, and Nicki Haley had 16%. Everyone else trailed badly. To put it plainly, the poll shows Trump leading by 34 percentage points, a lead which is virtually unheard of in a contested primary. It is highly unlikely that Trump will lose, and if his lead remains anywhere near 34 points on Caucus Day – and he runs the table in New Hampshire eight days later – then the race is effectively over. What the Never Trump forces seem to be counting on is a late “surge” by Nikki Haley. The trend as seen on RealClearPolitics is that Haley has either tied or leads DeSantis in Iowa. If she manages to secure second place in the caucus state, she would try to turn that into a momentum boost in New Hampshire, where she is already generally acknowledged to be in second place, although down by 21 points to Donald Trump, according to the RealClearPolitics Average. But let’s be realistic. Haley is a media darling, but she hasn’t caught on among conservatives, and her path is winding and unlikely. It’s DeSantis who has won the endorsement of Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds and Iowa’s leading social conservatives. That wouldn’t be enough to help him surpass Trump, but the power of an on-the-ground political machine could easily help him hold off Haley for second place. Should that happen, Haley would be deprived of her boost going into New Hampshire and would likely be a distant second-place finisher to Trump. Even if Haley somehow finishes in a strong second place, it would have the opposite effect of what she hopes. A DeSantis collapse in Iowa, where the Florida governor has pinned all his hopes, would be devastating for his candidacy. With his donors abandoning him, DeSantis would very likely withdraw before New Hampshire, sending a large number of voters back into Trump’s arms and hurting Haley at a crucial moment. The other scenario that could play out in New Hampshire is that Chris Christie, who has positioned himself as a one-man Trump wrecking crew, gets out of the race and endorses Haley. That could certainly help her, but it might be countered by an endorsement of Trump by Vivek Ramaswamy, the outsider candidate who touts himself as Trump without the baggage. Besides, Christie’s ego probably won’t let him step aside until he’s bankrupted his super PAC and exhausted his options. And after Haley’s odd flub on the causes of the Civil War, Christie noted caustically, “She's unwilling to offend anyone by telling the truth.” Not exactly endorsement language. Which brings us to South Carolina. Did I mention that Haley is the former governor of South Carolina, and is counting on its Feb. 24 primary one month after New Hampshire to cement her as the legitimate challenger to Trump? But that could only happen if she wins in her home state. If she loses there, she is toast. And if she has any hopes of running for president successfully in the future, that is a fate she cannot endure. Therefore, if she comes out of New Hampshire with no momentum, she may withdraw from the race before her home state votes to avoid an embarrassing loss. And since Trump has a

A man stands at a podium with a sign that reads 'TEXT NH TO 88022 TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 2024' in front of a crowd holding signs that say 'LIVE FREE OR DIE'.

2024-01-02 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/01/02/like_it_or_not_2024_is_the_year_of_trump.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.9 0.7]

Unlikely

Likely

bd57b5af8b

RealClearPolitics

Prosecutorial Reforms for Political Trials - RealClearPolitics

Criminal prosecutions of active political candidates, and their families and allies, require special safeguards to protect the democratic process itself. This is true whether Democrats are pursuing Republicans or Republicans are pursuing Democrats. The need for evenhandedness is even higher when elections themselves are at stake. The first place to start is the prosecutorial process, which must not only be fair, but must be perceived that way by Americans of all political parties. The harmony of the nation depends on it. Here are some potential improvements and procedural safeguards to consider: Increased Right to Change Venues and Judges. The public will not long accept a system where Democrats are convicted by “Republican” judges in “Republican” venues, and Republicans are convicted by “Democratic” judges in cities controlled by Democrats. Ignoring the risk of potential political bias by judges or local populations is a fantasy. One safeguard would be to expand the defendant’s ability to seek a change of venue and a trial before an impartial judge. If a crime is real and serious, a defendant can be considered likely to be found guilty in any venue. If the political candidate is only guilty in certain venues, he should not be guilty anywhere. No Novel Theories or Selective Prosecutions. If a prosecutor has not used a theory in the normal course against other (non-political) defendants, the prosecutor should not use that new and untested theory against a political defendant in the midst of an election. Appeals to higher courts on motions to dismiss should also be accelerated to resolve open issues ahead of election season. Third-Party Oversight on the Selection and Activities of Special Prosecutors. Every U.S. attorney general is, by definition, a political appointee, and so is inevitably at risk of at least the perception of political bias. Elections – and respect for elections – are at stake. So we can’t give any political appointee the unilateral right to assign prosecutors who will be seen by many Americans as rabid attack dogs going after political enemies, or, conversely, as toothless lap dogs going easy on political allies. The original special prosecutor law in 1978 did not empower the attorney general to choose the prosecutor. Rather, it established a panel of three U.S. Appeals Court judges to select the special prosecutor, once the attorney general decided that such a special counsel was needed. This, or a similar system, could be reinstated, both for the selection of the special prosecutor and for the approval of that special prosecutor’s charges and extreme tactics. No Compelled Confessions or Forced “Flipping.” It doesn't inspire public confidence to watch a low-level ally of a political target be threatened with decades of jail time unless he or she “flips” against higher-ups to avoid jail time entirely. Similarly, a guilty confession by a political target means little if the prosecutors obtained the confession by threatening the defendant’s family with excessive jail time or destruction. The goal of a political trial is not to obtain a conviction at all costs, but rather to obtain a proper conviction in a transparently measured and unbiased way. No Cover-ups Without Crimes. Michael Flynn, who served briefly as President Trump’s national security adviser, was coerced into pleading guilty to a charge of lying to prosecutors and their investigators, even though no underlying crime had occurred. Any such misstatements should be deemed “immaterial” if there was no crime to cover up in the first place, and particularly if it was the undeserved prosecution itself that triggered such misstatements. How can we determine when these higher standards of procedural fairness come into effect? If we can’t have them for every criminal case, we at least need them when more than the defendant’s rights are at stake – when the prosecution has repercussions for elections or our political process as a whole. One option is a new federal statute authorizing Congress to identify prosecutions that qualify for the higher standard of legal safeguards. A threshold number of votes could be set to protect the minority party’s rights, a certification by 25 Senators or 100 House members, for example. America must not become ancient Rome, where prosecutions of political rivals became an accepted blood sport. Our nation cannot afford an unending series of partisan attacks and counter-attacks, using the criminal justice system as a part of the regular campaign playbook. If we want to protect elections, to protect respect for our legal system, and to protect national harmony, a set of common-sense procedural safeguards for political trials should be put in place now.

A gavel rests on a wooden surface in front of a row of law books with 'California Reports' visible on the spines.

2023-12-21 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/12/21/prosecutorial_reforms_for_political_trials_150229.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

00023404a6

RealClearPolitics

Why Trump Is Winning - RealClearPolitics

So, according to the legacy media, disaster is about to befall America. Former President Donald Trump is the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination: The latest Des Moines Register/NBC News poll shows Trump at 51% in Iowa, up 8% since October, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a distant second at 19% and Nikki Haley at 16%. According to analyst Steve Kornacki, there is an enthusiasm gap in favor of Trump: 70% of Trump supporters say their minds are made up. He is currently at 72% favorability with Iowa caucusgoers. In the general, Trump is also up. And he's not up by a small margin. He is up significantly. Donald Trump, if the election were held today, would become president of the United States. According to a Wall Street Journal poll over the weekend, Trump leads President Joe Biden 47% to 43% in the national polls; if third-party and independent candidates enter the mix, that lead jumps to six points, 37% to 31%. What's more, according to the latest CNN poll, Trump leads Biden by 10 points in Michigan; he leads by five in Georgia. There are two reasons for this. First, Joe Biden is terribly, terribly unpopular. That same Wall Street Journal poll shows that just 23% of voters say Biden's policies have helped them personally, compared to 53% who say his policies have hurt them. Meanwhile, half of voters say that Trump's policies helped them versus 37% who say they hurt. Biden's job performance is at 37% approval and 61% disapproval; just 30% of voters like Bidenomics. That condition is unlikely to alleviate for Biden before the election. It is, according to The Wall Street Journal, "less affordable than any time in recent history to buy a home, and the math isn't changing any time soon." Average new home payments currently stand at $3,322, up from $1,746 at the end of 2020. What's more, Biden's supposed soft landing doesn't look particularly likely to happen, despite the happy talk from the media. November job growth was weak -- which is what the Fed was looking for when they raised interest rates in order to tamp down inflation. But that job growth was only even in "weak" territory because of health care, government employment and leisure and hospitality. In fact, those three sectors plus private education employment are responsible for 81% of all jobs created in 2023. Business starts are weak. Gross output -- a measure of the entire economy, not merely the spending side that we see in gross domestic product -- has flatlined. In the first two quarters of the year, business spending dropped 9%. Biden's team keeps trying to whistle their way past the graveyard on his candidacy. The literal graveyard. According to Semafor's Ben Smith, at the White House holiday party, Biden "strayed into a couple of hazy monologues, which ended only when his wife interrupted him to remind him it was a party. His speech wasn't terrible, or even noteworthy. But everyone in the room realized Biden had a simple rhetorical job and hadn't quite pulled it off." That's right: Joe Biden literally couldn't get through a holiday speech at the White House. This brings us to the second reason Trump is leading Biden in the polls right now: he's not in the news. That's also the reason he's up in Iowa head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates. Because he's not in the news, he's beating Biden -- that takes the electability argument away from DeSantis and Haley. And because he's not in the news, everyone has been able to look away from Trump's crazy, which has always been his Achilles heel. Ironically, one of the best things ever to happen to Trump politically was his social media ban: it has made him nearly invisible. So, here's the question: Will things stay this way? Biden's approval ratings are unlikely to recover from where they are now. The economy is in tender shape. The Ukraine war is going badly. Israel is going to have to continue its war not only against Hamas but against Hezbollah and possibly the Yemeni Houthis. Which means Biden's only hope is putting Trump front and center. That could happen via Trump's criminal trials -- but that may be largely baked into the Trump cake at this point. Would even a conviction radically shift people's opinions on Trump? Today's Trump advantage is no mere chimera. It may just be the 2024 reality. Which is why the media and Democrats are panicking, and they should be. COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.

An older man in a black suit and bow tie is standing on stage with his right hand raised, facing an audience with his back to the camera. The stage is lit with blue and red lights, and there are two small statues on pedestals in the background.

2023-12-13 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/12/13/why_trump_is_winning_150188.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Unlikely

Likely

adec048e44

RealClearPolitics

Not Only Can Trump Win, Right Now He's the Favorite To Win - RealClearPolitics

There’s a strange disjunction in the discourse about the 2024 elections. On the one hand, when presented with the proposition “Trump can win,” people will nod their heads sagely and say something along the lines of: “Of course he can; only a fool would believe to the contrary.” At the same time, whenever polling emerges showing that Donald Trump is performing well in 2024 matchups, a deluge of panicked articles, tweets (or is it “X”s?), social media posts, and the like emerge, reassuring readers that polls aren’t predictive and providing a variety of reasons that things will improve for President Biden. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Elections analysts seem to know that they are obliged to mouth the words that Trump can win, but deep down, they don’t believe them. The notion that Biden is the favorite is deeply internalized, likely for a variety of reasons. So let us set the record straight: Trump can win. Not in a “maybe if all the stars align and then Russia changes the vote totals (even somehow in states like Michigan that use hand-marked paper ballots)” kind of way. Just flat out: Trump can win. As of this writing, Trump leads Biden by 2.6 percentage points nationally in the RealClearPolitics Average. This is Trump’s largest lead in the RCP average to date. Not for 2024, mind you. Ever. Let’s put this in perspective. In 2016, Trump led Hillary Clinton for all of five days in the national RCP Average, each of those days in the immediate aftermath of the Republican convention. He led in 29 polls taken over the course of the entire campaign, 10 of which are recorded in the RCP averages as Los Angeles Times/USC tracking polls. In 2020, Trump never led Biden in the national RCP Average. He briefly closed to within four points in early January of 2020, but that is it. He led in five polls all cycle. So, counting the L.A. Times tracker as a single poll, Trump led in a total of 24 national polls. This cycle? He’s led in that many since mid-September. He’s led in more polls in the past three weeks than he did against Biden in all of 2019-2020. You may be thinking that we don’t elect our president via the popular vote, but rather do so through the Electoral College. This is, of course, true. It also makes Trump’s current position in the polls all the more striking. After all, Trump has consistently outperformed his polling, and his Electoral College positioning has consistently been stronger than his national positioning. That doesn’t mean that this will necessarily hold in 2024, and at some point, the GOP’s worsening position in the suburbs will reverse the Electoral College dynamic that has plagued Democrats for the past few cycles. But we can look at state-level polling as well. In 2016, Trump (somewhat infamously) never led in a poll in Wisconsin. He was never within more than three points of Clinton there. He led in a single poll in Michigan and a single poll in Pennsylvania. His lead in North Carolina never exceeded two points in the RCP averages, while in Florida, his largest lead was 1.2 points. The 2020 comparison is even more striking. Trump led Biden in Florida in the RCP averages briefly, in October and March of that year. In Arizona, it was the same story. North Carolina was a little better for Trump, as he led in the RCP averages perhaps a quarter of the time. In Ohio, Trump led in only six polls all cycle. He led in five polls in Pennsylvania. In Michigan it was five polls, and in Wisconsin, it was four. To put this in even deeper perspective, Mitt Romney never led President Barack Obama in the RCP Average in Wisconsin (and led in just three polls), Pennsylvania (likewise, he led in just three polls), Michigan (he led in just eight polls), or Ohio (Romney led 10 polls all cycle). Things were a bit sunnier for Romney in Florida, where he had leads in the low single digits frequently. The same is true for North Carolina, although Obama led there until May. What does the state polling show today? Trump leads in the RCP Average in Michigan for the first time, ever. Pennsylvania? He leads for the first time ever, and has led in most polls. He narrowly trails Biden in Wisconsin but has already led in almost as many polls as he led in the state in 2016 and 2020 combined. His 0.7% deficit compares to his previous best showing in the state: A 3.5% deficit in August of 2020. Florida? Trump has led or tied in every poll, including some double-digit leads. Arizona? He leads by five in the RCP Average. Georgia? He leads by six. Ohio? Polling is sparse, but he leads by 10. In other words, analyzing this election correctly isn’t just a matter of giving lip service to the notion that Trump can win this election. The correct position right now is that Trump is better positioned in the polls to win this election than any GOP nominee since at least 2004. Not only that, he habitually over-performs his polls. Frankly, if you are willing to set favorites this far out, you should almost certainly declare Donald Trump the favorite. Does any of this mean that Trump will win the presidency in 2024? Absolutely not. There are good arguments why perceptions of the economy will improve between now and then (although maybe they won’t). Perhaps Trump will under-perform his polling this time, as the GOP did in 2022 (although, maybe he won’t). There are good arguments that Trump’s criminal trials will erode his standing in the polls (although having watched Trump scandals unfold for the better part of four decades now, maybe they won’t). These all make for fun speculation and are useful reminders that if a week is a lifetime in politics, then a year is, well, a

A man in a blue suit and red tie stands next to a man in a black hat and leather jacket, both holding drinks, in a crowded room with other people in the background.

2023-11-28 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/28/no_really_biden_is_in_trouble_against_trump.html

['Politics' 'National' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.85 0.8 ]

Likely

Likely

5940f3829b

RealClearPolitics

Democrats Beware: Swing Voters Know Israel Is the Good Guy, and Hamas Is the Bad Guy - RealClearPolitics

As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict drags on, clear battle lines have been drawn. The world is confronted with a clear, unequivocal, unimaginable evil – in raw form, in real time. And, in the fight against the evil of Hamas, the vast majority of Americans know the good guy: Israel. In Israel, the world – other than the propaganda-driven left – is seeing a defender of democracy in action, determined to protect its borders from vicious, murderous monsters. Israelis are fighting back against a terrorist organization. There is no gray area – it is just black and white. If you support Hamas, you are supporting the very worst form of terrorism. For those who are silent or try to “contextualize” evil, excuse evil, justify evil, and even tear down posters of kidnapped children to hide evil, you’re evil yourself. I, for one, intend to ask every future job applicant to share their feelings about Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7, and I want to see the social media posts to back it up, just like hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is calling on Harvard University to suspend antisemitic students. Donors are right to withdraw their financial support from left-wing academic institutions that coddle antisemites. We must condemn evil. This isn’t just politics; it is evil. Only one side killed over a thousand innocent civilians, including women and children, to start the war. Only one side murdered hundreds of partygoers at a music festival. Only one side raped and dismembered victims, only one side issues orders to “behead the enemy” today, and only one side put a baby in an oven and cooked it alive. And it isn’t Israel. Those in power who have the audacity to criticize Israel in the aftermath of Hamas’ unspeakable horrors do not deserve to represent their constituents. The 10 House members, many of them “Squad” members, who voted against the recent resolution backing Israel and condemning Hamas should be ashamed of themselves. And that shame should linger for the rest of their lives, just as virulent antisemitism from today’s collegians will haunt their future career prospects. Israel’s critics are not only on the wrong side of basic morality, but they are also spitting in the faces of their fellow Americans, who overwhelmingly support the Israeli cause in the Hamas war. “Leaders” like AOC or Cori Bush are denying reality and swimming against the tide to boot. Heading into a presidential election year, America’s swing voters have had their say. According to Impact Social’s analysis of 40,000 swing voters, based on their actual social media posts (not typical garbage polling), nearly 80% of the online conversation is sympathetic towards Israel, and against Hamas. The overwhelming majority of U.S. swing voters recognize the current battle is one of good versus evil, knowing Hamas is to blame for the suffering on both sides. People are legitimately and justifiably shocked by the extent of the barbarity Hamas carried out on Oct. 7, and their endless use of human shields, blatant propaganda, and “Pallywood" fiction videos only hardens the opinions of American voters. As with 9/11, most swing voters cannot stomach the slaughter of innocent civilians, firmly believing the perpetrators should be met with force. They resoundingly support a U.S.-backed Israeli war against Hamas terror, despite little appetite for American boots on the ground. While many are skeptical of foreign conflicts as a whole, the war between Israel and Hamas is seen as inevitable and morally just. Americans also believe it is important for Israel to respond strongly and prudently, dealing devastating blows to Hamas and – as best they can – protecting Palestinian non-combatants. But this is a war, and war is violent, bloody, indiscriminate, and awful. Hamas shouldn’t start them – that’s the point. What America’s leaders cannot do is fall victim to the fringes. Politicians should take note: Most Americans see Israel as a strong ally amidst a sea of tyranny, terrorism, and evil. The radical left’s insistence that Israel brought the attack upon itself is a moral disgrace, and it will come back to haunt Democrats the more they align themselves with the Hamas caucus of Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But, on the other hand, some “America First” Republicans who would willingly abandon a loyal, democratic ally in a time of crisis also disgrace themselves. Neither position is tenable, and both extremes should be reviled. In 2024, Americans must vote for the candidate who is unequivocal on issues of morality, and that means unequivocally backing Israel against Hamas. Anything less is incompetence, weakness, or evil, if not all three. Anything other than a pro-Israel president is unacceptable.

A crowd of people holding signs and flags, with one sign reading 'KIDNAPPED Israel Couple' and another 'UNITED FOR'.

2023-11-11 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/11/democrats_beware_swing_voters_know_israel_is_the_good_guy_and_hamas_is_the_bad_guy_150046.html

['Politics' 'International']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

108dd76ab3

RealClearPolitics

A Much Better Story - RealClearPolitics

Last week, I joined a group of 1,500 concerned global citizens in London to address the defining paradox of our time. Despite living in an era of unparalleled material abundance and unsurpassed social freedoms, millions of citizens and voters increasingly believe that it’s time to change course. Young men, and women in particular, want to abandon the form of democratically guided, market-based capitalism that has made the world wealthier, healthier, more educated, and freer than ever before because their personal futures seem impossibly bleak. The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) begs to differ. Corrosive cultural discourse coupled with the real challenges of COVID, raging inflation, and incoherent climate hysteria have contributed to a collective sense of disillusionment. Despair has gone viral. Suicide rates in developed countries are up 37% since 1999. Mental health crises born of loneliness are spiraling, especially among female teenagers. There is scant appreciation for all the breathtaking socioeconomic progress that has been made since World War II, and no common narrative for how we got here or where we need to go. Young and old alike feel stuck in a “perma-crisis,” forever lurching from one societal misadventure to the next because there is no reassuring, top-down master plan. Rather than trusting in human ingenuity and kindness, responsible citizenship, active civic engagement, and market innovation – i.e., all the hallmarks of human progress over the past half-century – prevailing doubts and cynicism are contributing to calls for collectivization of decision-making under some presumed enlightened elite, as if such experiments have never before been tried. They have been tried, of course. Revealing versions remain on display in Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran. Top-down decision-making has always failed because of a false reading of history and human nature. Far from precipitating an environmentally driven existential crisis caused by excess consumption of fossil fuels, the democratically run West has the cleanest, most efficient, and socially productive energy mix in the world. Disaster is not nigh. Achieving multiple sustainable development goals like the eradication of abject poverty and illiteracy, improved maternal health, and reduced infant mortality are now, for the first time, all within reach. All we need do is continue to support wealth creation, engage in more mindful capital allocation through impact investing, and allow our NGO sectors to innovate and thrive. The ARC Conference highlighted several specific challenges. The first concerned family, where we agreed that psychological integrity and social stability depend first and foremost on child-centered, intimate relationships. The second concerned free exchange and good governance, where our consensus holds that the genius of unbridled human innovation and free markets brings material abundance that underwrites all social progress. The third involved energy and resources. Here, ARC participants imagine a future of clean, abundant, affordable, reliable energy for all, knowing that these attributes have long been synonymous with human flourishing. ARC maintains that environmental stewardship and economic development not only can, but must, go hand-in-hand. ARC participants learned that humanity is not teetering on the brink of inevitable, apocalyptic disaster. ARC sympathizers do not believe that striving individuals are motivated by lust and destructive intent; rather, they see the vast bulk of the globe’s inhabitants as broadly responsible and keen to better the lives of their children and communities. In particular, ARC enthusiasts believe that men and women of faith and decisiveness – all made in the image of God, equally possessed of human dignity – can arrange their affairs with sufficient attention and care so that opportunity and abundance are ultimately made available for all who desire it. Material privation is not the path to liberation and justice; it is the road to misery and self-defeat. Those who present a vision of programmatic and inevitable catastrophe are not wise seers of our inevitable future; they are forlorn prisoners of faithless, ill-informed imagination. Humanity has never surrendered for long to terror and force. Invariably, hunger for a brighter future for oneself and one’s progeny reasserts itself. Messages of unity, compassion, economic betterment, and social progress are what move us to higher ground. This is the better story that ARC has just begun to tell. Don’t be surprised if you hear more about it in the months to come.

An array of American flags in a field with a person standing in the distance.

2023-11-07 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/07/a_much_better_story_150020.html

['Opinion/Editorial' 'Politics']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Likely

0b9a74895b

RealClearPolitics

RNC Moves To Scuttle 2024 Iowa ‘Thanksgiving Family Forum’ - RealClearPolitics

Earlier this month, an influential Christian conservative leader invited each of the Republican presidential candidates to attend a “Thanksgiving Family Forum” in Iowa. Candidates who accept wouldn’t stand behind podiums. Instead, they would be encouraged to gather around a table. The Family Leader Foundation is set to host. Bob Vander Plaats, the head of that organization, has promised to moderate. The event is being billed as “a family discussion with presidential candidates.” And no one will show up. That is, if the candidates want to keep on participating in debates sanctioned by the Republican National Convention. The RNC has warned the 2024 field not to attend the Thanksgiving dinner, RealClearPolitics is first to report. Multiple campaigns now tell RCP that they feel stuck in the middle of an ugly argument between a kingmaker in Iowa and GOP leadership. It isn’t the first time, either. When entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, agreed to face off for a debate in miniature on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier, the RNC moved in swiftly to quash the event, citing pledges signed by both candidates. The cable news dust-up was subsequently scuttled. A similar dynamic is now playing out as candidates consider breaking bread with Vander Plaats. In an October 28 letter, addressed to “Republican Presidential Campaigns” and obtained by RCP, the RNC sought to spoil to the Vander Plaats event. Show up for dinner, the party warned the candidates in so many words, and they’ll be booted from all future debates. “It has come to the attention of the RNC Counsel’s Office that several Republican presidential candidates have been invited to participate in an open-press event in Iowa in November at which they would ‘gather around the table to have a moderated, friendly, and open discussion about the issues,’” the letter reads. “In other words, a debate.” Citing a pledge signed by each of the candidates, the RNC counsel continued, “Please be advised that any Republican presidential candidate who participates in this or other similar events will be deemed to have violated this pledge and will be disqualified from taking part in any future RNC-sanctioned presidential primary debates.” The news comes as the RNC continues to raise the bar to qualify for the debate in an attempt to naturally winnow the field. Eight candidates attended the first contest in Milwaukee. Seven qualified for the second debate stage at the Reagan Library in California. Now only five have qualified for Wednesday’s debate in Miami. One candidate has qualified for each of those contests but declined to participate: the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. Former President Trump holds a 44-point lead in the RealClearPolitics Average. He has also publicly clashed with Vander Plaats. The evangelical leader has a history of picking winners in Iowa. He endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in 2016, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in 2012, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2008. Each candidate won the caucuses but fell short of securing the Republican nomination. Like many social conservatives, Vander Plaats appreciates the accomplishments of the former president. In an interview with CNN, he pointed to the Supreme Court justices whom Trump nominated and who overturned Roe v. Wade. All the same, he has said that voters feel “exhausted” by Trump. “Iowa is tailor-made to upend Trump,” Vander Plaats said in September. “If he loses Iowa, there’s a competitive nomination process. If he wins Iowa, I think it’s over.” Ron DeSantis is said to be one of Vander Plaats’ new favorites. After Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds backed the Florida governor, the Trump campaign reportedly took steps to downplay any endorsement from the evangelical. “Just learned the @realDonaldTrump campaign conducted a poll on [the] impact of my endorsement. I’m flattered. If they’d ask me, I’d tell them my endorsement is worth one vote. Mine. Their obsession with my potential endorsement highlights the fragility of their lead,” Vander Plaats said in a statement posted to X, the social media website formerly known as Twitter. Meanwhile, the RNC seems unconcerned with whomever he chooses to endorse. They just don’t want any of the candidates to show up on stage for a Thanksgiving dinner with him. They consider that an unsanctioned debate.

Two men in suits with raised hands, one with a purple tie, standing on a stage with a dark background.

2023-11-08 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/08/rnc_moves_to_scuttle_2024_iowa_thanksgiving_family_forum_150029.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.8 ]

Unlikely

Unlikely

75597a05df

RealClearPolitics

Amy Klobuchar, You Are the Worst - RealClearPolitics

Note: The following is reprinted with permission from Racket News. Minnesota Senator and Hindenburg presidential candidacy Amy Klobuchar sent a letter (h/t ReclaimTheNet.org) to Jeff Bezos demanding that he enjoin Alexa from citing “unvetted sources,” specifically Substack and Rumble. No hell is hot enough for this person. Referring to a Washington Post story complaining that Alexa cited Substack, she wrote: “When asked about the 2020 presidential election, it appears that some answers were provided by contributors instead of verified news sources.” Amy Klobuchar is the absolute fave of the national media consensus. They love her so much, they speak in italics. “Oh, my God. She’s great. And funny, too!” gushed a cameraman to me in Winterset, Iowa, birthplace of John Wayne, four years ago. He was standing astride an AMY AMY AMY banner in a diner packed with press admirers, who are legion, everywhere. The “funny” legend came courtesy mostly of one joke she repeated everywhere she went, over and over, clinging to the one time Donald Trump bothered to mention her, tweeting about her looking like a “Snow woman.” Funny Amy’s retort? “I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard,” she’d say, in a nasal voice, laugh-snorting at her own joke. In my time following her I heard the joke about five times. By the last I was ready to drive a railroad spike through my foot. National press tried endlessly to sell the public on “funny” Amy, always emphasizing her geographic origin, as if she were the media’s running mate. The New York Times, in an interview over “dumplings” in which Klobuchar talked about how she thinks about “her own humor and power,” described her act as a “clean, ‘aw, shucks’ approach that conveys her own background as a Midwesterner.” The paper noted: Klobuchar could remember many times when people laughed at her jokes! “She laughs easily... and can recall dozens of her successful zingers.” NPR did a segment on how “Amy Klobuchar Turns To Humor To Distinguish Herself Among Candidates,” with Mary Louise Kelly abasing herself with the intro, “In the 24-person Democratic presidential field, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has distinguished herself as a comedian.” U.S. News and World Report went with, “How Amy Klobuchar’s Humor Sets Her Apart,” and claimed her ability to “savagely deploy a zinger” would be a “critical element in taking on Donald Trump” (!). Barack Obama gushed that Al Franken was now Minnesota’s “second-funniest Senator,” while the hometown Minnesota Post went with “Amy Klobuchar is Hilarious,” adding — this is real — the following deck: WASHINGTON, D.C. — Amy Klobuchar can legislate, but can she tell a joke? The answer is a resounding “yes” — as in bring-down-the-house, my-stomach-hurts-from-laughing, “yes.” Yes, they went with hilarious, for starters. It wasn’t just that campaign journalism requires every angle be done to death, killed over and over like Jason Vorhees, but that the press really thought Amy was the best choice, a truth that emerged in the New York Times all-time cop-out co-endorsement of her and Elizabeth Warren. Saying “May the best woman win,” the paper wrote that Klobuchar would be able to “connect” to voters’ “lived experiences,” especially “in the middle of the country,” as: The senator talks, often with self-deprecating humor, about growing up the daughter of two union workers, her Uncle Dick’s deer stand, her father’s struggles with alcoholism... In case it’s been forgotten, here’s how voters — Democratic Party voters — responded to a candidacy with such enthusiastic backing of media establishment. Amy Klobuchar got 12.2% in Iowa and 19.7% in New Hampshire (where her third-place finish, five points behind. winner Bernie Sanders, was hailed by the New York Times as the “big surprise”). Then came Nevada, where she had a volleyball-style setup for victory in the form of a shameful last-minute dirty trick. “Intelligence community” leaks led to the Times headline, “Russia Is Said to Be Interfering to Aid Sanders in Democratic Primaries.” Even with her lead opponent official denounced as Putin’s favorite, she got 7.3%, a distant fifth behind Warren (11.5%) Pete Buttigieg (17.3%), Joe Biden (18.9%), and Sanders (40.5%). Some primary numbers that followed: 3.1, 31., 2.2, 1.4, 1.2, 5.6 (her home state!), 2.3, 2.2, 2.1, 3.4, 1.3, 0.6, 0.2, 0.7, 0.2, 0.4, etc. “At Least Amy Klobuchar Has Retired Her Twilight Jokes,” quipped New York. “Despite a strong third-place finish in New Hampshire,” lamented the New York Times when she dropped out, adding that Klobuchar “ultimately could not compete with better-funded rivals.” The paper moved on to the burning question of what she would do with all seven of her delegates. Now this person, whose “humor” persona was surely cooked up in part to soften a rep for throwing things at aides, who scored roughly John Blutarsky’s grade-point average with the backing of the national media establishment, who managed less than 6% of Democratic voters in her own state, has the gall to push one of the world’s biggest media distributors to disallow voluntary access to “contributors instead of verified news sources.” Klobuchar wants Jeff Bezos to make sure Amazon’s home surveillance robots don’t spit out even occasional answers from a wider pool of real human beings, including thousands of independent contributors. The information landscape must be a pure monopoly of “verified news sources.” This Senator-to-billionaire communiqué isn’t illegal because she didn’t phrase it as an order or voice the implied threat of regulation, among other things. If Bezos ends up complying, however, I’ve half a mind to sue. Patience is wearing thin with the relentless determination of government figures — whether U.S. Cyber Command or a Minnesota Senator — to weed out independent media from the digital landscape. It’s not enough to have 99% of the informational space? They need all of it? About those “verified news sources”: the list includes the Bezos-owned Washington Post, which gave Klobuchar the idea by producing the original news article complaining about “Substack, a subscription newsletter service.” They linked to another Post piece describing this site as

A woman in a blue suit raises her hand on a stage with an American flag and a seal in the background, with a microphone stand and a stool visible.

2023-10-28 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/10/28/amy_klobuchar_you_are_the_worst.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.85]

Unlikely

Likely

e6e47a41d4

RealClearPolitics

Hamas’ Terrorist War Against Israel: There Is No 'On the Other Hand' - RealClearPolitics

I spent the weekend and most of Monday engaging in back-and-forth with fellow progressive Democrats who were trying to change the subject on the clear black-and-white facts about Hamas’ terrorist war against Israel. I kept reminding them of four indisputable facts. Fact one: Hamas openly declares it hates Jews. It is an openly bigoted, anti-Semitic organization. Its public charter, which it calls its “Covenant,” states: “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.” The Covenant actually endorses the notorious fraudulent anti-Semitic rant, used in part by Hitler to justify the Holocaust, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Fact two: Hamas’ invasion is not about supporting an independent Palestinian state. Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist. It rejects a two-state solution. The head of its political bureau, Khaled Meshal, stated this plainly at a 2012 rally in Gaza: “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of land.” Some commentators, attempting to explain the Hamas invasion over the weekend, blamed the establishment of the state of Israel as the reason why there is still no independent Palestinian state. That is false and contradicted by undeniable historical facts. For example: Fact three: Hamas doesn’t care about an independent, democratic Gaza for the well-being or social justice of Gazans. To the contrary. Since Gaza threw out the official government of the Palestinian Authority, it has not invested in food, education, or jobs. Instead, it has used millions of dollars from Iran to build bombs and rockets to be aimed at Israeli civilians, and has lined its own pockets with 15% of substantial funds from Qatar aimed at the poor. It is simply beyond dispute that Hamas has established a corrupt terrorist dictatorship, with some leaders living in luxury abroad. In the summer of 2023, Gazans defied their overlords and held rallies throughout the area. Some chanted: “Where is the electricity and where is the gas?” – and burned Hamas flags. Nor is Hamas reacting to Israeli occupation of Gaza. In 2005, Israel withdrew its citizens (about 8,000) and soliders from Gaza and from four settlements in the West Bank. In 2007, Hamas ousted the Palestinian Authority and took over dictatorial control of Gaza. But it opposed the Authority’s negotiations to establish an independent Palestinian state and does so to this day. Fact four: Hamas is and continues to be a terrorist organization – which meets the universal definition as dedicated to intentionally murdering civilians for political purposes. Hamas does not deny that. It brags about it. Just this last weekend, Hamas terrorists intentionally killed 260 young civilians attending a music festival in the desert near Gaza during the first moments of its murderous invasion. No, it is not the same thing when Israel is forced to respond to defend itself from rockets aimed at civilians and, tragically and unintentionally, innocent Gazans civilians are killed – often because Hamas chooses to launch its rockets intentionally aimed at civilians from schools and hospitals (a double war crime). Those who make the false equivalence between intentional murder and self-defense with tragic and unintentional deaths of innocents ignore the facts. I have always been a supporter of a two-state solution. Since I was very young, I believed in justice for the Palestinians and argued with my father that they deserved their own nation. But I also now remember the famous line of Tevye from “Fiddler on the Roof” when he argued with himself by saying, “On the one hand,” and then countered with, “but on the other hand.” However, on one issue on which he could never compromise, Tevye said: “There is no other hand.” So regarding the Hamas terroristic attack on Israel in the last several days, I can only say – based on indisputable facts – “There is no other hand.”

A group of people are holding flags and making peace signs, with one person in the foreground shouting. The flags are green, white, and red, and the setting appears to be an outdoor public space.

2023-10-10 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/10/10/hamas_terrorist_war_against_israel_there_is_no_on_the_other_hand__149874.html

['Politics' 'International']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

1359223f51

RealClearPolitics

POLL: Is Censorship a Partisan Issue? - RealClearPolitics

The concept of free speech dates to the 5th century B.C. in ancient Greece and was codified in America’s founding documents on Dec. 15, 1791, with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The 45-word First Amendment prohibited Congress from “abridging freedom of speech, or of the press,” and has been long understood to include any branch of government. James Madison, the drafter of the first 10 constitutional amendments, originally drafted a more fiery version of the First Amendment, one that included its underlying rationale: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” “Inviolable” is a powerful word, notwithstanding the fact that the right to speak and write freely has always come with various limitations. They range from libel and slander laws to national security secrets, obscenity statutes, and the notorious analogy popularized by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of “falsely shouting ‘fire!’ in a theater and causing panic.” Most citizens accept some of these caveats; others do not. But by overwhelming majorities, Americans generally still cherish their rights to free expression — at least in theory. A new poll on censorship by RealClear Opinion Research shows that 90% of voters in the United States express support for the Founders’ curbs on government power. Topline findings: The full polling breakdown “Overall, 9 in 10 voters in the U.S. think First Amendment protections for freedom of speech is a good thing, while only 9% think it is a bad thing,” said pollster Spencer Kimball, who directed the RCP survey. “This is agreed upon across the demographics, like party affiliation, age, and race.” For those who oppose censorship and put a premium on the free flow of ideas, that’s the good news. But there is bad news, too. Inevitably in our nation’s current hyper-partisan political environment, when one bores down on this subject, deeply divergent perspectives emerge — partisan differences. Painting with a broad brush, Democrats grant significantly more deference to government than do Republicans when it comes to regulating free speech. This wasn’t the only fault line revealed by the RCP survey. Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. “Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression. Among those over 65 years old, the corresponding percentage was 26%. Also, a gender gap reveals itself, one that dovetails with the discrepancy in party registration between men and women — but which is more pronounced. Asked whether they support free speech even if it’s “deeply offensive,” 78% of men answered affirmatively, compared to 66% of women. But the most glaring gap is between conservatives and liberals, i.e., between Republicans and Democrats. On the issue of free expression, at least, Republicans are not the authoritarian party. That distinction belongs to the Democrats, the party launched by Thomas Jefferson — the Founding Father who famously said that if he were forced to choose between “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” This is a relatively new development. Traditionally, opposing censorship — whether imposed by government or corporations — was a bedrock principle of liberalism in this country. The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 to promote and defend free expression. And this ideal was at the heart of liberal thought, liberal lawmaking, and liberal jurisprudence during most of the 20th century. But times change. And notwithstanding the controversial current push by social conservatives to denude public school libraries of content they dislike, the new RealClear Opinion Research poll is the latest to document the gradual change that has taken place on the left when it comes to this free expression. Here are some of its findings: Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.” Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans. Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories. Although majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree the news media should be able to report stories they believe are in the national interest, this consensus shifts when it comes to social media censorship. A majority of Democrats (52%) approve of the government censoring social media content under the rubric of protecting national security. Among Republicans and independents, this percentage is only one-third. Poll respondents were read this statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 31% of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with that sentiment, compared to 51% of Republicans. Fully three-fourths of Democrats believe government has a responsibility to limit “hateful” social media posts, while Republicans are more split, with 50% believing the government has a responsibility to restrict hateful posts. (Independents, once again, are in the middle.) Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to favor stifling the free speech rights of political extremists. Also, Republicans don’t vary by the group: Only about half of GOP voters favor censorship — whether asked about the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, or the Communist Party. This last finding, which is perhaps counterintuitive, dovetails with groundbreaking research released earlier this year on free speech by three California college professors, Ruth E. Appel and Jennifer Pan of Stanford and

A group of protesters holding signs in front of a building with the New York Times logo visible in the background.

NaT

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/poll_is_censorship_a_partisan_issue_149790.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

e6af8a7fe8

RealClearPolitics

What Happened to the DeSantis Campaign? - RealClearPolitics

There was a time, shortly after the 2022 elections, when Ron DeSantis became, at least in the minds of people who back their predictions with money, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Indeed, when 2023 started, DeSantis outpaced the combined field among bettors. It was sensible. DeSantis won the 2018 Florida gubernatorial election in a very unfavorable environment for the GOP. On a disappointing night for Republicans (at least compared to expectations), DeSantis won his gubernatorial reelection bid by almost 20 points, smashing the previous Republican margin of victory in the state for that office. Not only that, but he’d done so on the back of picking culture war fights that no one thought he could win, and either winning them or emerging unscathed. Things have changed. DeSantis isn’t quite a penny stock, but he briefly fell behind Vivek Ramaswamy among bettors, and languishes with primary season voters at just 14.9% in the RealClearPolitics Average. What went wrong? It’s important to acknowledge up front that it is still early. As late as October of 2007, Hillary Clinton held a 26-point lead over Barack Obama. At this point in 2007, John McCain was in fourth place, behind Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. For that matter, eventual second-place finisher Mike Huckabee was polling at just 3% nationally. Eventual winner John Kerry was in third place in Iowa. But none of those contenders had been in first place previously. It seems that there is a difference between being an unknown to whom the public eventually warms, and being a known quantity that the public changes their mind about. Regardless, while the DeSantis campaign is likely not dead, it is clearly in a bit of a predicament. How did this happen? It seems that there are four factors: He doesn’t know his own brand. After the 2022 elections, DeSantis’ “lane” in the GOP primary campaign seemed pretty clear: He’s Donald Trump, but able to get things done. Or, if you prefer, “Trump, but without the baggage.” DeSantis had many of the traits MAGA Republicans most liked about Trump. He was willing to battle the media. He didn’t apologize for his actions. In the parlance of the times, “He fights.” DeSantis also notched up a series of high-profile wins, including taking on the college board over the content of the AP African American History curriculum, replacing the leadership of a famously liberal state school, and going to war with the Walt Disney Co. over its progressive practices. One could fairly say that the current backlash against “woke corporations” began in Florida. That opened a pretty good line of attack against Trump. Yes, Trump was an important course correction for the Republican Party, whose leadership had become too concerned with currying favor in the D.C. “Swamp.” Yes, he showed that it was possible to fight on issues that the GOP establishment had written off as too toxic, and still win elections. But, the argument went, Trump was ultimately ineffective. At the end of four years, there was no wall, much less a wall financed by Mexico. Obamacare wasn’t repealed, much less replaced. And it was hard to say with a straight face that Trump had really hired only the “best people,” after his cabinet was constantly reshuffled and moved around. Trump’s constant tweeting and punching back at political detractors, regardless of their station in the political pecking order, created a constant stream of mini-storm that distracted from his agenda. In other words, DeSantis was well-positioned to argue that he’d take the lessons of Trump, but could deliver on the promises. It was a good strategic position as well, as it wouldn’t require him actually to attack the still-popular (within the Republican Party) Trump. Instead, DeSantis seemingly opted to re-run Ted Cruz’s failed 2016 campaign. While he had initially defended Florida’s ban on abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy – a position that is broadly popular among the American public – DeSantis later pushed for and signed a six-week ban, which is much less popular. He attacked Trump for being too progressive on trans rights. He claimed Trump had tried to push through an “amnesty” bill on immigration. The problem here is twofold. First, that approach was tried by Cruz and others in 2015 and 2016, and it failed spectacularly. There’s no reason to believe it would suddenly work in 2023 after Trump’s actual presidency. This leads to the second problem: People either don’t believe it or don’t care. Few people consider Trump a hard-charging social conservative on gay rights or abortion, but this is a known quantity at this point (and whatever else you may say about his beliefs, Trump’s three justices provided the conservative margin of victory in Dobbs). No one is going to get to Trump’s right on immigration. Other issues, like Trump’s refusal to pursue entitlement reform and his profligate spending, are throwbacks to an earlier GOP that likely no longer exists. DeSantis’ opponents aren’t giving up. In 2015 and 2016, one of the keys to Trump’s success was that the anti-Trump wing of the GOP was splintered among many candidates, all eager to try to get to the “final round” against him. Something similar seems to be happening in 2023. Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Chris Christie and Tim Scott are all competent candidates with different appeals to different types of anti-Trump Republicans. Vivek Ramaswamy gives no indication he wants to leave the field anytime soon. This is potentially consequential in Iowa, where Trump is polling below 50% in the RealClearPolitics Average. In short, while DeSantis had hoped – and many analysts expected – that this would morph into a two-person race, that situation has not materialized. Instead, what we have right now is a one-person race, and a second tier occupied by four or five other candidates. Moreover, none of those candidates really has any incentive to drop out right now, given DeSantis’ stumbles and the chance for someone to claim the momentum that was once his.

A man in a suit and tie is seen walking through a blue curtained area, with an American flag to his right and a woman in a patterned dress partially visible in the background.

2023-09-15 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/09/15/what_happened_to_the_desantis_campaign_149765.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

9660cd4740

RealClearPolitics

You Can’t Fight the Culture War Without Making Movies - RealClearPolitics

Conservatives complain that they are losing the culture wars. And they are right. That won’t change until conservatives actually produce culture, which would be good for everyone. American culture would be enriched by art made by artists with diverse viewpoints and experiences. Conservatives could start with independent and documentary films; they are increasingly influential but much less expensive than Hollywood movies. Yet, many, on both sides, don’t believe conservatives can make good films. I disagree, and I am in a position to know. Along with my wife and business partner, Gina Cappo Pack, I have been producing documentaries for many years. Over 15 of our films have been nationally broadcast on PBS. All have won awards and garnered many favorable reviews. (A full list of our films along with clips can be found here.) So, I am a practitioner, a maker of culture, rather than a critic or expert. In addition, I have run some major cultural institutions, including serving as president of the Claremont Institute, senior vice president for television programming at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and CEO of the United States Agency for Global Media, our government’s international broadcasters, including Voice of America. So, I also have the perspective of a media executive. Over the years, I have watched numerous conservative efforts to “take back the culture,” all pathetic failures. Capturing the Culture How did the left achieve cultural dominance? Not by accident or luck, but by hard work, a clear focus, and talent. In the late 1960s, the New Left called for a “long march through the institutions,” intending eventually to dominate all the elements of civil society. The phrase is attributed to German Marxist student leader Rudi Dutschke, who was echoing Mao’s famed actual “long march” leading to the Communists’ revolutionary takeover of China. The concept was picked up by the Frankfurt School and has roots in the influential Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who believed that cultural struggle inevitably precedes revolutionary class struggle. Student radicals knew they had failed to foment Marxist revolution in the 60s, so they turned to capturing the West’s cultural institutions. Their first target was the university, where, as student radicals, they were already well-positioned. They soon expanded to Hollywood. For example, Bert Schneider, one of the producers of “Easy Rider,” helped finance and plan Black Panther leader Huey Newton’s flight to Cuba to evade charges of shooting a 17-year-old prostitute. To the Hollywood elite, Schneider was just earning his street cred. Today, their success is undeniable – in the universities, in Hollywood, the tech sector, woke corporations, and the permanent government bureaucracy. Along the way, their hard-core Marxism has morphed into a softer wokeism, at least for now. The left owns the narrative. Their version of contemporary events and history dominates – we are told that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, the Cold War ended thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev, transgender athletes have a civil right to compete in sports with biological women, and the rest of the woke litany. In the past, conservatives have downplayed the importance of culture, seeing its airy fictions as less serious than economics or politics. After losing many of their children and grandchildren to the progressive left, they have come to see the error of their ways, at least in theory. Many quote Andrew Breitbart’s aphorism that “politics is downstream of culture,” as if this were a new idea. It isn’t: In 1820, Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote that poets are “the unacknowledged legislators of the world,” and by “poets” he meant all artists. Plato and Aristotle understood this same idea thousands of years earlier, and they were none too happy about it, or at least ambivalent. The Importance of Story Conservatives talk about culture and storytelling all the time. But few of them really get it. I watch a lot of conservative films, especially documentaries. Few are very good, as I am often told by my friends on the left, and most don’t even coherently tell a story. Preaching at the audience isn’t telling a story. A series of anecdotes is not a story. A story is something that happens to a protagonist, or a group of protagonists, with a beginning, middle, and end. It has a story arc. Characters change and develop. Ideas emerge from the action. Let me offer two examples of how a story works, drawn from my own films. Our documentary, “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” tells the story of Justice Clarence Thomas, from growing up in the segregated South to the Supreme Court. We let him tell his story himself. He is the only person interviewed, except his wife, Ginni. He looks directly at the camera as if speaking directly to the viewer. The trailer can be found here. The film deals with race in America, originalism, the principles of the Founding, being a black conservative, and much more. Not through experts telling us what to think but through Clarence Thomas his own life story. Viewers can see for themselves how his worldview arose from the events of his life. To make a compelling story, we needed to structure the narrative to build to the right climactic moments, employing music, editing rhythms, visual imagery, and the rest of the cinematic toolkit. Good documentary filmmakers reveal their biases not so much by distorting facts but by the stories they choose to tell. Several progressive filmmakers have chosen to tell the Ruth Bader Ginsburg story. Ginsburg was graced with two documentaries and a fictional feature film and became a pop culture heroine. All three films were widely acclaimed, and Robert Redford invited her to the Sundance Film Festival to celebrate her even more. We chose to tell Clarence Thomas’ story. America needs both. Our film, “The Last 600 Meters,” tells a different kind of story, depicting the biggest battles of the Iraq war, Fallujah and Najaf, in 2004. A climax is a scene toward the end of the film, one of the most intense firefights of

The Hollywood sign is prominently displayed against a clear blue sky with a hill in the background.

2023-09-11 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/09/11/you_cant_fight_the_culture_war_without_making_movies_149734.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.85 0.75]

Unlikely

Unlikely

32c3f1224b

RealClearPolitics

Amidst VP Talk, Noem Insists Debate Wasn’t Job Interview - RealClearPolitics

BEAVER CREEK, Colorado—Kristi Noem watched the GOP debate, and she was particularly unimpressed by the candidates competing for the Republican nomination, some of whom could very well be her competition. “The first 15 minutes of that debate were extremely discouraging for me,” the South Dakota governor told RealClearPolitics, adding, “I do not conduct my job interviews for staff that way.” It was a notable choice of words given that Donald Trump dismissed the debate as little more than an audition for his potential running mate and because Noem has expressed interest in joining the ticket of the former president as he seeks the GOP nomination a third time. “We are electing the leader of the free world,” Noem told RCP during an on-stage interview at a policy summit hosted by the conservative Steamboat Institute. “When I watched what happened on that stage, the yelling and the lack of respect for the moderators, for me it was very disheartening.” The immediate bickering, she said, “made it hard to watch the rest.” Republican politicos, meanwhile, are watching Noem. The governor will welcome Trump to South Dakota next month for the state party’s annual fundraiser as VP speculation continues to swirl. The governor developed close ties to Trump during his time in office, has built out her own national profile, and is reportedly one of four female potential running mates in the mix. Noem delighted Trump World when she recently told a local radio station that she didn’t “see a path to victory for anybody else with him in the race.” But on Saturday, she demonstrated a willingness to split with Trump. “No, I would not have kept Dr. Fauci around,” Noem said when asked about the doctor who became the face of the White House COVID task force and who was an early architect of the lockdown strategy, adding, “Ultimately, Dr. Fauci had the authority he was given.” Things looked much different in South Dakota during the pandemic. Noem did not lock down the state and spoke out publicly against mask mandates across the country, even going so far as encouraging the Sturgis motorcycle rally to continue as planned at the height of the pandemic. That focus on protecting the most vulnerable, rather than reducing overall cases, while keeping the state up and running has endeared her to conservatives. Was it a mistake for Trump not to tell Fauci, “You’re fired”? “I do believe so,” Noem replied. “But I also think that a president has certain information that makes it to his level and doesn’t have certain information that makes it to his level.” The governor recalls raising the issue with the Trump White House while advocating for a less restrictive approach like the one that was on display in South Dakota. Looking back at the chaotic early days of the pandemic, she added that she “felt like many times that President Trump didn’t necessarily have a team around him that gave him the information he needed.” Noem seemed to place some of the blame for Fauci’s elevation on former Vice President Pence, noting that as head of the COVID task force, he “was making a lot of decisions on who spoke at press conferences and who we gave credibility to.” While rivals of the former president, most notably Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, see Trump’s handling of COVID as a liability among conservatives in a primary, Republicans increasingly worry about another weakness, this one in a general election: winning back the suburban women that Trump lost in 2020 and would need to defeat President Biden in 2024. Noem could help shore up that demographic. She has demonstrated a willingness to embrace both economic and cultural issues. The governor won healthy applause from an audience full of conservative donors, for instance, when she said that transgender athletes like Lia Thomas “would not be allowed” to compete against biological women in K-12 and college sports under a law she signed in 2022. Some on the right fear that an overemphasis on cultural issues might alienate moderates and end up costing Republicans. “Social issues are incredibly important. We must fight and win the culture war,” said Kari Lake earlier this year. Lake, the failed Arizona Senate candidate who is also reportedly on Trump’s short list of VP picks, added, “But the 2024 election will be all about fixing our economy and preventing World War 3.” Noem rejected that dichotomy. She said national security ought to be “the biggest consideration” as voters make their decision because “we’re in such a dangerous unprecedented time,” and economics will be front and center because “families are being devastated” by the policies of the current White House. “But the social issues just are going to be a factor whether Kari Lake says they are or aren't, whether anybody else in this country says they are or aren’t,” Noem said before adding that Democrats will force that kind of debate and use it “as a weapon to destroy people.” Her prescription for her party as they head into a presidential election year: “Be prepared to talk about them all because they’re going to be used.” Trump’s compounding legal indictments, stemming from his conduct before and after the 2020 election, threaten to cast a longer shadow than any particular policy. At the GOP debate, candidates were asked if they believed that Pence was right to certify the election despite Trump’s wishes. Asked if she thought the former vice president did the right thing, Noem replied, “I believe he did the right thing. I do.” But the governor continued, “I think the fact that he still feels the need to be so crabby about it is sad.” “He obviously is feeling the criticism and the attacks, but if you're a patriot, and you love this country, you’d be satisfied in the fact that you know you did the right thing,” she added. Trump places a premium on loyalty, a quality that Pence exuded until the very end when he refused to go along

A man in a blue suit waves to an audience while standing next to a woman in a blue suit, both holding a sign that says 'Make America Great Again'. An American flag is visible in the background.

2023-08-27 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/08/27/amidst_vp_talk_noem_insists_debate_wasnt_job_interview__149680.html

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

3a6f5e69cc

RealClearPolitics

Why I’m Suing Penn State - RealClearPolitics

A so-called antiracist work environment was, actually, a hostile work environment I’m a white writing professor, and apparently, that’s a problem. That was the unmistakable message sent to me at Penn State University – and that’s why I’m suing them. In November 2020 – nearly half a year after George Floyd’s murder – I was subjected to a “White Teachers Are a Problem” video for a monthly professional development meeting for writing faculty. Its featured speaker, Asao Inoue, is a self-described antiracist practitioner. Not an obscure one, either: About a year prior, Inoue gave the Chair’s Address at a prestigious writing studies research conference – the same field in which I earned my Ph.D. – where he declared, “White people can perpetuate White supremacy by being present [...] Your body perpetuates racism.” At the heart of Inoue’s appalling comments is the baseless attribution of negative characteristics to a particular race. Inside radical academic bubbles, that might be applauded; in the real world, that’s called discrimination. And it’s illegal. When discrimination enters the workplace, depending on its frequency and intensity, citizens can file a hostile work environment lawsuit against their employer. At my Abington campus, my direct supervisor pushed an aggressive “antiracism” campaign through private emails and monthly meetings. She laid the groundwork by echoing a colleague’s stance that “reverse racism isn’t racism,” thereby abandoning cherished human rights principles. “[R]acist structures are quite real in assessment and elsewhere regardless of [anybody’s] good intentions,” she claimed. “Racism is in the results if the results draw a color line.” Later, citing a “Black Linguistic Justice!” resolution from an increasingly politicized research organization, my supervisor issued two directives: “assure that black students can find success in our classrooms” and “assure that all students see that white supremacy manifests itself in language and in writing pedagogy.” Translation: the English language is racist, teaching writing is racist, and grading black students by consistent standards is racist. Tough spot if you’re a white writing instructor and one of your black students doesn’t submit a big paper. Even tougher if you work at a “majority minority” campus: out of 20 undergraduate campuses across the Penn State system, to its credit, Abington is the only with a majority of minority students. But the toughest position goes to every black student in this environment – an educator seems to believe they’re incapable of achieving academic success on their own merit. Misguided as my supervisor was, she wasn’t just one rogue professor in the bunch. Antiracism fever ran rampant through the school’s institutional culture. To commemorate Juneteenth 2020, Abington’s DEI director told us to “Stop being afraid of your own internalized white supremacy” and to “Hold other white people accountable.” That same week, amidst faculty panic over a masked-up return to campus, one colleague invoked “history and white male privilege” to forecast, without discernible evidence, “One can already see a mile away that there will be some who resist wearing masks, etc. Such resistance is also more likely to be led by white males and in classrooms taught by women and people of color.” In September 2021, I complied with my state-mandated duty to report bias of these (and other) incidents. The Penn State Affirmative Action Office summoned me into a Zoom meeting where its associate director informed me, “There is a problem with the White race” then directed me to continue attending antiracist workshops “until you get it.” The next antiracist workshop was titled, "The Myth of the Colorblind Writing Classroom: White Instructors Confront White Privilege in Their Classrooms." During this meeting, my supervisor provided a quote: "Without attending to issues of inequity and particularly the role race [plays] in constructing social inequities, we remain unaware of and thereby unwittingly reproduce racist discourses and practices in our classrooms.” As the target audience for this message, I sensed that I’d soon get accused of racism for holding my students to reasonable (and necessary) standards – I could feel my $53,000/year, non-tenured and non-unionized job hanging in the balance. So, I asked for examples of how I could bring equity into my classroom and what this actually looked like in practice. Rather than help me to “get it,” the Affirmative Action Office deemed my questions to be evidence of bullying and harassment. Yet, my supervisor’s years-long actions were “in line with the Campus Strategic Plan.” Human Resources asked me to sign a performance reprimand, then Penn State inserted those charges into my annual performance review. Now I’m fighting back. With a Right-to-Sue letter from the Department of Justice, it’s time for Penn State to account for real racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. I’ve got the support of Allen Harris Law and a nonpartisan civil rights group, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. “Antiracism” isn’t quite the right term to describe the performative activism that’s happening across academia and corporate America. Let’s call this hustle what it is: plain and simple, racism. And just like racism, the so-called antiracist movement threatens everything in its path: freedom of speech, due process, healthy workplace relationships, professional excellence, academic rigor, and the psychological welfare of teachers and students alike.

An individual walks past a large, classical building with a prominent clock tower, surrounded by trees with autumn foliage.

2023-06-29 00:00:00+00:00

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/06/29/why_im_suing_penn_state__149419.html

['Politics' 'Opinion/Editorial']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Likely

7161169352

Newsweek

Donald Trump Frets Over Losing Votes to RFK Jr. - Newsweek

Donald Trump has criticized fellow 2024 presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying Republicans should not vote for the independent candidate as he is a "Radical Left Lunatic." In a post on Truth Social, the former president called Kennedy the "dumbest member" of his family, as the pair continues to clash and compete for votes ahead of November's race. Trump and President Joe Biden are said to consider Kennedy, an anti-vaccine activist who previously ran as a Democrat, a threat to their White House bids over fears he could siphon votes from them. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Biden narrowly ahead of Trump (40 percent to 39 percent) and Kennedy in third place with 8 percent. Trump's latest attacks on Kennedy also arrived as the independent candidate has begun to appear more frequently on conservative news networks and podcasts, which has prompted concerns from Trump's campaign team. Former President Donald Trump at a rally in Avflight Saginaw in Freeland, Michigan, on May 1. On social media, Trump has criticized "phony" 2024 presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Former President Donald Trump at a rally in Avflight Saginaw in Freeland, Michigan, on May 1. On social media, Trump has criticized "phony" 2024 presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Nic Antaya/Getty Images "So bad that FoxNews puts RFK Jr., considered the dumbest member of the Kennedy Clan, on their fairly conservative platform so much," Trump wrote on Truth Social. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use He continued: "Competitive networks don't want anything to do with him. He's a Radical Left Lunatic whose crazy Climate Change views make the Democrat's Green New Scam look Conservative. "He's polling badly, 8 percent at best, but says he does well against Crooked Joe and me, one on one. WRONG, he gets trounced! Junior said I'm the 'best debater' in generations, and I want to debate him, and Crooked, but first he's got to get his bad poll numbers up—a lot! He would be 'easy pickins.'" Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "Republicans, don't waste your precious vote on this phony Liberal Activist. With all of that said, he probably hurts Sleepy Crooked Joe more than 'US!'" Newsweek has contacted Kennedy's office and representatives for Trump for comment via email. Trump had previously accused Kennedy, the son of former Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, of being a Democratic "plant" who would "essentially be a WASTED PROTEST VOTE" in November, as votes for the independent candidate would only help Biden's campaign. In response, Kennedy accused Trump of being "unhinged" and challenged him to a live televised debate. "President Trump's rant against me is a barely coherent barrage of wild and inaccurate claims that should best be resolved in the American tradition of presidential debate," Kennedy posted on X, formerly Twitter, on April 27. "President Trump, who has proven himself the most adept debater in modern American political history, should not be panicked to meet me on that stage," he continued. Elsewhere, Trump's campaign team have questioned why networks such as Fox News and Newsmax and popular podcasters such as Ben Shapiro are now regularly interviewing Kennedy. Chris LaCivita, Trump's co–campaign manager, told Politico that it is "concerning and beyond logic" that some conservative platforms "continue to give a voice to someone that has called the NRA a terrorist group, who believes in eliminating gas powered engines, believes in a 70 percent tax bracket and generally subscribes to the same school of thought as Karl Marx." According to FiveThirtyEight's national polling-average tracker for the presidential election, Trump is ahead with 41.6 percent, followed by Biden with 40.8 percent and Kennedy with 10.3 percent.

A man in a blue suit and red tie with a 'Make America Great Again' hat is making a gesture with his hands.

2024-05-02 08:46:23+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-frets-losing-votes-rfk-jr-presidential-election-1896405

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.9 ]

Likely

Likely

1459257365

Newsweek

Kristi Noem Killing a Dog Will Appeal to Donald Trump: Mary Trump - Newsweek

According to Mary Trump, the estranged niece of Donald Trump, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem's actions, in which she reportedly revealed in a book she wrote that she fatally shot her 14-month old dog, will appeal to the former president. British newspaper The Guardian published an excerpt of Noem's book, No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward on Friday in which the governor shared an account of shooting the dog, named Cricket, which she wrote had an "aggressive personality" and was "untrainable." The governor wrote that she brought Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs to help it learn how to behave. However on the hunt, Cricket went "out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life," the governor wrote, who added on the way home, Cricket escaped Noem's truck and attacked a family's chickens. She added that when she grabbed Cricket, the dog "whipped around to bite me." "At that moment, I realized I had to put her down. It was not a pleasant job, but it had to be done," Noem wrote, adding that she shot Cricket after leading it to a gravel pit. Newsweek has not obtained a copy of the book and has been unable to verify the reported passage. Newsweek has also reached out to a spokesperson for Noem's office for comment via email. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Former President Donald Trump listens as South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem speaks in Vandalia, Ohio, on March 16. According to Mary Trump, the estranged niece of Donald Trump, Noem’s actions, in which she reportedly revealed... Former President Donald Trump listens as South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem speaks in Vandalia, Ohio, on March 16. According to Mary Trump, the estranged niece of Donald Trump, Noem’s actions, in which she reportedly revealed in a book she wrote that she fatally shot her 14-month old dog, will appeal to the former president. More KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / AFP/Getty Images Noem, a close ally of Trump, is widely speculated to be a potential vice president pick for him. Trump previously indicated that the Republican governor was a possible choice in an interview with Fox News in February and said that Noem and six others were being considered as his potential running mate. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Noem, however, also told Fox News in February that she and Trump have "never had that conversation" about her potentially being his 2024 running mate. On Friday in response to the excerpt of Noem's book, Mary Trump, a vocal critic of her uncle, took to X, formerly Twitter, to suggest the governor's actions will appeal to the former president. "Kristi Noem is telling everybody that she murdered a puppy because she wants to be Donald's VP and she thinks the story will appeal to him. She's not wrong," she wrote. In a X separate post, Mary Trump wrote: "My cat died when he was six. I'll never get over it and I'd do anything to get him back. Kristi Noem murdered her puppy because she couldn't be bothered. This is who they are." Newsweek has reached out to Trump's spokesperson via email for comment. Since the excerpt emerged, the governor's chances of becoming Trump's 2024 running mate has fallen. Polymarket, a platform where users can place "yes" or "no" bets on the likelihood of world events, is currently giving Noem a 3 percent chance of potentially being the next Republican vice president. On Friday, Noem was given a 5 percent chance of being selected as Trump's next running mate, down from 10 percent the previous day. On March 25, Polymarket was listing Noem as the second favorite with a 9 percent chance, behind South Carolina Senator Tim Scott at 22 percent. Mary Trump's comments come after several high-profile Republicans criticized the governor for the excerpt. Alyssa Farah Griffin, who served as director of strategic communications in the Trump White House and now is a co-host of The View, wrote: "I'm a dog lover and I am honestly horrified by the Kristi Noem excerpt. I wish I hadn't even read it. A 14-month old dog is still a puppy & can be trained. A large part of bad behavior in dogs is not having proper training from the humans responsible for them." In addition, Sarah Matthews who served as the deputy White House press secretary in the Trump administration, posted to X, "When I saw tweets about Kristi Noem murdering her puppy, I thought to myself, 'Damn, one of the other VP contenders' teams found some oppo,' until I realized SHE wrote about it in HER book. I'm not sure why anyone would brag about this unless they're sick and twisted." However, Noem responded to the criticism she has received in a post to X and wrote, "We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm. Sadly, we just had to put down 3 horses a few weeks ago that had been in our family for 25 years."

A man and a woman wearing 'America First' hats stand at a podium with a crowd in the background. The man is gesturing with his hand, and the woman is speaking into a microphone.

2024-04-27 14:51:48+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/mary-trump-said-kristi-noems-action-involving-killing-dog-will-appeal-donald-trump-1894862

['Politics' 'Other']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Likely

f263bb171b

Newsweek

Steve Bannon urges Donald Trump to "turn the guns" on Joe Biden - Newsweek

Right-wing media personality Steve Bannon urged Donald Trump on Thursday to "turn the guns" on President Joe Biden and not focus on Judge Juan Merchan who is overseeing the former president's criminal hush money trial. Trump and Biden have clinched nominations of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively amid this year's presidential election, but a rematch of 2020 is unpopular with voters who routinely tell pollsters that they believe neither should get a second term. Meanwhile, hypothetical general election matchups have generally shown the two in a neck-and-neck race. Bannon, Trump's former White House chief strategist who was convicted in 2022 of two counts of contempt of Congress for dismissing a subpoena to testify before the House select committee that was tasked with investigating the events of the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, spoke to The Sun's political editor Harry Cole on the British tabloid's Never Mind the Ballots politics show on Thursday. During the interview, Bannon discussed the 2024 election and Trump's reelection efforts as he campaigns amid his hush money trial, adding that the former president needs to "turn the guns" on Biden instead of focusing on Merchan. "We're in a very tough part of this campaign right now and President Trump has got to focus, continue to focus that his opponent is Joe Biden. His opponent is not the judge in the court. When he's out of the courtroom he needs to turn the guns on, back on to Biden. I think if we do this and you do it smartly this could be a net positive for the campaign," Bannon said. Earlier this month, Trump became the first former president in U.S. history to stand trial in a criminal case. Following an investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office, Trump was indicted in March 2023 on charges of falsifying business records relating to hush-money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. Daniels had alleged she had an affair with Trump in 2006, which he has denied. The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges and said the case against him is politically motivated. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use In March, Merchan imposed a gag order on Trump, barring him from making public statements about witnesses as well as lawyers and staff in the case and their families. The order excluded Merchan and Bragg, but it was later expanded to include Merchan and Bragg's families after the former president made blistering attacks toward the judge's daughter, Loren Merchan. Since the gag order, Trump has continued to take aim at Merchan and others in his case as the prosecution introduced a motion to sanction Trump for social media posts that they say violate his gag order. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Former President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media at Manhattan criminal court on Friday in New York City. Right-wing media personality Steve Bannon urged Trump on Thursday to "turn the guns" on President... Former President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media at Manhattan criminal court on Friday in New York City. Right-wing media personality Steve Bannon urged Trump on Thursday to "turn the guns" on President Joe Biden and not focus on Judge Juan Merchan who is overseeing the former president's criminal hush money trial. More Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images In addition, Trump has accused, without evidence, Biden of using the trial to interfere with this year's election, often taking to his Truth Social account to criticize the incumbent president. "He's going to be very strapped for resources, much like in 2016. It's going to have to be a very smart campaign like we ran in '16, highly targeted to those 25...This is going to come down to 25 counties in seven states in America. He's got to really focus on that," Bannon said about Trump during Thursday's interview. He added that the election is "going to be a dogfight...Trump's going to win this but, man, it's going to be a fight, a real fight." Newsweek has reached out to Trump's campaign and Biden's campaign via email for comment. Biden told longtime SiriusXM radio show host Howard Stern during an interview on Friday that he would be "happy" to debate Trump. The former president then responded as he left the New York courtroom on Friday and said, "I've invited Biden to debate. He can do it anytime he wants, including tonight. I'm ready, here we are, I invited him to the courthouse that he has us tied up in." "I'm ready, willing, and able. And if he wants, I'll do it on Monday night, Tuesday night or Wednesday night," Trump said, later adding, "Just tell me where!" While Trump has offered to debate Biden anywhere at any time, an actual meeting between the two candidates is unlikely to be that simple. Debates typically come with a set of rules that both participants must agree to before taking part. Presidential debates traditionally take place with three events in the fall, organized by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. However, earlier this month, the Trump campaign urged the debate commission to speed up the schedule and add additional debates beyond the standard three. Meanwhile, the Biden campaign has concerns about whether Trump will follow debate rules if and when the events take place, Reuters reported on April 14.

A man in a dark suit and blue tie stands in a room with a blurred background.

2024-04-27 21:47:46+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-urged-donald-trump-turn-guns-joe-biden-1894892

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

76cc900e2d

Newsweek

Fox Host Tells Jim Jordan People Are 'Sick' of Investigations Going Nowhere - Newsweek

Amid Donald Trump's criminal trial, Fox News host Maria Bartiromo confronted Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and House Judiciary Committee chairman, on Sunday about the hush money case and for conducting "congressional investigations that go nowhere," adding that people are "sick" of it. Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, became the first former president in U.S. history to stand trial in a criminal case earlier this month. Following an investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office, Trump was indicted in March 2023 on charges of falsifying business records relating to hush money paid to adult-film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. Daniels alleges that she had an affair with Trump in 2006, which he has denied. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and said the case against him is politically motivated. During Sunday Morning Futures on Fox News, while speaking with Jordan, Bartiromo discussed Trump's criminal hush money trial and the Judiciary Committee's latest report that alleges the Manhattan district attorney's hush money investigation into Trump is "political prosecution." On Thursday, the committee released a 300-page report titled, "An Anatomy of a Political Prosecution: The Manhattan District Attorney's Office Vendetta Against President Donald J. Trump." Led by Jordan, who has been looking into the Trump investigation since the former president was indicted last year, the report states that Congress "has a specific and manifestly important interest in preventing politically-motivated prosecutions of current and former presidents by elected state and local prosecutors, particularly in jurisdictions—like New York County—where the prosecutor is popularly elected and trial-level judges lack life tenure." "At this point, American citizens are asking, 'What can you do about it?' With all due respect, people are sick and tired of congressional investigations that go nowhere," she said, seemingly pointing towards the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Newsletter The Debate Two Views, One Story Deep conversations between people with completely different political and social perspectives. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use For over a year, House Republicans led by House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, and Jordan's House Judiciary Committee have been investigating the Biden family, alleging that the president was involved with and benefited from his son Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings when he was serving under former President Barack Obama as his vice president. The allegations have been denied by the White House and Hunter Biden's lawyers, with Democrats criticizing the GOP's impeachment inquiries for failing to find any meaningful evidence against the president. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on March 12. Amid Donald Trump's criminal trial, Fox News host Maria Bartiromo confronted Jordan, House Judiciary Committee chairman, on Sunday... Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on March 12. Amid Donald Trump's criminal trial, Fox News host Maria Bartiromo confronted Jordan, House Judiciary Committee chairman, on Sunday about the hush money case and for conducting "congressional investigations that go nowhere," adding that people are "sick" of it. More Mandel NGAN / AFP/Getty Images "People are sick and tired of letters being written and sent to the people who we know are bad in the first place. They want you to do something about it. You're an elected official. What can you do to right these wrongs?" Bartiromo asked Jordan on Sunday. In response, Jordan said he was fighting by passing legislation that would "remedy" the situation citing a proposed measure which would shield presidents from state prosecutions, but added that they are a legislative branch and "can't put anyone in jail." "We've passed legislation out of the committee that would help remedy this situation, particularly the one in New York, that the president or vice president can move a case to federal court from when you do these state prosecutors who are going after someone for a political reason," Jordan said. "So we're a legislative branch. We can't put anyone in jail." The congressman added: "And I don't think the Biden administration, their DOJ, is going to go after the people who need to go after. You're just not going to get that from Merrick Garland...But oh, you can have someone from the Biden Justice Department like Jack Smith go after President Trump. Our job is to get the facts out there and to look at legislation." Newsweek has reached out to Jordan's office via email for comment. Jordan's comments come after polls show that fewer Americans say the president was involved in his son's business dealings. A Harvard CAPS/Harris survey in March found that 56 percent said that Biden "helped and participated in Hunter Biden's business," a 3 percent decrease from February's survey. The downtick was seen among all voters, with the greatest change being with Republicans. Between the February and March polls, 5 percent of GOP voters switched to the position that Biden did not participate in his son's business dealings. In the March survey, 23 percent of Republicans agreed with that sentiment, compared with 63 percent of Democrats and 47 percent of independents.

A man in a blue shirt and yellow tie is speaking into a microphone at a podium.

2024-04-28 22:15:21+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/maria-bartiromo-tells-jim-jordan-people-sick-investigations-going-nowhere-1894969

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

48e44dda33

Newsweek

An Open Letter to Speaker Johnson: Embrace the Bipartisan Way Forward - Newsweek

Speaker Johnson, As you are well aware, your immediate predecessors—Republicans serving as speakers of the House—had rough goes in the job. Held over a barrel by the extremists in your party, they were loath to work across the aisle for fear of letting the extremists in my party get the better of any legislative deal. Without a doubt, the Democratic and Republican parties have different and disparate interests, and rarely see eye-to-eye. But in regards to the current impasse on Capitol Hill, you and reasonable members of the Republican conference have more in common with pragmatic members of the Democratic caucus than you do the extremists who are mobilizing to get you fired. As you plot the way forward, I want to point out a truth few have acknowledged: You'd not only position the U.S. to lead the world in energy, manufacturing, and climate change if you were to champion a grand legislative bargain. By damning the consequences, you'd paint yourself a hero, a patriot, as well and a unique political leader in this country at this very difficult time. The short of it here is that the issues of greatest contention today—Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, liquified natural gas, and permitting reform—are ripe for a grand bargain that could elicit support from Democrats and Republicans who would rather champion progress for the country than fuel outrage on social media—mature patriots who understand that they're not going to get everything they want. But to get there, you will need to signal that you're going to welcome the Democrats into the fold even while under threat from the likes of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and her ilk. Please don't let her absurdity ruin your speakership. Seize this opportunity. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use House Speaker Mike Johnson attends a press conference in Washington, D.C. on April 10, 2024. On Tuesday, Representative Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, said he plans to cosponsor Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to vacate against... House Speaker Mike Johnson attends a press conference in Washington, D.C. on April 10, 2024. On Tuesday, Representative Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, said he plans to cosponsor Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to vacate against Johnson. More Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images The political landscape here is complex, but it's entirely navigable if you endeavor to take a bipartisan approach. As you know, many Democrats, and some Republicans, are very eager to provide aid to Ukraine, even if that proposition faces opposition on the conservative extreme. Meanwhile, many Republicans, and most Democrats, are eager to provide additional aid to Israel for use in its fight against Hamas and other enemies, despite deep-set opposition on the far Left. The solution here is to embrace America's place as a world leader and beacon for global peace and security by providing robust support for both allies, and weaving support for Taiwan (subject to potential aggression from China) in the same package. Members who are dubious of any one element, but supportive of the other, will support the combined package. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 I suspect the elements alone would be enough to draw support for a bipartisan package. But you could burnish your credibility as a champion of commonsense legislating by weaving in two additional elements both having to do with climate, jobs, and American leadership. First, you should insert in a provision reversing the White House's ban on liquified natural gas exports. Framed as an attempt to curtail the globe's addiction to carbon-emitting fossil fuels, the impacts are set to be more profound. Cut off from Russian exports, America's natural gas supply is a backstop for countries that fear a shortage of fuel in the months and years to come. We need to make sure gas fracked in the U.S. can quickly get to the places where demand is unmet—and those places are, by and large, largely democratic countries being held hostage by a brutal dictator. It would be one thing if new sources of wind, solar, and geothermal power could be combined with energy efficiency to replace fossil fuel-generated energy in the short term. But the reality is that energy demand, particularly in the U.S., is slated to go up just as we are re-shoring various energy-intensive industries (including "fabs" for semiconductors) and become more engaged in artificial intelligence. (An AI search demands 10 times as much energy as a traditional search.) Natural gas is not the end solution—but it's a crucial aspect to of a carbon-neutral future. When my home state of Ohio switched from coal to natural gas, our carbon emissions fell by half. We should be working on a bipartisan basis to grow the natural gas industry, not clip its wings. And that points to the final element of what could be a grand bipartisan bargain: permitting reform. Many Democrats and Republicans want to make it possible to move natural gas around the country more expeditiously, both to make energy more affordable and to build a bridge to carbon neutrality. Most members of my party—and many of yours—want to do something similar for transmission lines, if only so that clean energy generated in sun- and wind-soak portions of the country can be transferred to the places where that energy can be consumed. But both pipelines and transmission lines are near next to impossible to build in the U.S. because permitting processes are so convoluted. Congress could fix this with expedited approvals. Be the Speaker who modernized America's energy system. Few members of Congress will support all of these items individually. Most will object to at least one. But taken together and written with an eye toward eliciting support from both parties, passage is not only possible

A man stands at a podium with a microphone, wearing a suit and tie, with a flag and seal in the background.

2024-04-18 15:08:42+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/open-letter-speaker-johnson-embrace-bipartisan-way-forward-opinion-1891832

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

cd7ed2e826

Newsweek

Ex-Marine Reveals Plan to Defeat Lauren Boebert - Newsweek

A former marine who is vying to prevent Rep. Lauren Boebert winning re-election to Congress in November has described the House Republican as "a foot soldier for the mindset and the mob that unleashed an insurrection in the nation's capital" on January 6, 2021. Democrat Ike McCorkle and Boebert are among the candidates who will take part in their respective party primaries on June 25 to decide who will contest the November election to represent Colorado's 4th congressional district. Boebert currently represents the state's 3rd congressional district, but announced in December she is seeking to switch to the 4th district in November. Earlier this month Boebert secured the most support out of the GOP candidates vying to contest the 4th district during a meeting in Pueblo, making her the clear favorite in the Republican primary. Speaking to Newsweek, McCorkle, who spent 18 years in the Marine Corps, said he expects Boebert to win the GOP primary but is confident he can defeat her in November. McCorkle's website says polling by Gravis Marketing, funded by his own campaign, shows he is the Democratic frontrunner to face Boebert in November and also shows that the district's voters would back him over Boebert by a seven-point margin. He commented: "Our polling numbers speak for themselves. Despite her financial war chest and endorsement from [Donald] Trump, unaffiliated voters, and many Republicans are disgusted by her rhetoric and un-American brand of politics. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "Even in this conservative-leaning district, a candidate with the funding, name recognition, and work ethic—who speaks to the issues that voters actually care about— will beat her in November. I am that candidate." Newsweek contacted Boebert's Washington D.C. office and representatives of her 2024 election campaign by email at 9 a.m. E.T. on Saturday. This article will be updated if the congresswoman decides to comment. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 McCorkle stood for election in the 4th District in 2020 and 2022, losing both times to Republican Ken Buck, who is not running for re-election this year. McCorkle was damning of Boebert's decision to switch districts, which he claimed showed voters in her current district are rejecting her "extremist values." "It surprised no one in Colorado that Lauren Boebert cut and ran from a tough fight. The voters in her own backyard were tired of her 'Ultra MAGA' crusade and extremist values. In the Marine Corps, we learn to never leave another American behind, but that's all Lauren Boebert has done with her time in Congress," he said. "She voted against healthcare for veterans, would slash budgets for Social Security and Medicare, and even turned down funding for renewable energy jobs right here in Colorado. Her friends and neighbors sent her packing for those reasons and many more, and she hasn't found a warmer reception in Colorado's 4th," he added. In a December 2023 Facebook video explaining her decision to switch districts, Boebert suggested she was being targeted by "dark money" in a move she described as "not fair to the 3rd District and the conservatives there who have fought so hard for our victories." McCorkle also suggested Boebert shared the "mindset" of the January 6, 2021 rioters, who stormed Congress in a bid to prevent the certification of Joe Biden's 2020 election victory, falsely believing the contest was stolen by fraud. Lauren Boebert speaking at the U.S. Capitol in February. Ike McCorkle, a Marine Corps veteran, is hoping to defeat Boebert in Colorado's 4th congressional district later this year. Lauren Boebert speaking at the U.S. Capitol in February. Ike McCorkle, a Marine Corps veteran, is hoping to defeat Boebert in Colorado's 4th congressional district later this year. Kevin Dietsch/GETTY "Let me be very clear. Lauren Boebert was a foot soldier for the mindset and the mob that unleashed an insurrection in the nation's capital. After serving 18 years in the Marines my mission is preserving the democracy I fought so hard to defend in combat," he said. "I am running to ensure that Boebert's brand of MAGA [Make America Great Again] extremism does not darken our doorstep again." Boebert, a supporter of former President Donald Trump, has denied any involvement in events surrounding the riot. "Let me be clear. I had no role in the planning or execution of any event that took place at the Capitol or anywhere in Washington, D.C., on January 6th," the congresswoman said in a 2021 press release. On January 6 this year, Boebert described those imprisoned after the Capitol riot as "political prisoners" and vowed to "fight for justice to be restored" in a post on X, formerly Twitter. Colorado's 4th congressional district became available after Buck, the former Republican incumbent, announced he would not be seeking re-election, then stepped down in March. As a result, a special election will be held in June, though Boebert will not be taking part. The contest will be fought between Republican Greg Lopez, who is expected to act as a placeholder until November if he wins, and Democrat Trisha Calvarese, who also hopes to run in November.

A woman with dark hair and glasses speaks into a microphone, with an American flag in the background.

2024-04-14 13:34:42+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/ex-marine-reveals-plan-defeat-lauren-boebert-1890044

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

5db2d25764

Newsweek

Mark Cuban Confronts Fellow Billionaire Knocking Student Debt Forgiveness - Newsweek

Billionaire Mark Cuban confronted fellow billionaire Bill Ackman online on Saturday after he criticized President Joe Biden's forgiveness plan for student loan debt. Biden recently canceled student loan debt for a further 277,000 people, bringing the total number of Americans approved for debt relief during his administration to 4.3 million. The latest debt relief applies to people enrolled in the federal Saving on a Valuable Education Plan (SAVE), or people who were approved for relief because of fixes made to Income-Driven Repayment Plans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness. Read more: Student Loan Forgiveness Updates and FAQs According to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), 7.5 million borrowers are currently enrolled in the SAVE Plan, an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan targeted to low—and middle-income borrowers. Those who were on the REPAYE Plan were automatically enrolled in the SAVE Plan when it was launched last August. Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Biden's initial plan, a $400 billion proposal to cancel or reduce student loan debt that a majority of justices said required congressional approval. Republicans have strongly opposed any student debt cancellation, saying it's unfair to those who have already paid their loans or didn't go to college because they felt they couldn't afford to take on such a huge debt. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "Student loan forgiveness sounds great for borrowers overburdened with high interest rate debts they cannot repay. The problem is that the subsidy appears to go principally to more affluent families at the cost of burdening those who didn't attend college or whose parents saved to send their kids to school. It should be illegal for a president to buy votes by transferring funds from certain citizens to others he believes are more likely to support him in an election," Ackman, the founder and CEO of hedge fund management company Pershing Square Capital Management and a vocal Biden critic, wrote on X, formerly Twitter on Saturday. In response to Ackman's remarks, Cuban also took to the social media platform to point out tax cuts that former President Donald Trump provided during his presidency. "Like Trump has used Tax Cuts for folks like you and me?" he asked. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek has reached out to Biden and Cuban via email for comment. Billionaire Mark Cuban is seen on April 10 in Miami. Cuban confronted fellow billionaire Bill Ackman online on Saturday after he criticized President Joe Biden's forgiveness plan for student loan debt. Billionaire Mark Cuban is seen on April 10 in Miami. Cuban confronted fellow billionaire Bill Ackman online on Saturday after he criticized President Joe Biden's forgiveness plan for student loan debt. Megan Briggs/Getty Images Under his presidency, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017 into law. The act slashed most of the seven income tax brackets, including the top rate, and are due to expire in December 2025. An analysis of the tax cuts by the progressive-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) concluded that almost half of the benefits of the act went to individuals earning more than $232,000 per year. Read more: 2023-2024 Tax Brackets and Federal Income Tax Rates Trump pitched the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017 as an economy-boosting tax cut to benefit the middle and working classes that would pay for itself. However, the deficit ballooned to near $1 trillion. Around the time Congress passed the tax cuts, an analysis by the Tax Policy Center predicted that the poorest would see the lowest proportional benefit and the richest would benefit more than anyone else. According to the nonprofit publication Capital & Main, a group of the most profitable corporations in 2018 paid an effective tax rate of 11.3 percent, the lowest rate in decades and almost half the rate set by the new law. In another X post on Saturday, Cuban added: "Now do corporate. Whether the cuts paid for themselves. The wage growth he said would happen after the cuts, but didn't. The greater disparity in incomes when hardly any of the corporate tax cuts went to workers...His refusal to raise any taxes or create revenue sources when the pandemic hit. His ego tariffs that cost everyone money and almost killed farmers till he bought their votes with subsidies. His slow response to the pandemic, saying that testing only made the numbers go up. The fact that the tax cuts of those making under 60k expire next year." "Biden is far from perfect. This isn't about that. This is the hypocrisy of the point that trump was not trying to buy votes any way he could, like Biden is now. Biden is just smarter about how he is doing it," he concluded. In a statement released by the White House following the recent student loan debt cancellation, Biden said, "From day one of my administration, I promised to fight to ensure higher education is a ticket to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity. I will never stop working to cancel student debt—no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stop us." It is part of an effort by Biden's administration to push down the level of collective student debt nationwide, which currently stands at $1.6 trillion, according to data from the Federal National Reserve. The recent cancellation comes after more than 28 million federal borrowers began making payments again in October 2023 after Congress ended a pause on loan payments and interest that had lasted over three years in June 2023, the duration of the pandemic.

A man wearing a grey t-shirt with 'PRAVI MVP' printed on it stands in front of a crowd at a sporting event.

2024-04-13 21:29:52+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/mark-cuban-confronts-fellow-billionaire-over-student-debt-forgiveness-1890095

['Politics' 'National' 'Business and Finance']

[0.95 0.9 0.8 ]

Likely

Unlikely

bcf9606404

Newsweek

Ted Cruz Faces Second Investigation in Less Than a Year - Newsweek

Texas Senator Ted Cruz faces a second investigation in less than a year as two advocacy groups called on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Tuesday to investigate Cruz for more than $630,000 in advertising revenue that has gone from his podcast to a super PAC backing his reelection. Concerns have been raised over iHeartMedia, the broadcaster of the Verdict With Ted Cruz podcast, paying $630,850 to the Truth and Courage PAC which supports the Republican Senator. The complaint comes as Cruz is expected to face a tough election challenge in November from Democrat Colin Allred, a former NFL player who currently serves in the House of Representatives. In 2018, Cruz only narrowly defeated Democratic challenger Beto O'Rourke by less than three percent of the vote, and his seat is widely regarded as competitive in 2024. Data from the FEC shows iHeartMedia has donated a total of $630,850 to Truth and Courage PAC since March 2023, constituting around a third of its revenue since the beginning of that year. Critics are calling on Senate and federal election authorities to investigate this as a possible ethics violation while Cruz's team has said he has done nothing wrong. On Tuesday, the Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United filed a FEC complaint that focuses on campaign finance rules as it alleges Cruz may have improperly directed iHeartMedia to send over $630,000 to the Truth and Courage PAC. Sen. Ted Cruz on February 06, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Cruz faces a second investigation in less than a year. Sen. Ted Cruz on February 06, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Cruz faces a second investigation in less than a year. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "There is reason to believe Cruz has violated federal campaign finance laws that prohibit federal candidates and officeholders from soliciting or directing 'soft money'—including money from corporations, which are categorically prohibited from contributing to candidates—in connection with his 2024 reelection efforts," according to the complaint. Newsweek has reached out to Cruz's campaign via email for comment. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 The complaint highlights five payments, dating back to March 2023, from iHeart Media Management Services Inc., a subsidiary of iHeartMedia, to the Truth and Courage PAC. Tuesday's complaint also alleges the payments were improperly reported as "other receipts" rather than campaign contributions. "Other receipts" is a category generally reserved for interest or income on assets already owned by a PAC. "By soliciting or directing $630,850.08 of iHeartMedia's corporate funds to or on behalf of TCP in connection with his 2024 election, Cruz appears to have brazenly violated these federal campaign finance laws," the complaint reads. While the terms of iHeartMedia's payments are unclear as the company's agreement with Cruz for distributing his podcast is not public, Cruz and iHeart have previously said the senator volunteers to host the podcast three times a week and is not compensated. The Cruz campaign has previously said the attention to the podcast's financial arrangements is "lazy attacks" by news outlets and Democrats trying to shut down the podcast in an election year. Cruz previously faced a similar investigation when in September 2023 the FEC found Cruz did not violate the law prohibiting the use of campaign funds for personal gain when his campaign bought Facebook ads in 2020 to tout his book. The decision came after in April 2023, the FEC found "reason to believe" that Cruz used $13,900 in campaign funds for his personal benefit by purchasing ads to promote his book. However, three weeks later Cruz's attorneys provided the commission with an affidavit stating that the senator did not benefit financially from any sales those ads may have generated. Cruz started hosting the podcast during former President Donald Trump's first impeachment trial in early 2020. The senator announced iHeart's backing in 2022, saying at the time that it was a "big damn deal" to partner with the radio programmer.

A man in a dark suit stands at a podium with a microphone, speaking into it. The background is dimly lit with a blurred American flag and a chandelier visible.

2024-04-09 17:35:43+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-faces-another-federal-election-commission-complaint-1888570

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

d063343fdd

Newsweek

Five Ways to Approach Caring for People and Communities with Trauma - Newsweek

Trauma exposure is widespread, affecting 70 percent of Americans, but getting help is not easy. Eighty percent of consumers consider mental health care too costly and less than half of those who do seek help for trauma get well. The annual cost of Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the U.S. stands at a staggering $232.2 billion. Traumatic experiences are associated with chronic mental and physical health conditions across the lifespan. Those living with PTSD are 15 times more likely to attempt suicide, four times more likely to develop a substance use disorder, and three to five times more likely to experience depression. Humans have a tremendous capacity for resilience. We have the ability to access a psychological immune system that can help transform our wounds into opportunities for growth and disrupt intergenerational transmission of trauma. But, humans don't live in a bubble and we need each other to heal. Systems of care must change at scale to support an individual's ability to bounce back from adversity and trauma. Here are five things we can do better: Stop Pathologizing Reactions to Traumatic Events Newsletter The Josh Hammer Report Top Weekly Conservative Takes Senior Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer shares top conservative viewpoints weekly. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use The medical field now recognizes that reactions to traumatic experiences exist on a spectrum and that people can be affected differently by the same experience. PTSD is a dramatically heterogeneous condition, and there are over 636,120 different ways to meet the most current criteria for it. Some people will need specialized services for PTSD, but the majority will not. Imagine if we could help prevent the development of PTSD by societally acknowledging and validating suffering and normalizing that reaching out for support is an act of courage, not weakness. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 The impact of trauma, for most people, can be framed as a human response to a terrible situation. Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Bruce Perry have challenged the public to shift from focusing on "What's wrong with you?" to "What happened to you?" Traumatic experiences do not have to define us. It is possible to reclaim our identity and personal narrative by adapting new, more helpful beliefs and coping tools for managing life's storms. Services that normalize reactions, support personal agency, and promote social connection move away from a disease model and empower individuals for self-healing. Decolonize Trauma Care The needs, preferences, cultural values, and lived experiences of marginalized populations are typically not honored in institutionalized systems of care. It is critical to acknowledge the inherent biases and inequities within traditional trauma treatment paradigms which have been primarily studied in Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democracies (WEIRD) populations. Elyssa Thelin, a substance use disorder counselor and art therapist at the Cielo Treatment Center, talks about how people use art as therapy for their feelings and trauma at the Center in Portland, Ore. on... Elyssa Thelin, a substance use disorder counselor and art therapist at the Cielo Treatment Center, talks about how people use art as therapy for their feelings and trauma at the Center in Portland, Ore. on Jan. 24, 2024. More PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images Decolonizing therapy involves dismantling hierarchical power dynamics within therapeutic relationships and systems. Liberation psychology is the freeing of minds from the psychological bondage of oppression that prevents one from claiming agency over their healing journey. By employing culturally-affirming methods and fostering collaboration, mutual respect, and cultural curiosity we can create inclusive spaces and systems where all voices are heard and valued. Break Down Barriers to Accessing Care As of 2023, our workforce of mental health providers only have capacity to serve 7 percent of the population with weekly sessions. Even among available providers, not nearly enough are trained in evidence-based treatments for PTSD to meet the demand. To improve access to trauma care, we need to lower costs, increase convenience, train a larger workforce of providers, and provide extra support to marginalized communities. In order to provide survivors with the support they need and deserve, we must prioritize solutions that meet people where they are. Asynchronous telehealth and text-based interventions allow communication with therapists on one's own schedule, lowering costs. Peer-support groups can connect struggling individuals with others who understand their experience firsthand, providing invaluable new frames of reference, social connectedness, and accountability. Increase Options for Healing Across the Continuum of Care Only half of those with severe PTSD report receiving any treatment. Of those who do begin treatment for PTSD, a large portion drop out, with attrition ranging from 24-39 percent. Qualitative studies suggest patients want treatments that are adaptable to their needs and circumstances. The loss of control inherent in exposure therapy methods can become a barrier to seeking help, and especially for already marginalized groups. We need to offer more choices beyond traditional therapy, such as digital tools for self-management, somatic approaches, Indigenous healing practices, and coping skills coaching with paraprofessionals to build psychological resilience. Patient-centered decision making empowers individuals to prioritize their mental health, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they intrinsically want to. Use Technology To Supplement (Not Replace) Care While traditional in-person therapy has been the primary modality for delivering trauma treatment, tech-enabled telehealth platforms can improve accessibility and efficiency at scale. Digital health technologies have the capacity to increase human connection and engagement in care, and facilitate accelerated and sustained self-healing. Large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's GPT-3/4, have the potential to support, augment, or even automate administrative aspects of care, freeing up time for patient interaction and rate limiting factors for training. AI powered tools can also help therapists with training and supervision. However, ethical, safe, and responsible uses, cultural and racial bias and responsiveness, and user privacy are paramount to consider. The Call to Action It's time to reimagine how we care

A hand points at a heart-shaped diagram on a whiteboard with various words and phrases related to trauma and its management, such as 'PTSD', 'drugs', 'alcohol', 'family time', 'biking', 'cooking', 'music', 'hiking', 'Coffee', 'oregon', 'alone time', 'addiction', 'depression', 'negative thoughts', and 'negative self talk'. The words are in different colors and sizes, with some words inside the heart shape and others outside.

2024-04-03 11:00:01+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/five-compelling-ways-approach-caring-people-communities-trauma-opinion-1886177

['Health' 'Other']

[0.95 0.7 ]

Likely

Unlikely

5fe29f0e5a

Newsweek

Protecting Election Officials Is a Racial Justice Imperative - Newsweek

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, a disturbing trend has emerged, threatening not just the integrity of our democratic process but also the safety and representation of Black election officials. Nationwide, attacks against local election officials, particularly in battleground states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania, have escalated to a point where we must act. Wandrea' "Shaye" Moss, a dedicated Fulton County election employee, and her mother, Ruby Freeman, became the target of a vicious smear campaign orchestrated by former President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others. As a result of being falsely accused of processing fake ballots for Biden as if they were "vials of heroin or cocaine," not surprisingly Moss faced death threats, vile racist attacks, and was forced to leave her home and go into hiding. This alarming incident is hardly an isolated one; it reflects a broader campaign of fear against election administrators, including a baseless attack on a 62-year-old temp worker labeled as a "professional vote scammer" by Trump and Giuliani. The racialized nature of these attacks becomes evident when examining the historical context and the broader impact on Black election officials. A recentPhiladelphia Inquirer piece emphasizes the significance of protecting Black election officials in Georgia, a state that has emerged as a key battleground due in no small part to the mobilization of Black voters. The Department of Justice's task force investigating election crimes reveals the racial threats faced by election officials, with cases resulting in prison sentences, including one involving a racially charged threat of lynching in Arizona. A voter talks to poll workers at Driving Park Community Center during the Ohio primary election on March 19, in Columbus, Ohio. A voter talks to poll workers at Driving Park Community Center during the Ohio primary election on March 19, in Columbus, Ohio. Andrew Spear/Getty Images The perspective offered by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund underscores the historical role of Black people as guardians of democracy. Black poll workers, predominantly elderly women, have played a crucial role in ensuring the safety and accessibility of Black voters in elections. The link between protecting poll workers of color, especially in critical states like Georgia and Michigan, and the civil rights framework becomes evident. This connection is vital in countering the systemic racism embedded in the assault on voting rights and poll workers. Inaccessibility issues during elections, such as lack of accessible parking and ramps in predominantly Black and minority neighborhoods, further highlight issues of systemic racism. The challenges faced by poll workers, as described by LDF Digital Archivist Ashton Wingate, reveal a need for protection against infrastructure issues that disproportionately affect Black communities. The inaccessibility of the vote for Black people intertwines with the broader assault on the right of Black Americans to freely participate in democracy. Newsletter The Josh Hammer Report Top Weekly Conservative Takes Senior Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer shares top conservative viewpoints weekly. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use The alarming exodus of election officials, driven by threats and harassment, poses a severe threat to the democratic process. A 2022 survey of election officials revealed that one third of respondents knew someone who left their job due to safety concerns, and 20 percent indicated they planned to leave before 2024. Since 2002, in battleground states such as Arizona and Pennsylvania, we have already seen an exodus of local election officialswho have left their positions. In Arizona, 12 of the state's 15 county election chiefs have departed. In Pennsylvania, nearly 70 county election directors or assistant directors in at least 40 of the state's 67 counties have left their jobs. This steady drain of institutional knowledge serves to further undermine our electoral infrastructure, which seems to be the aim of the forces that are driving these threats. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Aquene Freechild, co-director of Public Citizen's Democracy Campaign, rightly emphasizes the urgency to protect election workers, labeling them the essential workers of our democracy. State legislatures nationwide are taking steps to penalize intimidation and harassment, recognizing the urgency created by false claims denying election results. However, the scope of these legislative responses needs to expand, with more states passing reforms to protect election officials as the 2024 election looms. The assault on voting rights and poll workers, primarily in response to the rising influence of the Black vote since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is evolving into a campaign to simply undermine democracy at its roots. As we navigate the challenges ahead, it is crucial for every American to speak out and get involved in the effort to pass legislation protecting our elections. Safeguarding our democracy is not only a matter of civic duty but also a crucial element of racial justice, ensuring that every voice, especially those historically marginalized, continues to shape the future of our nation. Martin Luther King III, the eldest son of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King, is a global thought leader, humanitarian, and the chairman of the Drum Major Institute (DMI). As president of DMI, Arndrea Waters King is a leading voice in opposing hate in all forms and advancing Dr. King's legacy of peace, justice, and equity. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

A group of people standing in a room with a 'WAIT!' sign, one person holding a sign that says 'BALLOT COUNTER TO CAST VOTE!'

2024-04-04 11:22:01+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/protecting-election-officials-racial-justice-imperative-opinion-1886676

['Politics' 'National' 'Other']

[0.95 0.85 0.7 ]

Likely

Unlikely

5336328bca

Newsweek

Disney CEO Addresses Political Bias, Gender Ideology at Shareholder Meeting - Newsweek

Disney CEO Bob Iger defended the iconic company from accusations that it is politically biased in favor of progressivism at the annual meeting of shareholders on Wednesday. The comments were in response to a question from a shareholder and come as the company has faced fire from the right, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, among others. "Is it possible for Disney to stay out of political and social agendas and just provide entertainment?" one shareholder asked. Iger responded with a lengthy statement about having a positive impact on the world and inspiring future generations before adding: "But we know our job is not to advance any kind of agenda. So as long as I'm on the job I'm going to continue to be guided by a sense of decency and respect and we will always trust our instincts." At one point during Wednesday's meeting, a girl who began transitioning to a boy at age 16 with puberty blockers and a double mastectomy, then de-transitioned, blamed Disney and others in the media for her body being "irreversibly damaged." Disney CEO Bob Iger attends the Oscar Nominees Luncheon in California, on February 12, 2024. Iger made several comments at the company's annual shareholder meeting on April 3, 2024. Disney CEO Bob Iger attends the Oscar Nominees Luncheon in California, on February 12, 2024. Iger made several comments at the company's annual shareholder meeting on April 3, 2024. Photo by VALERIE MACON/AFP via Getty Images Newsletter For The Culture Hollywood Stars and Stories Culture expert H. Alan Scott gives his bi-weekly rundown of what's hot and who's trending. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use The woman, Chloe Cole, is an advocate with a group called Do No Harm and appeared by phone to advocate for a proposal by the National Legal and Policy Center to compel Disney to pay for employee de-transitioning care, and her plea included a reference to The Little Mermaid. "Mr. Iger, Disney, under your watch, is pushing the limited agenda of gender ideology. Disney has become the Ursula that is stealing the voices of thousands of little Ariel's across the world by telling us we can be something that we can never become. The lawsuits are coming, sir." Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Disney shareholders voted against the proposal. When asked for comment on the proposal, Disney pointed to a statement in their proxy filing, calling the proposal "unnecessary" touting its "commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion." The political back-and-forth came moments after Disney successfully beat back a proxy battle with Nelson Peltz and his Trian Fund Management that would have reshaped Disney's board of directors. In part, Peltz had argued that Disney had gone "woke." His effort to force himself and some of his allies onto Disney's board arguably took a hit when he told the Financial Times two weeks ago: "Why do I have to have a Marvel that's all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can't I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?" Peltz was joined by former Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter, though on Wednesday shareholders voted to reelect Disney's full board as is, with not additions or subtractions. Another ally of sorts was Musk, who said that while he's not a shareholder he might become one should Peltz succeed. In December he posted to his X platform: "Disney has a major content problem. Almost their entire upcoming slate is unwatchable. They are the world's biggest example of go woke, go broke lol." Since that post, though, shares of Disney have climbed 29 percent, likely contributing to Wednesdays' proxy battle victory over Peltz and Perlmutter. Disney shareholders on Wednesday also beat back a couple of proposals from conservative groups hoping to discourage the company from entering into politically charged battles in the so-called culture war. Scott Shepard of the Free Enterprise Project touted his group's proposal that Disney refrain from charitable donations to partisan charities by telling Iger that "making Disney synonymous with force-feeding radical gender ideology to small school children and then hiding the results from parents would send Disney's core audience flooding away." Shareholders voted against the FEP proposal, and they also voted against a left-leaning one that sought to make sure Disney does not support groups and candidates that downplay climate change or are anti-abortion. Disney has been fighting against conservatives who have accused the entertainment giant of having an agenda, particularly when it comes to gender—John Nolte at Breitbart News, for example, has been referring to the company as the "Disney grooming syndicate"—for several years. Iger also recently settled a dispute with DeSantis over Florida's bill that outlawed gender studies until after the third grade, which critics called the "Don't Say Gay" bill. Iger said Wednesday that the settlement "will actually enable us to pursue the kinds of significant investment in our Florida parks." The shareholder meeting comes the same week a new initiative dubbed the 1792 Exchange released a database that tracks alleged political bias at Fortune 250 companies. According to 1792, of the $3.7 million in political donations made by Disney's top executives, 76 percent went to Democrats, as did 98 percent of Iger's personal donations.

A man in a dark suit and white shirt stands in front of a beige background with a subtle pattern.

2024-04-03 21:32:09+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/disney-ceo-addresses-political-bias-gender-ideology-shareholder-meeting-1886661

['Politics' 'Business and Finance']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Unlikely

7ee9fff8b0

Newsweek

How a Republican State Could Cost Donald Trump the Election - Newsweek

Nebraska, a state Republican state, could cost former president Donald Trump the 2024 election against President Joe Biden, according to a conservative. On March 12, Biden and Trump each won a series of primary elections to become their party's presumptive presidential nominees. This focused attention on how the likely presidential election between the two rivals would play out. While Biden's approval rating and policies related to inflation, crime, immigration and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza have drawn consistent scrutiny from conservatives, the incumbent president has had a surge in recent polls. Eight separate polls published in March showed promising numbers for Biden, including leads or stalemates in consequential battleground states including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. The polls give Biden a slight lead on a national basis ranging from one to three points, though it isn't clear if it would give him an overall victory due to the Electoral College. Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump on March 24, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida. Nebraska, a state Republican state, could cost former president Donald Trump the 2024 election against President Joe Biden,... Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump on March 24, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida. Nebraska, a state Republican state, could cost former president Donald Trump the 2024 election against President Joe Biden, according to a conservative. More Getty Images/Joe Raedle With the 2024 presidential election fast approaching, some have taken to X, formerly Twitter, to talk about the possibility of either Biden or Trump winning. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Charlie Kirk, founder and president of conservative organization Turning Point USA, warned on X that Nebraska could cost Trump the election due to the state's use of the congressional district method. "Suppose Donald Trump flips Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada next fall, as current polls all show him doing. Would he win the presidency? Not quite. In fact, if Trump flips those three states and no others, he loses by exactly ONE electoral vote. Why? Nebraska," Kirk wrote on X. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "Despite being one of the most Republican states, Nebraska awards its electoral votes by Congressional district instead of winner-take-all. Thanks to this system, Omaha's electoral vote leans blue: Obama won it in 2008, and Biden won it in 2020. He's likely to win it again this year," Kirk added. In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, electoral votes are winner-take-all as the candidate winning the popular vote normally receives all of that state's votes. However, Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district method, which allows them to allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district. This allows the congressional swing district in the Omaha metro area a single vote that Democrats have won twice since 1991, in 2008 by Barack Obama and in 2020 by Biden. Newsweek has reached out to Trump's and Biden's campaign via email for comment. Biden won Nebraska's 2nd District by 6.5 percentage points in 2020, a bit more than his national margin of 4.5 points. While candidates need 270 electoral votes to win, under a scenario where Biden only wins the three northern swing states and the other uncontested blue states, a loss in Nebraska's 2nd District could result in a 269-269 tie. While it is unclear if Biden's campaign will be focusing on Nebraska's 2nd district, his campaign previously said they were being "strategic." "At this stage in the race, we're being strategic about keeping multiple pathways to 270 electoral votes," Biden campaign spokeswoman Lauren Hitt said in a statement to the Washington Post. "Since the President was elected in 2020, we've made significant and ongoing investments in state parties and on-the-ground infrastructure." Meanwhile, Taylor Budowich, the chief executive of the main Trump super PAC, MAGA Inc., said his organization is looking broadly for 2024, according to the Washington Post. "Every electoral vote is in play because there isn't a voter in America who is better off today than they were under President Trump," Budowich told the Post. Kirk's comments as the Nebraska will hold its statewide primary elections on Tuesday, May 14.

A man in a blue suit and red tie is speaking into a microphone, gesturing with his right hand.

2024-04-02 18:42:45+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/nebraska-could-cost-donald-trump-election-1886172

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

d03588d130

Newsweek

Gen Z is Embracing Dictatorships - Newsweek

Generation Z Americans, aged from 18-25, are substantially more likely than older generations to support a "strong leader" who rules without regard for Congress or courts, according to a survey conducted exclusively for Newsweek. The poll also found younger Americans are the most prepared to give up "some democratic powers" if it results in more effective government and are less likely to think military rule would be bad for the country. It comes amid growing concern about the health of American democracy following the contested 2020 presidential election, with one prominent political scientist telling Newsweek the country is "at a crossroads between democracy and autocracy." Over the past few months both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, the presumptive Democratic and Republican candidates respectively for the 2024 presidential election, have suggested the other represents a threat to democracy. Biden in January claimed the 2024 presidential election is "all about" whether American democracy survives while last month Trump said "I don't think you're going to have another election in this country" unless he wins in November. Generation Z Americans are substantially more likely than older generations to support a "strong leader" who rules without regard for Congress or courts according to a new survey conducted exclusively for Newsweek. Generation Z Americans are substantially more likely than older generations to support a "strong leader" who rules without regard for Congress or courts according to a new survey conducted exclusively for Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty Redfield & Wilton Strategies polled 1,500 eligible voters across the U.S. for Newsweek on February 10. In total 40 percent of Gen Z Americans agreed that "rule by a strong leader, where a strong leader can make decisions without interference from the legislature or from the courts" would be a good system of government for the U.S., versus 27 percent who thought it would be bad. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Among millennials, aged 27-42, 35 percent endorsed this type of government against 31 percent who were opposed. Notably a majority of Generation X, aged 43-58, and those from the boomer and silent generations, aged 59 and over, were opposed to such authoritarian leadership. In total 30 percent of Gen X Americans said "rule by a strong leader" who can ignore Congress and the courts would be good for the country, against 43 percent who thought it would be bad. Among the boomer and silent generations just 18 percent thought this would be good, against 60 percent for bad. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Separately, 51 percent of Gen Z agreed with the statement that they would be "willing to give up some democratic powers if it made government function more effectively" against just 17 percent who were opposed. The statement was also backed by millennials, with 42 percent agreeing and 24 percent disagreeing. However, the statement was opposed by 34 percent of Gen Z and 53 percent of boomers/silent generation, against 29 percent and 20 percent, respectively, who supported it. Speaking to Newsweek Joel Westheimer, an expert in democratic ideals at the University of Ottawa, said youth discontent with American democracy is likely a response to increased partisanship and deadlock in Congress and the threat from climate change. He said: "When we tally what an allegedly democratic system of governance has delivered for young people, it may seem unsurprising that their commitments to the system that previous generations took for granted are shaky. "While many youth and young adults were coming of age as observers of the political scene, democratic governance did not seem to be working very well: In 2013 and 2018, an increasingly partisan and dysfunctional U.S. Congress, unable to compromise or pass legislation, led to government shutdowns of 16 and 35 days, respectively; climate change threatens to make the planet virtually uninhabitable, and, globally, government actions to mitigate the threat have been mostly dysfunctional." Westheimer added: "The decline of commitments to democracy, especially among young people, keeps me up at night. It is not hyperbole to suggest that we are at a crossroads between democracy and autocracy for both America and many once-stable democracies around the globe." Cynthia Arnson, a distinguished fellow at the Wilson Center think tank, said the new poll supports what other surveys have shown about youth support for democracy in the Americas. She said: "The U.S. polling tracks with results from throughout the Americas, where support for democracy is especially low among young people and those with lower levels of education. In Latin America especially, young people born after the transition from dictatorship to democracy have no direct memory of the abuses of authoritarian regimes. "In the United States, to be honest, the current levels of political dysfunction give young people little reason to be enthusiastic about a democratic system. What they see is gridlock, political theater, name-calling, brinksmanship. This is the opposite of getting things done and producing results that people care about. "The catch, however, is that young people might not realize how difficult it is to restore rights once they've been relinquished." The Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll also found significantly higher opposition to the idea of military rule among older generations. When asked whether they thought "rule by the military" would be a "good or bad system of government for the United States," 26 percent of Gen Z answered "good" against 39 percent for "bad." Among millennials 27 percent replied "good" versus 44 percent for "bad." Older age groups were noticeably more hostile to military rule, with 15 percent of Gen X saying military rule would be good, while 63 percent thought it would be bad. For boomers/silent generation just 9 percent said it would be good, against 73 percent for bad. Speaking

A person in a hat and sunglasses drinking from a plastic cup, with a hand holding a string connected to a group of grey figures, and two thumbs up signs.

2024-04-05 08:00:01+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/gen-z-embracing-dictatorships-1886702

['Politics' 'National']

[0.9 0.8]

Likely

Likely

0f0918a851

Newsweek

Mystery Celebrity Named in Diddy Court Filing - Lawsuit - Newsweek

While a number of celebrities appeared in court filings made in connection with music producer Rodney Jones' $30 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, many are speculating about the identity of one of the redacted names. Jones filed his lawsuit on February 26, making a number of accusations against Combs, including sexual misconduct, grooming and participating in sex-trafficking activity. Attorneys for Combs strongly denied the allegations, previously saying: "We have overwhelming, indisputable proof that his claims are complete lies." Jones' filing to the federal district court in New York lists in detail his allegations, with one section claiming that Combs' music industry associates, who are also named in the lawsuit, financially benefited from facilitating his alleged unlawful behavior, gaining access to his powerful connections. According to the court filings, Jones accuses Combs of telling him he had sex with two other celebrities whose names were redacted. One of those redacted names was described as a Philadelphia rapper who had dated rapper Nicki Minaj. Sean "Diddy" Combs speaks during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Annual Legislative Conference National Town Hall on September 21, 2023, in Washington, D.C. While a number of celebrities appeared in court filings made in... Sean "Diddy" Combs speaks during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Annual Legislative Conference National Town Hall on September 21, 2023, in Washington, D.C. While a number of celebrities appeared in court filings made in connection with Rodney Jones' lawsuit against Combs, many are speculating about the identity of one of the redacted names. More Jemal Countess/Getty Images Since the court filings were made, people have begun to speculate about the identity of the mystery celebrity on X, formerly Twitter. Some pointed toward rapper Meek Mill, who is from Philadelphia and began dating Nicki Minaj in early 2015 as he accompanied her as an opening act on her 2015 world tour. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use They dated for two years, and it was reported that the two ended their relationship in January 2017. X user Le'Veon Bell noted the speculation, writing on X," Philly rapper who dated Nicky Minaj .. Meek Mill??" Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 However, Meek Mill took to X to fire back at the speculation, denying that the redacted name is his, as he shared the lawsuit filings in late February and wrote: "Here's the doc let's go on trail live playing with my name find the page where my name mentioned and what date so I can get my credit card and show you the date where I was." Meek Mill has continued to deny allegations he ever had a sexual relationship with Combs, and he has been wrapped up in a heated X feud with DJ Akademiks since the internet personality posted on the matter on social media. Newsweek reached out to Meek Mill via his website contact form for comment. Federal authorities on Monday raided homes reportedly owned by Combs in Los Angeles and Miami, according to local media outlets. The raids are reportedly tied to sex-trafficking allegations leveled by different plaintiffs in recent months, the Associated Press reported, citing law enforcement sources. In response to the raid, Tyrone Blackburn, an attorney representing Rodney "Lil Rod" Jones, gave a statement saying: "About damn time. Sometimes justice delayed is not justice denied, so long as justice ultimately arrives." Aaron Dyer, Combs' attorney, said in a statement: "There was a gross overuse of military-level force as search warrants were executed at Mr. Combs' residences," as he pointed out his client is cooperating with authorities and that there has been no finding of criminal or civil liability in relation to any of the allegations.

A man in a brown shirt stands at a podium with a microphone, speaking at an event with a green hedge in the background and two other individuals in the audience.

2024-03-27 14:37:33+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/speculation-over-redacted-name-sean-diddy-combs-lawsuit-1884084

['Entertainment' 'Other']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Unlikely

6bd1c87569

Newsweek

Michael Cohen and Donald Trump Finally Agree on Something - Newsweek

Neither former President Donald Trump nor his former attorney Michael Cohen is happy with the justice system in New York. A flurry of documents turned over to Trump's legal team as part of a last-minute request in a hush-money case has angered Cohen, who had been pursuing similar records for years. Newsweek has emailed the Trump 2024 presidential campaign team for comment. Trump's upcoming Manhattan trial related to the hush-money payments by Cohen made to pornographic actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election was delayed last week. Federal prosecutors at the Southern District of New York (SDNY)—which worked on a previous version of the hush-money payment investigation before Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg took over—handed the former president hundreds of thousands pages of evidence at his request. "The Southern District of New York believes themselves to be above everyone and everything. They refer to themselves grossly as the 'Sovereign' District of New York. They're not obligated to. They threaten. They're coercive. They lie," Cohen told The Daily Beast. "Then they get seven-figure jobs with the top law firms." Cohen, whom Bragg is relying on as a key witness in the hush-money trial, has been demanding records from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI since December 2021. Cohen gave journalist Brian Karem the go-ahead to file a Freedom of Information request for records related to the investigation. While the FBI in New York promised to begin sending documents in August 2022, it wasn't until March of this year that Cohen finally received the first batch of 32 pages. That same week, SDNY had sent Trump 73,193 documents about the same probe. U.S. Attorney for SDNY Damian Williams authorized the prompt release of those records at the request of the former president's attorneys. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Left: Former President Donald Trump speaks on February 23 in Columbia, South Carolina. Right: His former lawyer Michael Cohen walks out of a Manhattan courthouse on March 13 in New York City. Cohen criticized the... Left: Former President Donald Trump speaks on February 23 in Columbia, South Carolina. Right: His former lawyer Michael Cohen walks out of a Manhattan courthouse on March 13 in New York City. Cohen criticized the Southern District of New York after prosecutors promptly delivered Trump's legal team hundreds of thousands of records that he had been seeking since 2021. More Sean Rayford/Getty Images Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "Trump put in a request for the documents in January, so that orange piece of s*** in 45 days gets documents that I've been waiting on for years," Cohen said. Cohen was a key figure in Trump's 2016 presidential election. He was one of the Republican's fiercest defenders, having once said that he would "take a bullet" for his boss, but their relationship soured after he flipped on Trump in the early years of the administration. In 2018, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for various crimes, including campaign finance violations related to the hush-money payments made to two women in exchange for their silence about their personal relationships with Trump. Since severing ties with his former boss, Cohen has since become a vocal critic of Trump. "When Donald Trump says there's a two-tiered justice system, that stupid motherf***** is exactly right! Here's the problem: He's on the top tier, and the rest of us aren't," Karem told the Beast. Trump has long vocalized his frustrations with both the justice system in New York and the DOJ, accusing state and federal prosecutors of politically motivated charges against him, while slamming judges in New York for being "true Trump Hater[s]." He said at a rally last month that "we have a sick and corrupt, two-tiered system of justice in our country," after the investigation into President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents concluded without charges. "Do I know better than anybody," Trump said from Pennsylvania. The former president has been posting on his social-media site Truth Social this week. He raged at New York Attorney Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron over the bond he would need to pay to stop the enforcement of the $454 million judgment against him in a civil fraud case while he appeals the order. He was found to have falsely inflated the values of his properties to get better loan deals, something he has continually denied. "This is the first time something like that has ever happened in New York State," Trump wrote on Tuesday. "[Engoron] is a Crazed, Trump Hating, Rogue Judge, has ZERO respect for the Appellate Judges, and has torn apart the Legal System in New York State, making it impossible for outside businesses to want to come there."

Two men in suits, one with a red tie and the other with a blue tie, are shown from the shoulders up against a blurred background.

2024-03-22 13:50:21+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/michael-cohen-donald-trump-agree-1882256

['Politics' 'National']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Likely

fb16495b0a

Newsweek

Did Mike Johnson Approve Funding to Give Transgender Teens Clothing? - Newsweek

Mike Johnson's Problems Are About To Get Even Worse House Speaker Mike Johnson is being rebuked by Republican colleagues for myriad earmarks related to transgender and abortion care as part of Congress' $1.2 trillion spending bill. A midnight deadline on Friday looms to avoid a partial government shutdown. Lawmakers are being asked to vote on a six-bill package of more than 1,000 pages that provides money to areas including defense, homeland security, labor, health and human services, financial services and the legislative branch. If approved, a shutdown would be avoided, and the government would be funded until the end of the fiscal year on September 30. The package contains earmarks with which many House GOP members part of an already razor-thin majority take umbrage, including for abortion-related care and LGBTQ+ causes. Although lawmakers usually are allotted 72 hours to review legislation, Johnson suggested waiving the rule to get something passed. Many conservatives waged a culture war in 2023, sparked by Bud Light teaming with transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney as part of an advertising campaign that led to numerous ad campaigns across business sectors, resulting in consumer boycotts and even physical demonstrations in stores like Target. House Speaker Mike Johnson (center) speaks during a news conference with Majority Leader Steve Scalise (left) and Majority Whip Tom Emmer following a closed-door caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on March 20... House Speaker Mike Johnson (center) speaks during a news conference with Majority Leader Steve Scalise (left) and Majority Whip Tom Emmer following a closed-door caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on March 20 in Washington, D.C. Johnson is receiving criticism from his own party for money that goes toward abortion care and LGBTQ+ programming. More Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images One item in the package includes a purported $400,000 toward gender-affirming clothing for Briarpatch Youth Services in Wisconsin, introduced by Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Briarpatch's Teens Like Us Program provides support and education for queer youth ages 13 to 18, according to its website. "Founded over 20 years ago, TLU [Teens Like Us] provides a safe, brave place for queer and questioning youth to meet with their peers," the website says. "We serve youth across the state of Wisconsin!" Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek reached out to Briarpatch and Johnson via email for comment. The $400,000 can only be used for mental health services and counseling for kids experiencing homelessness, not for the Teens Like Us program, according to a source from Baldwin's office. Since these are federal funds administered through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, they cannot be used for activities outlined in Teens Like Us. The funding will specifically be used toward youth outreach and system implementation, the source said, as well as navigating reporting and billing, hiring a licensed clinical social worker, developing written standards, intake and assessment procedures, curriculum and development, and evaluation standards. Briarpatch receives other federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services Runaway and Homeless Youth programs and has since at least 2017. The Trump administration in 2020 also awarded Briarpatch $350,000 in annual grants for its runaway and homeless youth programs. "Senator Baldwin is proud to deliver resources for Wisconsin to help kids experiencing homelessness get the care they need and land on their feet," Baldwin spokesperson Eli Rosen told Newsweek. Other earmarks of note, as highlighted by the House Freedom Caucus in a series of posts on X, formerly Twitter, include: $1,808,000 for "facilities and equipment" for the Women and Infants Hospital in Rhode Island. $650,000 for Dartmouth Hitchcock Nashua in New Hampshire, which according to its website "routinely provides" medication and procedural abortion care up to 22 weeks of pregnancy. $400,000 for the Garden State Equality Education Fund in New Jersey, which helps minors transition. $156,000 for the Hartford Gay & Lesbian Health Collective in Connecticut. $850,000 for LGBTQ Senior Housing Inc. in Massachusetts as part of an LGBTQ-only senior community in Boston. $2,000,000 for La Clinica del Valle Family Health Care Center in Oregon to conduct gender-affirming hormone therapy for adults and adolescents. "No @HouseGOP should vote for the #SwampOmnibus with these earmarks," the House Freedom Caucus wrote on X. "A massive spending bill drafted in secrecy and dropped on us in the middle of the night is being rushed to the House floor for a vote with less than 36 hours to review." "Despite what the House Freedom Caucus said, the $2 million we received as part of the legislation has nothing to do with gender-affirming hormone therapy," Julie Wurth, spokesperson for La Clinica del Valle Family Health Center, told Newsweek via email. "This money is part of a project we've got underway to improve our acute care clinic and will go toward remodeling a building that will become a drive-up pharmacy and processing lab." Other House Republicans who have admonished the process include Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene, who slammed the legislation for providing "no accountability for the failed withdrawal of Afghanistan" in addition to not banning climate-related spending or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs. "The minibus was released at 2:32 am and is 1,012 pages of $1.2 trillion taxpayer dollars," Greene wrote on X. "And we are supposed to be voting on it tomorrow morning under suspension with no amendments allowed with the super scary government shutdown deadline threat looming tomorrow at midnight. "It takes 27.8 hours for the average reader to read 1,000 pages. I guess we are supposed to just pass it first and then find out what's in it like Nancy Pelosi says." This is the second of two spending bills introduced this year. The first

A man in a suit stands at a podium with a microphone, gesturing with his hands, with two other men in suits behind him, one of whom is partially visible with a flag in the background.

2024-03-21 18:15:40+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-johnson-agrees-fund-service-that-gives-teens-transgender-clothing-1882018

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

9ede1c9c96

Newsweek

Sheriffs Fear Repercussions of Immigration Change - Newsweek

Legislation that would allow members of law enforcement to arrest individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally is drawing mixed reviews from sheriffs in Georgia. House Bill 1105, sponsored by state Representative Jesse Petrea last year, prior to the killing of 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley, is making its way through the Georgia Senate. Riley, a student at the Augusta University College, was found dead near the campus of the University of Georgia in Athens (UGA) and was allegedly killed by 26-year-old Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old Venezuelan national arrested and charged in connection with her death. If enacted, the bill would put more burden on statewide sheriff departments to verify suspects' immigration status, honor requests for detainment, and require jailers to provide quarterly reports regarding foreign-born inmates. It would also prevent the state from becoming a "sanctuary" refuge for illegal migrants. Petrea, a Republican, introduced the legislation months before Riley's death last month but said that her killing has provided impetus for lawmakers to move forward in a proactive manner. He has referred to it as "the No. 1 issue" he hears from his constituents. Fulton County Sheriff's Department officers in front of the Fulton County Courthouse on September 6, 2023, in Atlanta, Georgia. Law enforcement in Fulton County and across the state may be required to arrest individuals suspected... Fulton County Sheriff's Department officers in front of the Fulton County Courthouse on September 6, 2023, in Atlanta, Georgia. Law enforcement in Fulton County and across the state may be required to arrest individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, drawing mixed reviews from some regions. More Joe Raedle/Getty Images The bill passed in the House with overwhelming Republican support, by a 97-93 vote. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "This bill was drafted last year, introduced in January, and heard twice before the horrible and very avoidable murder of Laken Riley," Petrea wrote on Facebook, calling it the most important legislation of the current session. "Every Democrat in the House voted against this measure but it is passed and now in the Senate. Please share to educate on this common-sense public safety measure." Newsweek reached out to Petrea via email for comment. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "This legislation is typical of a contemporary trend in which state legislatures will often attempt to enact policies in support of partisan goals," Carl Cavalli, a professor of political science at the University of North Georgia, told Newsweek. "That's more true now than in the past as there are very few state legislatures with partisan splits. Georgia is one of those states. Both houses of the state legislature are solidly Republican." While some sheriffs find the legislation proactive considering Riley's death and general disorder at the southern border, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), others expressed consternation at the thought of enforcing laws normally enforced by federal authorities. Putnam County Sheriff Howard Sills said he has trepidation about adding further requirements to officers' work dockets, including the required compilation reporting the number of inmates booked, inquiries made about suspects to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, responses received for requests, and the number of immigration detainers issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). "We are constantly having laws passed that put onerous, ancillary duties on us because of [other counties] that won't comply with the law," said Sills, adding that illegal migrants who provide fake names and IDs will further muddy the waters. "Every minute we are tasked with a bureaucratic reporting process is only going to take away from our ability to protect the public on the street." Forsyth County Sheriff Ron Freeman told the AJC that sheriffs "took an oath to follow the law," calling it a "disservice to citizens" when law enforcement doesn't honor ICE detainers. Cobb County Sheriff Craig Owens seemed to toss blame toward lawmakers who have not been able to find enough common ground on immigration and border security, adding that he and other sheriffs were not conferred when bills like 1105 were being drafted. "Backing the blue means including us," Owens said. Baldwin County Sheriff Bill Massee was more diplomatic. "We try to be proactive and stay in compliance especially for something as serious as immigration," he said. Newsweek reached out via email to multiple sheriffs' offices in Georgia for comment. Update 03/21/24, 10:54 a.m. ET: This story was updated with comment from Carl Cavalli.

Two police officers on motorcycles in front of a building with 'FULTON COUNTY' signage, with a traffic light showing a yellow hand signal.

2024-03-19 17:37:18+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/sheriffs-fear-repercussions-immigration-change-1880949

['Politics' 'Local/Regional']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

5c5d27e131

Newsweek

Russia recruiting more foreign mercenaries for Ukraine war: Kyiv - Newsweek

A Ukrainian official on Friday accused Russia of increasing its recruitment of foreign mercenaries to fight in the Ukraine war. Petro Yatsenko, spokesperson of Ukraine's Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, made the accusation during a Kyiv press conference, saying Russia has been seeking out more fighters from countries with a "difficult economic situation." Moscow has long been accused of enlisting troops from countries such as Nepal, Cuba, India and Somalia since the start of the war Russian President Vladimir Putin launched in February 2022. Days after the invasion began, the BBC carried a report that detailed how Russia attempts to recruit international mercenaries through posts on social media. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu even claimed early into the invasion that 16,000 fighters from the Middle East had volunteered to serve for Russia, while the paramilitary Wagner Group was well-known for enlisting foreigners. According to Yatsenko, Moscow has recently ramped up its attempts to sign up troops from outside Russia. Volunteers are seen at a military training facility in Rostov, Russia, on December 6, 2022. Ukraine on Friday said Russia has recently been increasing efforts to recruit foreign mercenaries to fight in Ukraine. Volunteers are seen at a military training facility in Rostov, Russia, on December 6, 2022. Ukraine on Friday said Russia has recently been increasing efforts to recruit foreign mercenaries to fight in Ukraine. Photo by STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "We see that Russia boosted its efforts to send citizens from countries with difficult economic situations to the front line," Yatsenko said, according to The Kyiv Independent. Newsweek reached out to the Russian Ministry of Defense via email on Friday for comment. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Yatsenko went on to say that perhaps the reason for the increased move toward foreign recruits is that Russia's domestic "mobilization resource has been reducing." Last year, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense said Russia was reportedly not meeting military personnel goals with recruitment not keeping pace with the Russian casualty rate in Ukraine. As a result, Moscow had escalated its recruitment of prison inmates. Analysts have also speculated that Putin could have been avoiding mobilization of Russian troops prior to the presidential election—which began on Friday—as the move could prove to be unpopular to voters. Yatsenko, whose press conference featured soldiers from other countries captured by Ukrainian forces on stage with him, said Russia lures in mercenaries with false promises only to use them as "cannon fodder." The Kyiv official also claimed that one in 1,000 foreign troops fighting for Russia ends up getting captured. The Independent noted that under rules of the Geneva Conventions, mercenaries do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war, and their participation in war is treated as a crime. "As trials have not taken place yet, Ukraine will follow the Geneva Conventions' prisoners of war treatment rules. They [captured foreign fighters] will get three meals daily, medical treatment if needed and a humane attitude," Yatsenko said, per the Independent.

A soldier in camouflage holds a rifle, with other soldiers in the background, in a room with a stained glass window and a white cross.

2024-03-15 22:34:22+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-recruiting-more-foreign-mercenaries-ukraine-war-kyiv-1879857

['International' 'Politics']

[0.9 0.7]

Likely

Likely

da4c6166a5

Newsweek

Surge in Russian Dark Web Posts About US Election Interference in 2024 - Newsweek

White House: No Threats To Midterms After Putin Ally Admits To Meddling There has been a surge in posts on the dark web concerning election interference in the first two months of the year, the "vast majority" of which reference the U.S. presidential election and were written in Russian, according to analysts at NordVPN. The virtual private network firm found that in 2022, there were 26 such discussions on the hidden forums, but it increased to 101 last year—a rise of nearly 400 percent. In January and February alone, the company traced 35 discussions. "The vast majority of the posts in the dark web were about [the] upcoming presidential elections in the United States," Laura Tyrylyte, NordVPN's head of global public relations, told Newsweek. "Most of the posts on elections that we found were written in Russian." The company cautioned that the chatter did not mean that a cyberattack or foreign influence operation was being planned but suggested that improvements in artificial intelligence (AI) generated content could make disinformation easier to produce and more convincing. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty "Hackers don't publicly disclose their plans to commit cybercrimes," Tyrylyte said. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Rather than being "attempts to hack or [the] planning of operations," the figures were indicative of "general interest" among the dark web community in electoral disruption. Russian election interference has been a concern since 2016, when the Kremlin meddled in the U.S. presidential election in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," a report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found in 2019. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Hackers stole documents from the Democratic National Committee and then leaking them online, as well as instigated a coordinated social media campaign that favored Donald Trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton. Russian President Vladimir Putin later joked that he would "definitely do it" again in the 2020 election. In 2021, a report by U.S. intelligence agencies found he had authorized a range of government organizations to conduct interference operations aimed at undermining Joe Biden, while Iran carried out a "multi-pronged cover influence campaign" intended to undercut Trump. In late February, Jake Sullivan, the Biden administration's national security adviser, told NBC News that there was "plenty of reason to be concerned" about Russia trying to do the same in 2024 but that officials were being "vigilant." Experts were said to be most concerned about the use of AI to create fake leaks that could damage candidates. "There are number of ways how hackers could use AI to influence the U.S. elections, it's just a matter of imagination," Tyrylyte said, noting the recent case of an artificial impersonation of Biden telling Democratic voters in New Hampshire not to vote in the state's primary as "a good example how voice cloning can be used to interrupt democratic processes." In the past year or so, there has been an explosion in the sophistication and adoption of AI software as the capabilities of the technology improve at pace, allowing for its implementation in an increasing number of cases. AI models are already able to generate text and images based on simple cues, as well as being used to edit videos and find patterns in large datasets. But with every positive use of the emerging technology comes the potential for negative ones. AI is already being used to generate disinformation, with deepfakes—digitally doctored content—being used to create involuntary pornography as well as false political narratives.

A collage of images including a person in a suit, a voting booth, and binary code patterns.

2024-03-14 08:00:01+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/surge-russian-dark-web-us-election-interference-2024-1878905

['Politics' 'National']

[0.9 0.85]

Likely

Likely

a7d3274dc7

Newsweek

NATO Brushes Off Donald Trump's Threats - Newsweek

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg brushed off Donald Trump's attacks against the efforts of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in an interview on Monday's CNN News Central. When asked if he is concerned about the political direction the U.S. is headed and how it relates to NATO, Stoltenberg said the recent threats from Trump have not been directed at NATO, but instead, are directed at allies who he perceives are not spending enough on defense. "The criticism has not mainly been against NATO, but the criticism coming from former president Trump has been against NATO allies not spending enough on NATO and there are things that have really changed," Stoltenberg said. "More NATO allies are spending at least two percent of GDP on defense, and now Sweden joined today, and they are spending more than two percent," Stoltenberg said. "NATO allies are really making a difference now by significantly spending more on defense." Context Trump sparked backlash after saying he would "encourage" Russian President Vladimir Putin to do "whatever the hell" he wants to NATO members that insufficiently contribute financially to the military alliance. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use In a speech in South Carolina in February, Trump appeared to recall a conversation with an unnamed politician he described as "one of the presidents of a big country" and added that the anonymous leader had asked whether the United States would protect the NATO nation if Russia attacked. "I said, 'You didn't pay, you're delinquent?'" the former president told the crowd. "In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills." Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 What We Know During Monday's CNN interview, Stoltenberg did not say he was concerned with the political direction the U.S. was headed. "I expect the Unites States to continue to be a staunch NATO ally after the elections in November because it is in the U.S. interest to have a strong NATO. NATO is a good deal for the United States because together we represent 50 percent of the worlds military and economic might and also make United States safer," said Stoltenberg. President Joe Biden has since slammed Trump's comments on NATO as he previously called it "dumb" and "shameful" while speaking at the White House in February. "The worst thing is, he means it. No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will. For God's sake, it's dumb, it's shameful, it's dangerous. It's un-American," said the president. More recently, during Biden's State of the Union address on Thursday, the president specifically called Trump out for his recent attacks toward NATO, and accused him of "bowing down" to Putin. "Now—now my predecessor, a former Republican president, tells Putin, quote, 'Do whatever the hell you want.'" said Biden. "A former president actually said that—bowing down to a Russian leader. I think it's outrageous, it's dangerous, and it's unacceptable." In response Trump shot back at Biden's State of the Union comments on Truth Social, writing: "Putin only invaded Ukraine, because he has no respect for Biden. Would have never happened under the Trump Administration, and for four years it didn't happen!" Newsweek has reached out to Trump's spokesperson via email for comment. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gives a press conference before a ceremony to mark Sweden's accession to NATO on March 11, 2024 in Brussels, Belgium. In an interview, Stoltenberg brushed off Donald Trump's criticism of NATO. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gives a press conference before a ceremony to mark Sweden's accession to NATO on March 11, 2024 in Brussels, Belgium. In an interview, Stoltenberg brushed off Donald Trump's criticism of NATO. Omar Havana/Getty Images Views Several Democrats and Republicans voiced disagreement with Trump's remarks. Republicans such as former Representative Liz Cheney, Senator Lindsey Graham as well as former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who ran against Trump for the GOP presidential candidacy, have all spoken out condemning his comments. Stoltenberg had reacted similarly to Trump's comments back in February. "Any attack on NATO will be met with a united and forceful response. Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S. and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election, the U.S. will remain a strong and committed NATO ally," Stoltenberg said. Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, a staunch supporter of Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, has recently said that he believes Ukraine's potential NATO membership "could be the match that sparks WWIII." "If Ukraine is in NATO, the United States should be out, plain and simple. We must draw a redline with NATO: You can have Ukraine or the United States," Lee wrote on Saturday in an opinion piece published by The American Conservative. "[Vladimir] Putin continues to warn us that Ukraine in NATO could be the match that sparks WWIII. As a constitutional realist, it seems to me that when the enemy gives us a clear warning, we should act with a degree of prudence, not double down without a second thought simply to anger the bad guy," Lee added. Just after the two-year anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Stoltenberg spoke of Ukraine's relation to NATO. "Ukraine is now nearer to NATO than ever before. We are assisting in improving your armed forces' compatibility with our allies. We are opening a new Joint Center for Analysis, Training and Education in Poland together. We're also strengthening our political relationship through the NATO-Ukraine Council, where we

A man stands at a podium with microphones in front of him, with flags of various countries behind him, including the United States, European Union, and others, suggesting a formal international event or press conference.

2024-03-11 14:43:31+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-jens-stoltenberg-brushes-off-donald-trump-criticism-spending-defense-1877975

['Politics' 'International']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Likely

f480b9f7c8

Newsweek

Former Trump Admin Aide Urges Republicans to 'Stop Donating' to the GOP - Newsweek

A former aide in Donald Trump's administration, Olivia Troye, urged Republicans on Saturday to "stop donating" to the GOP as she criticized the Republican National Committee (RNC) for becoming a "Trump legal defense fund." The former president continues to face legal troubles. Trump was recently fined roughly $355 million, plus interest, by Judge Arthur Engoron in his New York civil fraud case, which accused him, his two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, The Trump Organization and two firm executives of fraudulently overvaluing assets to secure more favorable bank loans and taxation deals. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and claimed it was politically motivated, vowing to appeal the verdict. Engoron's judgment comes weeks after Trump was ordered to pay $83.3 million to former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll for damaging her reputation after she accused him of sexually assaulting her during an incident in the 1990s. A separate jury last year awarded Carroll $5 million from Trump for sexual abuse and defamation. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in those cases and vowed to appeal them as well. In his case against Carroll, Trump on Friday posted a $91.6 million bond, which consisted of the $83.3 million judgment, along with statutory interest added by the State of New York. Meanwhile, Ronna McDaniel officially stepped down from her position as the chairwoman of the RNC on Friday following months of mounting criticism of her performance in the role, particularly from Trump supporters. Since reports of McDaniel's resignation, Trump endorsed his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, who is married to Eric, for the role of RNC co-chair. She was officially elected to the position on Friday. Lara Trump has previously said that if she were elected to the position of co-chair, she would ensure that the RNC would use its "every penny" on working to reelect her father-in-law in November, sparking criticism from other Republicans that funds from the RNC will go towards paying for Trump's legal expenses. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "If I am elected to this position, I can assure you there will not be any more $70,000, or whatever exorbitant amount of money it was, spent on flowers," she previously told Newsmax. "Every single penny will go to the number one and the only job of the RNC. That is electing Donald J. Trump as the president of the United States." In an interview with MSNBC on Saturday, Troye, a former RNC staffer who served as a national security official during Trump's administration and was a former aide to former Vice President Mike Pence, was asked by host José Díaz-Balart her views on the RNC now being run by former North Carolina Republican Party chairman Michael Whatley, a Trump loyalist and Lara Trump. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "I think it is horrific. I think the RNC, yes, they'll support the presidential candidate, but they are supposed to be supporting Republicans across the board, Republican candidates. Instead, I feel like this is officially, overtly, become the Trump legal defense fund. So I would say to Republican voters and independents stop donating to the party because the candidates are not going to see that money—we know that," Troye said. Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump speaks at Mar-a-Lago on March 5 in West Palm Beach, Florida. A former aide in Donald Trump's administration, Olivia Troye, urged Republicans on Saturday to "stop donating"... Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump speaks at Mar-a-Lago on March 5 in West Palm Beach, Florida. A former aide in Donald Trump's administration, Olivia Troye, urged Republicans on Saturday to "stop donating" to the GOP as she criticized the Republican National Committee (RNC) for becoming a "Trump legal defense fund." More Win McNamee/Getty Images She also warned Republicans on Saturday to think of where the funds are going. "Think about where your funds are going and if you care about electing rational sane Republicans, focus on them directly maybe or turn away from what this is. This is just an enabler for Trump and it's embarrassing," she said. Newsweek has reached out to Trump's spokesperson via email and the RNC via online email form for comment. Troye is not the first to take aim at the RNC amid concerns that it will fund Trump's legal expenses. Nikki Haley, who was trailing Trump in the 2024 presidential run and has since dropped out of the race, criticized the RNC and warned the GOP in an interview with Fox News' The Story With Martha MacCallum in late February. "Look at what's happening to the party, the RNC now before the primary is over, he is going in and has booted out the chair, he's putting in his daughter-in-law, he's putting in his campaign chairs as an operative, but more than that he's pushing to have the RNC be just about him...and it's all turning into his legal flush fund," Haley said. However, Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, said late last month that he won't pay the former president's legal expenses with funds from the RNC.

A man in a dark suit and tie is speaking into a microphone, with a blurred face, against a dark background.

2024-03-09 22:35:42+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/former-donald-trump-aide-urges-republicans-stop-donating-1877604

['Politics' 'National']

[0.9 0.7]

Likely

Likely

66edc0411a

Newsweek

Former Trump Advisor Makes Last-Minute Attempt to Avoid Jail - Newsweek

Trump Ally Peter Navarro 'Willing To Go To Prison' To Fight Conviction Former Donald Trump advisor Peter Navarro makes a last-minute attempt to avoid going to prison as he asks an appeals court on Monday to intervene. Navarro was convicted last year on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to provide documents and testimony to congressional investigators probing the cause of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, in which a large mob of Trump supporters attempted to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election. The former president said, without evidence, that the election was stolen from him due to widespread voter fraud. Trump and his supporters have attempted to claim that the former president had no influence over the group that day. The committee subpoenaed Navarro in February 2022 but refused to comply, citing executive privilege. In February a judge ruled that Navarro must serve a four-month prison sentence despite his pending appeals as he was convicted on charges of contempt of Congress for defying the subpoena from the January 6 select committee. Navarro has been ordered to report to a Miami prison on March 19 and will become one of the first individuals in the U.S. to serve jail time for contempt of Congress charges in roughly 50 years. On Monday, Navarro is urging a three-judge appeals court panel to stay the prison sentence while he attempts to overturn his conviction, according to court documents. Peter Navarro, a former advisor to former U.S. President Donald Trump, speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on February 24, 2024 in National Harbor,... Peter Navarro, a former advisor to former U.S. President Donald Trump, speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on February 24, 2024 in National Harbor, Maryland. Navarro makes a last-minute attempt to avoid going to prison as he asks an appeals court on Monday to intervene. More Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "Accordingly, Dr. Navarro respectfully reiterates his request for an administratively stay so as to permit the Court to resolve the instant motion. Should this Court deny Dr. Navarro's motion, he respectfully requests an administrative stay so as to permit the Supreme Court review of this Court's denial," the court document reads. This is not the first time Navarro has requested a stay, as U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who presides over Navarro's case, previously rejected Navarro's attempt for a similar stay in early February. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Navarro has claimed that Trump ordered him not to testify and instead to invoke executive privilege, but Mehta previously rejected this claim noting that Navarro had offered no evidence that Trump in fact gave such an order. However, according to court documents, Navarro argues that a stay should be permitted due to an open question of a "proper" invocation of executive privilege. "Thus, the district court's decision on the elements of a "proper" invocation of executive privilege was not only an open question, but itself a substantial question...Whether this Court affirms, vacates, or otherwise alters the elements of a "proper" invocation of executive privilege set forth by the district court, that this issue of first impression is now before this Court warrants Dr. Navarro's release pending appeal," the court document reads. In a statement emailed to Newsweek, Navarro reiterated his argument of executive privilege, stating, "United States v. Peter Navarro is a landmark constitutional case that will eventually determine whether the constitutional separation of powers is preserved, whether executive privilege will continue to exist as a bulwark against partisan attacks by the legislative branch, and whether executive privilege will remain, as President George Washington pioneered, a critical instrument of effective presidential decision-making. That's worth fighting for on behalf of all Americans." Navarro has also pointed to arguments in Steve Bannon's case as he argues it presents unusual circumstances because of his refusal to testify with executive privilege and immunity. Bannon, another former Trump advisor, was convicted by a jury in July 2022 for similarly refusing a subpoena from the committee. He also received a four-month prison sentence, however, it has been on hold since then as he appeals the convictions. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who presides over Bannon's case, agreed not to enforce Bannon's four-month sentence while he appeals his conviction to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

An older man with white hair, wearing a grey jacket and a red t-shirt, stands at a podium with a microphone, gesturing with his right hand. The background is purple with a spotlight effect.

2024-03-11 19:29:54+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/peter-navarro-asks-appeals-court-stay-amid-prison-sentence-1878107

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

affd451c50

Newsweek

Hunter Biden Defense Ridiculed as 'House of Cards' by DOJ Prosecutors - Newsweek

Hunter Biden's defense in his tax-related charges was ridiculed on Friday as Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors called it a "house of cards." The DOJ announced a tax-related indictment of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, in December, saying that, instead of paying his taxes, he spent huge sums of money "on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature" including over $70,000 on drug rehabilitation. DOJ special counsel David Weiss, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, brought the charges against him and has been investigating the president's son since 2018. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to nine felony and misdemeanor charges during an arraignment hearing in Los Angeles on January 11. The president's son is accused of attempting to evade payment of $1.4 million in personal taxes owed from 2016 to 2019. On Friday, federal prosecutors filed their opposition in response to efforts by Hunter Biden's attorneys to dismiss the charges. According to the court documents, lawyers from Weiss' office rejected Hunter Biden's claim that the case against him was politically motivated, stating that it is "nothing more than a house of cards." "The defendant's conspiratorial 'upped the ante' claim is nothing more than a house of cards...The defendant concocts a conspiracy theory that the prosecution has 'upped the ante' to appease politicians who have absolutely nothing to do with the prosecution and are not even members of the current Executive Branch," prosecutors wrote. Newsweek has reached out to Hunter Biden's attorney via email for comment. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use The president's son argues that the additional charges, which were brought after a plea deal fell apart last year, came amid pressure from Republicans on Capitol Hill. However in response, Weiss' team said prosecutors had signed proposed agreements for Hunter Biden's plea "weeks after politicians had railed against them." Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, is seen on February 28 in Washington, D.C. Hunter Biden's defense in his tax-related charges was ridiculed on Friday as Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors called it a... Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, is seen on February 28 in Washington, D.C. Hunter Biden's defense in his tax-related charges was ridiculed on Friday as Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors called it a "house of cards." More Samuel Corum/Getty Images "The defendant fails to explain how President Biden or the Attorney General, to whom the Special Counsel reports, or the Special Counsel himself, or his team of prosecutors, are acting at the direction of former President Trump or Congressional Republicans, or how this current Executive Branch approved allegedly discriminatory charges against the President's son at the direction of former President Trump and Congressional Republicans," prosecutors added. Hunter Biden's attorneys will need to respond to the special counsel's filings later this month. Attorneys for the president's son had also said last month that Weiss' appointment as special counsel was unlawful. Prosecutors, however, disputed the claims on Friday, writing in court documents "these arguments are meritless and should be denied," adding that his appointment "conforms to the law in all respects." This comes after Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to three felony charges related to a 2018 firearm purchase. Federal prosecutors alleged he lied about not being addicted to drugs when purchasing a gun, despite knowing that statement was "false," therefore making the transaction illegal, according to a September indictment. House Republicans have also targeted Hunter Biden in their impeachment inquiry into his father. In December, the House of Representatives voted to launch an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden in a 221-212 vote, with members voting along party lines. Republicans allege that whilst serving as vice president between 2009 and 2017 under President Barack Obama, Biden used his influence to improperly support the business activities of his son, from which they suggest he gained financially. The president has said he had no involvement with Hunter's business dealings and the White House has described the GOP's impeachment effort as "sad, pathetic and a waste of everyone's time."

A man in a dark suit and tie stands in front of a blurred background, with another man in a similar outfit slightly behind him.

2024-03-09 18:34:01+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-bidens-defense-tax-charges-ridiculed-doj-prosecutors-1877586

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

1499ee2e1e

Newsweek

If You Care About Politics and the Environment, Don't Underestimate Art - Newsweek

In 2024, political engagement is at an all-time high. For better or worse, presidential election years bring a swell of interest in key issues that impact millions of Americans. Early signs indicate a resurgence in social activism, especially among young people. Nearly 60 percent of Americans aged 18 to 34—a traditionally low-turnout voting bloc—are now extremely likely to vote in November. And they are especially engaged in issues like inflation, gun violence, and climate change. Even beyond the youth and voting itself, Americans are increasingly passionate about the world around them. Take climate change, which is more a topic of conversation now than ever before. Since 2010, U.S. concerns about climate change have risen like sea levels, and not just in so-called blue states. Even in Republican strongholds like Texas and North Carolina, most adults now accept that climate change is happening and that it must be addressed. In my home state of Florida, which is now deep red in many areas, the rise of the ocean is a concern shared by Democrats and Republicans. Sunset Hammock in Tamarac, Fla., is pictured. Sunset Hammock in Tamarac, Fla., is pictured. Photo Courtesy of Robin Hill Photography In today's political climate, we can celebrate greater awareness about generational problems like climate change. After all, only through awareness can we hope to achieve any sort of progress. But, on the public education front, there is still more work to be done. Not only does climate change skepticism continue to linger, but millions of Americans do not feel as connected to the environment as needed. When nearly half of the country fails to participate in outdoor recreation, it's clear that we are far too often disconnected from nature. Forces like technology and social media tend to keep us locked into a virtual world that is removed from the one outside. Newsletter The Josh Hammer Report Top Weekly Conservative Takes Senior Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer shares top conservative viewpoints weekly. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use So how do we solve this problem? How can we make sure that people remain in-tune with the outside world? Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Here's one underrated influence: art. We simply cannot underestimate the transformative power of architecture, urban design, and similar fields. It is incumbent on today's artists, architects, and urban designers to create worlds where people are inspired and motivated to think deeply about fundamental issues—from climate change to immigration, affordable housing, and more. Art is perhaps our most unique form of expression, and it doesn't need to be "in your face." Since it is far removed from the cable news cycle or daily squabbles on Capitol Hill, people are naturally more open to having their hearts and minds changed through artistic expression. Therein lies a privilege and a responsibility for professionals in my field that we should not take lightly. Through our projects, our mission is to be eye-opening in more ways than one, and not only aesthetically. There is more to art than aesthetic beauty, while that is important. Mending Wall at the Boca Raton Museum of Art is pictured. Mending Wall at the Boca Raton Museum of Art is pictured. Photo Courtesy of Robin Hill Photography Again, take climate change. According to recent research in the life sciences, artistic representations of data can help bridge the U.S. political divide related to environmental action. Visual art can rejuvenate the portrayal of climate change to engage emotions and expand non-experts' capacity to perceive its relevance. I see that firsthand. After a decade of work, my studio recently completed an environmental public art commission in Tamarac, Fla., right on the town's border with the Everglades. The project, titled Sunset Hammock, raises awareness about the critical role of the Everglades within the ecological balance of South Florida. It incorporates the adjacent wetland into Tamarac's Sunset Point Park, featuring an educational children's art program that makes young people feel more connected to the Everglades—not only the beauty of the wetlands, but also potential threats to the ecosystem. And we are already receiving rave reviews. Threshold at the NSU Art Museum Fort Lauderdale is pictured. Threshold at the NSU Art Museum Fort Lauderdale is pictured. Photo Courtesy of Robin Hill Photography Interestingly enough, Sunset Hammock is located close to an Amazon fulfillment center, situating it right at the intersection of the environment and private industry. There is no better illustration of our world—and its potential pitfalls—than the point where commerce and the climate come together. Americans of all ages, and not just young people, need such visual reminders of the human impact on the environment. There are other ways that art can open our eyes. At the Boca Raton Museum of Art, for instance, the Mending Wall reimagines the very purpose of a wall, which is often cited in politics as a mechanism of exclusion and division. A wall that mends, on the other hand, reminds people that such "obstacles" can actually contribute to unity and inclusion, bringing us closer together. As artists, we cannot forget the duty to use our talents for the greater good. Just like people in my profession encourage non-artists to take interest in the likes of architecture and urban design, we must hold up our end of the bargain. We return the favor by completing unique projects with the potential to change hearts and minds. If we are to make the world a better place in 2024 and beyond, the arts remain an important piece of America's puzzle. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, art can unite us all in the search for social impact. Margi Glavovic Nothard serves as founder and design director at Glavovic Studio in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. and Los Angeles, Calif. The studio's Instagram profile can be accessed here. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

An aerial view of a highway with a red structure, greenery, and a body of water in the background.

2024-03-07 12:30:06+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/if-you-care-about-politics-environment-dont-underestimate-art-opinion-1876210

['Politics' 'Weather and Environment']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Unlikely

65800096db

Newsweek

Republicans Blast 'Swamp's' Spending After Congress Unveils 6 Funding Bills - Newsweek

Soon after congressional leaders unveiled a bipartisan package of six government spending bills, Republican lawmakers voiced outrage online. The text of the six bills was released on Sunday per the House of Representatives rule to give lawmakers at least 72 hours to review legislation before voting. The six bills, if approved by the House and Senate, will fund some federal agencies for a full year, with the package totaling roughly $460 billion. The package, which comes after months of contentious negotiations, political infighting and stopgap measures to narrowly avert looming shutdowns, is the product of a deal struck by House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a handful of other members of Congress. Congress has failed for months to approve a federal funding package for the 2024 fiscal year, which began October 1, 2023. To keep the government, Johnson has passed multiple short-term funding bills. Even though Republicans hold a slight majority in the lower chamber, the speaker has had to rely on Democrats to pass legislation as some GOP members continue to vote against spending bills. Newsweek reached out via email to representatives for Johnson and the Biden administration for comment. Mike Johnson Under Fire Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use While Johnson highlighted some key spending wins for conservatives in the package released on Sunday, several Republican lawmakers took to X, formerly Twitter, to criticize the package and blast the speaker. House Speaker Mike Johnson at the U.S. Capitol on February 29, 2024 in Washington, DC. Johnson faced criticism from his own party after Congressional leaders released six spending bills on Sunday. House Speaker Mike Johnson at the U.S. Capitol on February 29, 2024 in Washington, DC. Johnson faced criticism from his own party after Congressional leaders released six spending bills on Sunday. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, slammed the bill package while resharing a post on X by Elon Musk that reads, "Three things America needs: - Secure borders - Safe cities - Sensible spending." In his X post, the congressman called out Johnson and GOP leaders, writing: "cc: @HouseGOP @SpeakerJohnson @SenateGOP @LeaderMcConnell (hint: the Omni bills this week aren't this)." Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Georgia Republican, slammed the spending package and posted more than a dozen times on X where he listed policy that was "surrendered" during deal talks. "The Swamp's first spending package is out," Clyde posted. "Follow along for all the policy wins that were SURRENDERED during backroom negotiations." Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, posted on X: "BREAKING: @SenSchumer just released the text for the first six spending bills we're supposed to vote on this week that includes 605 PAGES OF EARMARKS. One example? Schumer's $1 MILLION ask to build a new environmental justice center in NYC..." In a subsequent post, Scott took aim at former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "It's not just Schumer cashing in your tax dollars and digging us deeper in debt for woke nonsense," Scott wrote on X. "Pelosi wants you to send $1 MILLION to San Francisco so a social justice organization can make building improvements. HELL NO!" While sharing one of Scott's X posts, Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, blasted the package on X. "Earmarks corrupt government," Lee wrote. "Earmarks turn Republicans Democrat. No Republican should support them. No Republican should vote for this bill." Mike Johnson Hails Victory Despite garnering some GOP backlash, congressional leaders praised the bill package on social media. Johnson touted the measure as a victory for his party and a blow to President Joe Biden. The speaker said in a post on X on Sunday that American taxpayers will "benefit" from the bill package as he hailed it a victory for Republicans. "House Republicans secured key conservative policy victories, rejected left-wing proposals, and imposed sharp cuts to agencies and programs critical to the President Biden's agenda," Johnson wrote. "This legislation forbids the Department of Justice from targeting parents exercising their right to free speech before school boards, while it blocks the Biden Administration from stripping Second Amendment rights from veterans. It imposes deep cuts to the EPA, ATF, and FBI, which under the Biden Administration have threatened our freedoms and our economy, while it fully funds veterans' health care." Schumer, in a statement posted on X, called the package "good news" and said leadership is proud to avoid a government shutdown "without cuts or poison pill riders." "Among the good things Democrats helped secure in this package I am particularly proud that it fully funds the vital WIC program, makes critical investments in our infrastructure, and strengthens programs that benefit services for our veterans. Throughout the negotiations, Democrats fought hard to protect against cuts to housing and nutrition programs, and keep out harmful provisions that would further restrict access to women's health, or roll back the progress we've made to fight climate change." Government Shutdown Looms The Senate majority leader said the clock is "now ticking" until government funding runs out and urged the House and Senate to quickly pass the package. Congress has until 12:01 a.m. Saturday to avoid a partial government shutdown for the agencies included in the bill package released on Sunday, which includes funding for Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and Transportation. Congressional leaders are aiming to vote on the package this week and continue talks on the other six budget bills, which have a March 22 deadline. The second set of bills that are still being negotiated includes funding for defense.

A man in a suit stands in front of the US House of Representatives flag, looking serious.

2024-03-04 05:16:14+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-blast-swamps-spending-after-congress-unveils-6-funding-bills-1875449

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

54d1ec30dd

Newsweek

Lauren Boebert Gets More Bad News in Her Colorado Primary - Newsweek

Representative Lauren Boebert is facing more challenges in her Colorado primary as she continues to lack support amid her district switch-up. Boebert, a Colorado Republican who is one of the more staunchly pro-Trump members of the House GOP caucus, announced in December that she would be running for reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives in Colorado's 4th Congressional District instead of the 3rd District where she has held office since 2021. Despite her defending the move by saying it's the "right decision for those who support our conservative movement," it has been widely viewed as an attempt to avoid lower reelection odds in the 3rd District where she's facing a notable primary challenge from Republican Jeff Hurd and an even more fraught general election challenge from Democrat Adam Frisch. In addition, Boebert was recorded as the fifth most popular candidate in a straw poll taken after a debate in Fort Lupton, which is in Colorado's 8th Congressional District, on January 25. The straw poll taken of 100 Republican voters saw Boebert pick up just 12 votes, behind Logan County Commissioner and former state Senator Jerry Sonnenberg, who topped the poll with 22 votes. Representative Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, attends a press conference on February 6 in Washington, DC. Boebert is facing more challenges in the Colorado primary as she continues to lack support amid her district switch-up.... Representative Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, attends a press conference on February 6 in Washington, DC. Boebert is facing more challenges in the Colorado primary as she continues to lack support amid her district switch-up. More Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images On Thursday, three former Colorado GOP senators who used to represent the 4th District, Cory Gardner, Wayne Allard, and Hank Brown endorsed Sonnenberg, signaling a split among Republicans. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "He will be a passionate and dedicated warrior for our nation and our shared conservative values," Gardner said of Sonnenberg in a statement. The endorsements also leave the congresswoman in need of bolstering support in the new district ahead of the June primary as Sonnenberg said the endorsements highlighted the roots he has in the district. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "Each of them knows the fourth district and understands the kind of principled leadership our community needs in Congress," Sonnenberg said. Meanwhile, Boebert is backed by House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, who called the congresswoman a "relentless force for conservative governance." Newsweek has reached out to Boebert's office via email for comment. The endorsements come after the congresswoman has continued to face ire from voters. In a report published last week from the Wall Street Journal, prospective GOP voters lambasted the congresswoman. "I don't appreciate, as a Christian, people saying they're Christian to get your vote and then turning out to be a lowlife," retired university employee Judy Scofield told the newspaper. "And now I just kind of think of her as a lowlife." Scofield's comments were in reference to an incident last year in which Boebert was removed from a Denver theater during a show for allegedly engaging in disruptive behavior. Video footage of the incident later led to further accusations that she had been vaping and fondling her date. While she initially denied any wrongdoing, she later apologized for the conduct and attributed it to the stress of her recent divorce. Echoing similar sentiments, another Republican voter Tammi Flemming told the Journal, "On Facebook she's not been well received by Republicans. It's the shenanigans and the drama and moving districts." Meanwhile, among those spoken to by the newspaper, at least one was quoted speaking kindly of Boebert, Mark Peters. "Love Lauren Boebert...She's stood up to Democrats on everything," Peters said.

A woman with glasses and a black jacket stands in front of a blurred background with a flag, next to a man in a suit.

2024-02-25 16:04:59+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/lauren-boebert-faces-challenges-her-colorado-primary-1873141

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

a72bc31978

Newsweek

Republican's Patience With Mike Johnson Runs Out: 'Just Ridiculous' - Newsweek

Republican Senator Josh Hawley said on Tuesday his patience has run out amid another possible government shutdown as he criticized both sides of House leadership, stating that it's "just ridiculous" that a funding agreement hasn't been decided on sooner. On Tuesday, President Joe Biden met with Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle including House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to discuss a possible compromise on different legislation, such as government funding to avoid a shutdown and military aid to Ukraine and Israel. A bill to provide military aid to Ukraine and Israel previously passed in the Senate but Johnson initially expressed opposition to voting in favor of it in the House. However, without a compromise met by members on both sides of the aisle, Congress will enter a partial shutdown. Speaking with CNN's Manu Raju on Tuesday, Hawley, of Missouri, criticized the amount of time it has taken to reach a funding agreement in order to avoid a government shutdown. U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley on Capitol Hill on December 05, 2023, in Washington, D.C. Hawley said on Tuesday his patience has run out amid another possible government shutdown. U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley on Capitol Hill on December 05, 2023, in Washington, D.C. Hawley said on Tuesday his patience has run out amid another possible government shutdown. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images "This was supposed to be done in September. I mean, this is now almost March? Well, this is just ridiculous. They have agreement on the top line. They've had it since January. This is why I voted against the last CR. They've just been kicking the can down the road. I can't believe that they didn't get work done over the weekend. They had months to do this stuff. I mean, I—my patience has run out," Hawley said. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use When asked by Raju who is to blame, Hawley continued to explain that "leadership is to blame," further explaining that both sides are to blame. "Yeah, of course. Yeah, all of them. Yeah. They're all the blame. I mean at this point it's just it's absurd, I think," Hawley added. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek has reached out to Hawley's and Johnson's office and the White House via email for comment. This comes as Johnson was quoted saying to a reporter regarding a government shutdown, "No, we're going to work to prevent that" as he headed into Tuesday's meeting with Biden and other top U.S. leaders. Meanwhile, Biden also spoke about working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle saying, "We got a lot of work to do, we gotta figure out how we're gonna figure out keep funding the government which is an important problem and an important solution we need to find and I think we can do that." However, this is also not the first time Hawley has taken aim at GOP leadership. Earlier this month Hawley slammed GOP leadership as a "total embarrassment" after the Senate failed to pass a bipartisan bill aimed at addressing the U.S.-Mexico border amid a rise in migrant arrivals. The Senate voted down the bipartisan legislation, which would also have allocated funds to U.S. allies such as Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine by a vote of 49-50. The vote was largely on party lines, with five Democrats opposing the bill and four Republicans supporting it, but added to questions about whether Congress would be able to act on immigration reform and border security amid deep divisions over the issue. GOP leadership is now facing backlash from many conservatives over the legislation. Hawley, a conservative who voted against the bill, lashed out at leadership in remarks to Punchbowl News. "Oh, I think Republican leadership has shown they're a well-oiled machine. They just do great. Couldn't be improved upon. Absolutely have it all together. Very impressive. No, it's a total embarrassment," he said.

A man in a suit is speaking into a microphone with a serious expression.

2024-02-27 22:47:21+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/josh-hawley-takes-aim-both-house-leadership-amid-possible-government-shutdown-1874030

['Politics']

[0.95]

Likely

Likely

da3e126a4f

Newsweek

Joe Biden's 'Aggressive' Social Media Strategy - TikTok - Newsweek

Joe Biden is attempting to appeal to Generation Z and Millennial voters by "adopting a more aggressive message about his economic record" on social media platform TikTok, according to an expert in youth political engagement. The president joined TikTok on February 11 with a video entitled "lol hey guys" and went on to answer a series of quick-fire questions about the day's upcoming Super Bowl. Biden's account, called 'Biden-Harris HQ,' currently has just over 205,000 followers on the platform. Speaking to Newsweek DeNora Getachew, CEO of youth-focused activist hub DoSomething.org, said that Biden is using TikTok to reach "some of the first generations to have been almost fully brought up in an environment dominated by smartphones, tablets and social media." She added: "It's even more important to engage Gen Z and Millennials on TikTok as Pew recently found that the share of U.S. adults who say they regularly get news from TikTok has more than quadrupled, from 3 percent in 2020 to 14 percent in 2023." However, according to data provided to Newsweek by Kyra, an agency connecting brands and creators, Biden's TikTok growth has been fairly pedestrian compared to some of the top accounts on the platform. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use In the 11 days to February 23, Biden gained around 180,000 TikTok followers. However, comparatively, in only the seven days leading up to February 23, Reesa Teesa, a user documenting the breakup of her marriage, acquired 2.3 million followers. The same period also saw Kanye West gain 714,000 followers, while the account of Team ECCO, which describes itself as a "nonprofit dedicated to educating children to care about the ocean," picked up 383,000 followers. Why TikTok? Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 According to Getachew, Biden is using TikTok as part of a bid to rebuild the coalition of voters that gave him victory over Donald Trump in November 2020, which included young voters. Trump is the firm favorite to secure the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. She said: "A Biden-Trump rematch appears imminent, and with the rising cost of living, affordable health care, and an uneasiness about whether President Joe Biden is paying attention to their concerns, of course, Biden wants to appease the same voting bloc that propelled him into the White House in 2020." Joe Biden launched a TikTok account as part of a bid to reconstruct his winning 2020 electoral coalition according to an expert in youth political engagement. Joe Biden launched a TikTok account as part of a bid to reconstruct his winning 2020 electoral coalition according to an expert in youth political engagement. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty Getachew noted a TikTok trend where Generation Z users post about their economic anxieties and argued Biden joining the platform is an attempt to engage with these voters. She explained: "An onslaught of clips have cropped up all over TikTok in which members of Gen Z air their frustrations about economic uncertainty and the inability to afford everyday costs. With inflation and recession fears, Biden is adopting a more aggressive message about his economic record heading into the election. "If the candidates want to speak to some of the biggest issues that are top of mind for young voters this year, including economic uncertainty, they would do well to go on the record to showcase their achievements in those areas. That's exactly what Biden is doing." Biden's need to engage with young voters was underlined by a New York Times/Siena College poll showing nearly 75 percent of voters aged between 18 and 29 disapprove of his handling of the Israel-Hamas war. This conflict, sparked by a surprise Hamas attack on Israel that killed around 1,200 people, has resulted in nearly 30,000 Palestinian deaths in Gaza, according to the territory's health ministry. On Tuesday, Biden won the Michigan Democratic primary with 78.6 percent of the vote, but 16.2 percent marked their ballots as "uncommitted." A campaign made up predominantly of Muslim and younger voters had been urging voters to do this in protest at Biden's Gaza policy. How Should Biden Use TikTok? According to Getachew, Biden should use TikTok to explain how he has addressed, or plans to address, key issues which "motivates" younger voters to cast a ballot. She listed these as "the economy, including student debt and college affordability, reproductive access, affordable health care, including mental health access, addressing the climate crisis, and ending gun violence." The youth engagement expert added: "What is most important is that Biden states the facts and illustrates for young people how his policies have addressed the issues they want to see taken care of. Especially in the wake of a significant increase in youth activism on social media." Newsweek has reached out to Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign for comment by email.

A man in a suit stands in front of a smartphone displaying the TikTok logo, surrounded by various emoji reactions.

2024-02-29 08:00:01+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-tiktok-strategy-1874517

['Politics' 'Technology']

[0.95 0.75]

Likely

Likely

5a5ab464c2

Newsweek

Donald Trump's Enemy Is Making a Comeback - Senate - Newsweek

Former Representative Justin Amash, a staunch critic of former President Donald Trump, announced he is running in Michigan's Senate race, shaking up the GOP primary in an election that could determine which party controls the Senate in November. Amash, who represented the Grand Rapids area in Congress from 2011 to 2021, announced his Senate campaign in a post on X, formerly Twitter, Thursday morning. The former congressman was a Republican until 2019, leaving the party to become an independent. Amash later changed his party affiliation to Libertarian. During his tenure in Congress, Amash built a reputation as a libertarian-leaning conservative willing to break from his party on some issues such as LGBTQ+ rights and foreign policy. He also frequently criticized Trump and was the only House Republican to vote in favor of impeachment in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He plans to run as a Republican in the Senate race, joining several high-profile candidates including former Congressmen Mike Rogers and Peter Meijer, in the race to replace Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat. The race is viewed as a toss-up and a must-win for Democrats to hold control of the Senate. Amash wrote that he is running to ensure that Americans "have the personal and economic freedom to pursue their own ends, and that Michigan needs a "principled, consistent constitutional conservative in the Senate." "Regardless of who wins the White House and Congress, the United States will remain deeply polarized. What we need is not a rubber stamp for either party, but an independent-minded senator prepared to challenge anyone and everyone on the people's behalf," he wrote. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Newsweek reached out to Amash's campaign for comment via email. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Thomas Ivacko, executive director of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan, told Newsweek on Thursday that Amash has an "authenticity that is not particularly common among politicians" that could "help him stand out in a crowded field." "People like a fighter who is willing to take on those in power, as Amash has done. He has an independent streak and willingness to take a stand on principles that might help him have staying power if he could find his way back into office, but I'm not sure that will be enough to help him get into office in the first place," he said. Still, Ivacko said Republicans who have "stood up" to Trump may face a "sharp uphill climb in the GOP primary." He noted that it remains unclear how recent turmoil in the state GOP will affect turnout among He said the "safest route" for candidates may be to embrace Trump, pointing to Meijer, who voted to impeach Trump after the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol but has backed off the criticisms amid the Senate primary. Former Rep. Justin Amash speaks on May 28, 2019, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Amash on Thursday announced he is running for Senate in Michigan. Former Rep. Justin Amash speaks on May 28, 2019, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Amash on Thursday announced he is running for Senate in Michigan. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images "It will be interesting to see how Amash might navigate that challenge and whether he will stay true to his principles or not," he said. In a statement on Thursday, the Michigan Democratic Party knocked Amash for having an "extensive record of leaving Michiganders behind," highlighting his opposition to abortion, supporting the 2017 tax cuts and stance on healthcare. "Michigan Republicans' brutal infighting is getting nastier by the day. Their caustic showdown will leave them with a badly damaged nominee who is out of touch with Michigan families," the statement said. What Has Justin Amash Said About Donald Trump? Amash was critical of Trump's candidacy in 2016 and continued raising concerns about his conduct following a report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller into alleged Russian interference in the election. "Mueller's report describes a consistent effort by the president to use his office to obstruct or otherwise corruptly impede the Russian election interference investigation because it put his interests at risk," Amash wrote on X in 2019. "Some of the president's actions were inherently corrupt. Other actions were corrupt—and therefore impeachable—because the president took them to serve his own interests." Also in 2019, he wrote in a message to Republican lawmakers that "excusing [Trump's] misbehavior will forever tarnish your name." "To my Republican colleagues: Step outside your media and social bubble. History will not look kindly on disingenuous, frivolous, and false defenses of this man," he wrote.

A man with glasses and a blue shirt is speaking into a microphone against a black background.

2024-02-29 18:25:09+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/justin-amash-running-senate-michigan-1874821

['Politics']

[0.95]

Likely

Unlikely

862bbe8662

Newsweek

Donald Trump Gets New Threat Out of Arizona and Georgia - Newsweek

Donald Trump Gets New Threat Out Of Arizona And Georgia Donald Trump's presidential campaign faces a new threat in Arizona and Georgia from independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy will appear on the presidential ballot in Arizona and Georgia, two crucial swing states, in November, American Values, a group supporting his presidential campaign, announced Tuesday. Recent polls in these two states indicate why this may be troubling news for Trump, the clear front-runner in the Republican presidential primary. Emerson College polls in Arizona and Georgia suggest Kennedy may be siphoning off slightly more votes from Trump than Biden, who has faced troubling poll numbers in swing states as he seeks reelection. In Arizona, 35.9 percent of Kennedy's prospective voters said they would back Trump in a two-way race, while only 28 percent said they planned to back Biden. Most of his supporters—36.1 percent—said they were undecided when their only options were Biden and Trump, according to the Emerson College poll. Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 24 in National Harbor, Maryland. Polls in Arizona and Georgia suggest independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be siphoning off slightly more votes... Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 24 in National Harbor, Maryland. Polls in Arizona and Georgia suggest independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be siphoning off slightly more votes from Trump than President Joe Biden. More Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images This poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from February 16 to 19 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use A recent Georgia poll offered similar news for the two campaigns. The survey found 39.2 percent of likely Kennedy voters backing Trump in a head-to-head run against Biden, while 33.6 percent said they would vote for Biden against Trump. About 27 percent said they were undecided between Biden and Trump. That poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from February 14 to 16 and also had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek reached out to the Biden, Kennedy and Trump campaigns for comment via email. Robert Y. Shapiro, a professor of political science at Columbia University, told Newsweek that Kennedy will be a key factor in these states because only "a few thousand votes can make a big difference" in closely divided states. He pointed to Kennedy's policy positions on vaccinations, COVID-19, immigration, crime and the Russia-Ukraine war, which have bolstered his appeal among Trump voters, noting that he does not have the same "baggage" as the former president. To mitigate any losses, Trump should get out the message that a vote for Kennedy would only help Biden, Shapiro said. "This normally seems to happen anyway regarding third-party candidates, but they can still take a small number of votes that can make a difference in key states, as we saw in the 2000 and 2016 elections affecting the Democratic candidates," he said. Both polls found Trump with a lead over Biden, with or without independent and third-party candidates on the ballot. In an Arizona head-to-head matchup, Trump had support from about 46 percent of respondents, while about 43 percent said they would back Biden. With third-party candidates introduced, about 42 percent said they'd back Trump, 37 percent were for Biden and 8 percent were for Kennedy. The rest remained undecided or backed other candidates. In Georgia, 48 percent of respondents said they would support Trump, while 42 percent backed Biden. When other candidates were included, 45 percent said they'd back Trump, 36 percent were for Biden and 6 percent were for Kennedy. The rest remained undecided or said they planned to vote for other candidates. Biden, who has seen troubling polling news, won both states in 2020. Notably, more than 10 percent in each poll said they were not sure who they would vote for. While Kennedy's appearance on the ballot may slightly benefit Biden, the president would face difficult circumstances if other third-party or independent candidates earned ballot access in crucial swing states. Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent candidate Cornel West, both of whom are trying to appeal to more progressive voters who have broken from Biden on key policy issues such as health care, climate change and foreign policy, have chipped away at Biden's numbers, more so than Trump's. Stein, notably, has earned ballot access in many key swing states, including Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin. West has so far earned ballot access in just Oregon, viewed as a safely Democratic state that Republicans are not expected to seriously contest.

A man in a dark suit and red tie stands at a podium with a microphone, speaking into it against a blue background.

2024-02-28 14:59:42+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-gets-new-threat-out-arizona-georgia-1874270

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

43de1d3d3a

Newsweek

Republicans Confronted With Empty Seats at CPAC - Newsweek

This year's Conservative Political Action Conference reportedly has a smaller room and turnout when compared with past years. CPAC started Wednesday and continues until Saturday in Washington, D.C., featuring speakers including former President Donald Trump, Representatives Elise Stefanki and Jim Jordan, Senator J.D. Vance, former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, former Representative Tulsi Gabbard, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and more. Representative Byron Donalds, Senator Tommy Tuberville and Lara Trump—Trump's daughter-in-law and his pick for co-chair of the Republican National Committee—spoke on Thursday. Some speakers are purportedly being considered by Trump as a vice presidential candidate. Images and videos shared Thursday on X, formerly Twitter, show dozens of empty seats during one speech. "Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss walks on stage at CPAC to polite applause and dozens of empty seats," wrote The Guardian's Washington bureau chief David Smith, accompanied by a photo of the sparse audience. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "Thinner crowd—and fewer stalls—at this year's CPAC, compared to last year," wrote National Journal reporter Zac Weisz. "They also cut off part of the main conference room, so there's fewer seats. It's still far from full." The account Republicans For Trump sarcastically referred to a "packed house" as a camera swung around the room, simply saying, "Yikes." Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek reached out to CPAC via email for comment. American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Matt Schlapp said Wednesday that "left-wing" journalists would not be allowed entry into the event. "If you look at their feeds, 100 percent of their stories are 'let's get [Republicans and conservatives],'" Schlapp told Steve Bannon on Bannon's War Room podcast. "Donald Trump...deals with it more than anyone. This tactic they're using against Trump is intergalactic, but they're using similar tactics against all of us." "So, CPAC has a new rule: If you're a propagandist, you can buy a ticket, like everyone else. But you're not in the media, and we're not going to credential you by saying you're in the media," he continued. Lara Trump spoke to an energized crowd when she took the stage in the afternoon. She got cheers from the crowd when she spoke about her father-in-law winning the presidential election and her run to become head of the Republican National Committee, a move he has endorsed. However, even the Trump family member wasn't able to fill every seat at the event and cameras showed empty seats in the room. CPAC started in 1974 and has been an annual staple of the conservative movement. Billed as a place for conservatives, and especially young conservatives, to gather, this year has faced some pushback. Lara Trump speaks at CPAC in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 22. Photos and videos shared from this year's event seem to show a sparse turnout. Lara Trump speaks at CPAC in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 22. Photos and videos shared from this year's event seem to show a sparse turnout. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Prominent conservatives have opted to not attend CPAC this year and instead join a summit that's counter-programming CPAC. The Principles First summit, set to take place this weekend, features several of Trump's critics, including former Representative Adam Kinzinger, former Governor Asa Hutchinson and former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. "I used to go to CPAC all the time," Heath Mayo, founder of Principles First, told Spectrum News. "When I was in college, it was still a good place where libertarians, social conservatives, economic conservatives would get together and really hash out the debates around economic policy or foreign policy...now it is just a circus." Danielle Butcher Franz, a conservative whose focus is on climate change, attended CPAC in the past but posted on X that she doesn't think she knows a single person going this year. She added that it might be "hard to imagine" now that CPAC was once "the place to meet other young conservatives and launch your career."

A woman stands at a podium with a CPAC sign, addressing an audience with empty seats behind her.

2024-02-23 13:22:36+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/cpac-2024-turnout-empty-seats-republicans-1872627

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

dd04d6d6b1

Newsweek

Donald Trump May Face Racking Up Millions of Dollars in Interest - Newsweek

Former President Donald Trump may rack up millions of dollars in interest by not paying the $355 million judgment handed down by a judge in his business fraud trial. New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron on Friday ordered Trump to pay $354.9 million in penalties after previously siding with New York Attorney General Letitia James in her civil lawsuit against the former president's businesses. James, a Democrat, accused Trump and top executives at his family company, The Trump Organization, of conspiring to increase his net worth by billions of dollars on financial statements provided to banks and insurers to make deals and secure loans. Trump has said he plans to file an appeal of Engoron's ruling and has denied any wrongdoing. However, if Trump does not quickly pay off the judgment, he could face millions of dollars in interest payments on top of what he already owes. He will have to continue paying interest on the penalties until they are completely paid off, and has already accrued nearly $100 million in interest. Former President Donald Trump on Thursday attends a pretrial hearing in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. Trump faces an additional $87,000 in interest each day he does not pay the judgment in his... Former President Donald Trump on Thursday attends a pretrial hearing in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. Trump faces an additional $87,000 in interest each day he does not pay the judgment in his civil business fraud case. More Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images Engoron ordered Trump to pay three separate payments of $168 million, $126.8 million and $60 million, totaling the $354.9 million figure. He determined that interest on these loans would retroactively start in March 2019, May 2022 and June 2023, and that interest "shall be at the rate of nine percent per annum, except where otherwise provided by statute." Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use This means that Trump will be paying roughly $32 million per year, amounting to about $87,501.89 per day. Every 12 days, the former president will owe an additional million in interest on his payments. Because Engoron ordered Trump to pay pre-judgment interest dating as early as March 2019 on one penalty, he owes an additional $99 million in interest as of Monday, for a grand total approaching $454 million. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek reached out to Trump's campaign for comment via email on Tuesday. Trump's attorney Christopher Kise criticized the ruling from Engoron in a statement previously made to Newsweek. "The Court today ignored the law, ignored the facts, and simply signed off on the Attorney General's manifestly unjust political crusade against the front-running candidate for President of the United States." Kise slammed the court for imposing a "draconian and unconstitutional fine and a corporate 'death penalty' on President Trump, his family, and the extraordinary global business empire he developed over a lifetime of hard work and achievement." He added that Trump "will of course appeal and remains confident the Appellate Division will ultimately correct the innumerable and catastrophic errors made by a trial court untethered to the law or to reality." James, however, celebrated the ruling, writing in a post to X, formerly Twitter, "Today, justice has been served. This is a major win for everyone who believes that we must all play by the same rules. No matter how big, how rich, or how powerful you are, no one is above the law. Not even Donald Trump."

A man in a suit sits at a desk with a computer monitor, looking at the camera with a serious expression.

2024-02-20 21:36:58+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-may-face-racking-millions-dollars-interest-1871749

['Politics' 'Business and Finance']

[0.85 0.75]

Likely

Unlikely

6b90c998ea

Newsweek

Kamala Harris Should 'Prosecute Case' Against Trump: Charlamagne tha God - Newsweek

In an interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Charlamagne tha God said on Sunday that Vice President Kamala Harris should take a more active and public role in "prosecuting the case in this country" against former President Donald Trump. "We remember her in those Senate hearings when she was pressing those people—she was prosecuting these people. I want to see her prosecute the case against Donald Trump in this country. I feel like she could go out there and really let the American people know what's going on. I would like to see her going on outlets like Fox News. I'd like to see her going in there and mixing it up," The Breakfast Club radio host said. The Context: Although, Charlamagne tha God did not specify what case against Trump he would like Harris to prosecute,Trump, the GOP frontrunner for the 2024 presidential nomination, is facing four criminal indictments with a total of 91 charges, all of which he maintains his innocence in while calling them part of a political witch hunt. One of Trump's cases is his election interference case in Washington, D.C. Special Counsel Jack Smith has led the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, accusing Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election that led to the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Trump is facing dozens of felony charges from the DOJ, which has also accused him of unlawfully retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after leaving the White House in 2021 and repeatedly obstructing government efforts to retrieve them. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Meanwhile, Harris began her career in criminal justice after completing her law degree at University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. She began by working in the Alameda County district attorney's office and prosecuted homicide, robbery and child sexual assault cases before becoming the district attorney for San Francisco. She later ascended to the California attorney general's office, becoming the first Black woman to do so. She led the office from 2011 until she took her seat in the Senate in 2017. What We Know: Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 During Sunday's interview, Charlamagne tha God spoke about whether Harris has met his expectations since he endorsed President Joe Biden in 2020 due to Harris being his running mate. Although Charlamagne tha God said she has not, he advised that it's not too late to pivot in playing a more active role, "For new jack problems, we need new jack solutions. And she serves a unique purpose, right? Because she is the first woman of color in that position. So, there's things that she could talk about. There are things that she could say that I feel like he can't." While he didn't endorse any specific presidential candidate for the 2024 election, he said he'll tell "you exactly what I'm seeing and what I'm seeing is democracy really on the brink." Newsweek has reached out to Harris' office via email for comment. Vice President Kamala Harris is seen in Munich, Germany, on Friday. In an interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week on Sunday, Charlamagne tha God said Harris should take on a more active and... Vice President Kamala Harris is seen in Munich, Germany, on Friday. In an interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week on Sunday, Charlamagne tha God said Harris should take on a more active and public role in "prosecuting the case in this country" against former President Donald Trump. More THOMAS KIENZLE/AFP/Getty Images Views: This is not the first time Harris' previous work as a prosecutor has been brought up in connection with a legal issue pertaining to Trump. In 2019 during an interview with MSNBC News, Harris repeated her call to impeach then-President Trump as she alluded to her previous work as a prosecutor. "I do support proceeding with a process toward impeachment because, listen, I've seen people go to prison for far less than the evidence we have right now in terms of this president," she said at the time. Meanwhile, Trump has taken to Truth Social, his social media platform, to speak out against the legal cases against him, calling them a political witch hunt while claiming Biden has had a role in the cases against him. What's Next? The 2024 presidential nominees in November will likely be Biden and Trump. Biden won 96.2 percent of the vote in the South Carolina Democratic primary earlier this month after winning New Hampshire in January as a write-in candidate. Meanwhile, Trump won the New Hampshire Republican primary by 54.4 percent to Haley's 43.3 percent. Both Republican candidates will face off in the South Carolina primary, which is set to take place on February 24. Update 2/18/24, 2:02 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information. Update 2/18/24, 2:35 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.

A woman stands in front of a microphone with a blue backdrop and a sign that reads 'Munich Security Conference'.

2024-02-18 18:28:42+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-should-prosecute-case-against-donald-trump-charlamagne-tha-god-1871013

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

f55b6619cb

Newsweek

Does Michelle Obama Want to Replace Joe Biden? Everything She's Said - Newsweek

Speculation has been rife over whether former First Lady Michelle Obama might replace President Joe Biden as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. Biden's win in the South Carolina and New Hampshire Democratic primaries along with Trump's win in the New Hampshire Republican primary has signaled the two will likely be the presidential nominees in November. However, questions related to the age and mental fitness of both Trump, 77, and Biden, 81, have been consistent talking points during the primary season. Age has been a concern among voters in a hypothetical rematch between Biden and Trump, sparking speculation the former first lady might replace Biden in the 2024 election. According to Fox News, former White House and Pentagon official Douglas MacKinnon signaled the former first lady may be a contender, adding that she could emerge as a top candidate and Democrats could look to push her to run. However, she has previously denied any desire to seek candidacy. Newsweek has reached out to Biden's campaign and Obama's spokesperson via email for comment. Former U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 28, 2023. Speculation has been rife over whether Obama might replace President Joe Biden as the 2024 presidential nominee. Former U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 28, 2023. Speculation has been rife over whether Obama might replace President Joe Biden as the 2024 presidential nominee. BRYNN ANDERSON/POOL/AFP/Getty Images Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Everything She's Said In Netflix's 2013 The Light We Carry: Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey, an interview featuring the two, Obama shared she will not run for president. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "I've never expressed any interest in politics. Ever. I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, 'I think I want to run.' Ever. So, I'm just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?" Obama said. Obama said that her interest is in service and helping kids, adding that she does not have to be in office to do that. "Politics is hard. And the people who get into it—it's just like marriage, it's just like kids—you've got to want it. It's got to be in your soul because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don't have to hold office to do that," Obama said. Although she has denied the possibility of running for president, she previously signaled she's "terrified" about the potential outcome of the 2024 election. Appearing on an episode of On Purpose with Jay Shetty podcast in January, Obama listed November's presidential contest among the fears that keep her awake at night. "What's going to happen in this next election? I'm terrified about what could possibly happen because our leaders matter. Who we select, who speaks for us, who holds that bully pulpit, it affects us in ways sometimes I think people take for granted," she told Shetty. "The fact that people think that government—'eh, does it really even do anything?'—and I'm like 'Oh my God, does government do everything for us, and we cannot take this democracy for granted.' And I worry sometimes that we do. Those are the things that keep me up," Obama continued. This is not the first time Obama has had to dispel the speculation and has rebuffed any notion that she might run for office. Prior to the 2020 election, the former first lady addressed rumors she would run for office. "The reason why I don't want to run for president—and I can't speak for Oprah [Winfrey] —but my sense is that, first of all, you have to want the job," Obama told Today in 2018, referencing prior rumors that Winfrey was going to run in 2020. She said, "And you can't just say, 'Well, you're a woman, run.' We just can't find the women we like and ask them to do it, because there are millions of women who are inclined and do have the passion for politics."

A woman with dark hair in a ponytail stands in a dark room with a white railing, wearing a black outfit with a visible pin.

2024-02-20 17:16:06+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-denied-speculation-over-run-president-1871623

['Politics']

[0.95]

Unlikely

Unlikely

a6884c611c

Newsweek

Greg Abbott to Expand Barriers at Border - Texas - Newsweek

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has said on Tuesday barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border will expand. Tension between federal and state units in Texas remains after President Joe Biden's administration secured a significant win over Abbott in late January after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow the temporary removal of razor wire along the southern border while litigation over the issue proceeds. The Court's decision has sparked anger among Republicans who support the measures taken by Abbott and his administration to fight illegal immigration in the state. Tensions over the measures escalated as the federal government raised environmental and humanitarian concerns about the deterrent. The Texas governor, an outspoken critic of Biden over immigration issues, has vowed that the fight "is not over" and has also issued a statement declaring Texas' "right to self-defense." On Tuesday, in a post on X, formerly Twitter, Abbott claimed that Texas' "resistance" will lead others to not "mess with Texas," adding that the state will continue to bring in more barriers along the border. Texas Governor Greg Abbott holds a press conference at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, on February 4, 2024. Abbott has said on Tuesday barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border will expand. Texas Governor Greg Abbott holds a press conference at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, on February 4, 2024. Abbott has said on Tuesday barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border will expand. SERGIO FLORES / AFP/Getty Images "Migrant crossings fall sharply along Texas border, shifting to Arizona and California. Our stiff resistance is educating cartels not to mess with Texas. Texas will continue erecting more barriers & target more arrests to better secure the border," Abbott wrote on X. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Newsweek has reached out to Abbott's office and the White House via email for comment. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Abbott has previously said more razor wire will be installed along the state's border. On Sunday, Abbott shared on X, "More National Guard & razor wire barriers are coming to the Texas border. We' re-doubling our efforts to expand the areas where we are denying illegal entry into Texas. Illegal immigration is now going down in Texas while increasing in [California] & [Arizona]." Texas has continued to use razor wire as a barrier between the Rio Grande River and Shelby Park, a 47-acre area in Eagle Pass, which has become one of the busiest locations for people attempting to cross into the U.S. illegally from Mexico. It is among several aggressive measures that Abbott has taken to deter migrants from crossing into the U.S. illegally. Texas seized control of Shelby Park in January and began denying entry to Border Patrol agents, escalating the feud with the Biden administration. The Justice Department argued the wire impedes the government's ability to patrol the border and go to the aid of migrants in need of help. However, not everyone wants Abbott to continue his standoff with the Biden administration as an Eagle Pass resident previously warned Abbott he may have gone too far after convoys of people demanding tighter immigration laws showed up in the border town. In a video posted to Instagram by the organization Presente, Eagle Pass resident Jessie Fuentes said that "armed militias were inspired to invade our normally quiet, safe and peaceful border town" after Abbott held a press conference with other Republican governors earlier in February about the southern border. Fuentes criticized Abbott for allegedly excluding the "voices of the very residents who live here." "You are creating fiction, and using our community's resources to do it. You are telling a dangerous and misleading story about us, about the border, about our safe communities," he said. Abbott's plans to expand barriers at the border come after the collapse of a border security deal that would have overhauled the asylum system to provide faster and tougher immigration enforcement, as well as allow the Department of Homeland Security to temporarily shut down the border to most migrants if there are an average of more than 5,000 crossing attempts per day over seven days.

A man in a white shirt with 'Governor Greg Abbott' written on it is gesturing with his hands while wearing a blue cap with a seal. He is surrounded by microphones and other individuals in the background.

2024-02-13 22:19:33+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/greg-abbott-expand-barriers-southern-border-1869699

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

fb35122612

Newsweek

Donald Trump Announces Surprising Stop After Civil Fraud Trial - Newsweek

Former President Donald Trump announced he will be stopping in Philadelphia to attend Sneaker Con on Saturday following the final ruling in his civil fraud trail in New York. New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Trump, his two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, The Trump Organization and two firm executives, Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney, in September 2022. Judge Arthur Engoron, who oversaw the trial, found that Trump inflated his assets to get more favorable business loans. Late last year into early January, a trial was held to determine how much the former president and his associates would pay in damages. On Friday, Engoron ruled that Trump will have to pay roughly $355 million in penalties. Trump, Weisselberg and McConney will also be barred from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in the state for three years. Donald Jr. and Eric Trump were ordered to each pay more than $4 million and were banned from doing business in the state for two years. Trump, the current GOP frontrunner in the 2024 presidential election, has maintained his innocence in the case and claimed it was politically motivated. Trump's lawyer Christopher Kise said that the former president will appeal the judge's ruling, telling Newsweek on Friday that Trump "remains confident the Appellate Division will ultimately correct the innumerable and catastrophic errors made by a trial court untethered to the law or to reality." Following the ruling, Trump shared a post on Truth Social that he'll be visiting Philadelphia on Saturday for Sneaker Con and will then head to a campaign rally in Michigan. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "Looking forward to being at Sneakercon at the Philadelphia Convention Center, Pennsylvania, at 3 P.M. ET on Saturday. Then leaving for a Big Rally in Michigan!" the former president wrote. Newsweek has reached out to Sneaker Con, the Philadelphia Convention Center and Trump's campaign via email for comment. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Former President Donald Trump addresses the press at Mar-a-Lago on Friday in West Palm Beach, Florida. Trump announced he will be stopping in Philadelphia on Saturday following the final ruling his civil fraud trail in... Former President Donald Trump addresses the press at Mar-a-Lago on Friday in West Palm Beach, Florida. Trump announced he will be stopping in Philadelphia on Saturday following the final ruling his civil fraud trail in New York. More Joe Raedle/Getty Images Sneaker Con, known for being one of the longest-running sneaker events in the world, provides attendees the opportunity to buy, sell and trade rare and highly coveted sneakers. Although it is unclear why Trump will be attending the sneaker event as organizers for the convention have not confirmed his attendance, Pennsylvania is a crucial swing state for the 2024 presidential election. During the 2020 election, President Joe Biden narrowly defeated Trump in the state 50 percent to 48.8 percent. Meanwhile, during the 2016 election, Trump defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton with 48.2 percent to 47.5 percent. This comes as Biden and Trump are continuing to campaign around the country as they both are likely to face each other in a rerun of the tumultuous 2020 presidential election. However, according to a recent CNN poll conducted by SSRS and released on February 1, Trump has a 4-point lead over Biden, while YouGov recorded Trump ahead by 1 point in a poll of registered voters taken between January 24 and 30. Meanwhile, a report last month by Moody's Analytics says Biden could win two extra Electoral College votes over Trump in 2024 compared with his overall score in the 2020 presidential election. "President Biden is expected to win reelection but by a thin margin, and the election could easily flip with only small shifts in the economy's performance, his approval rating, voter turnout, and how well third-party candidates do," the report said. The report was based on economic performance and that it "hinges on our forecast for the strength of the economy between now and Election Day." Meanwhile, Trump has taken to his Truth Social platform to share more than his upcoming appearances as Trump slammed the ruling in his civil fraud trial on Truth Social on Friday, writing: "A Crooked New York State Judge, working with a totally Corrupt Attorney General who ran on the basis of 'I will get Trump,' before knowing anything about me or my company, has just fined me $355 Million based on nothing other than having built a GREAT COMPANY. ELECTION INTERFERENCE. WITCH HUNT." However, James called the ruling "a massive victory" on X, formerly Twitter, adding that "No matter how big, how rich, or how powerful you are, no one is above the law. Not even Donald Trump."

A man in a dark suit and red tie stands with his hands open, gesturing, in front of a black wrought iron gate.

2024-02-17 16:03:47+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-expected-make-stop-philadelphia-1870919

['Politics' 'Business and Finance']

[0.9 0.8]

Likely

Likely

a1d3310be9

Newsweek

Winter Storm Map as Millions Brace for Snow - Newsweek

Winter Storm Warning For Mid-South as Six Inches Of Snow To Hit Ozarks Maps from the National Weather Service (NWS) show winter storm Lorraine taking aim over the mid-Atlantic and New England on Tuesday as millions of people brace for snow. The NWS issued a winter storm warning for parts of 11 states from southern New England to southeast New York, northern New Jersey and central and northeast Pennsylvania, as severe winter weather that includes heavy rain and strong winds is expected. Winter storm Lorraine is moving across the mid-South on Monday and will transition into a nor'easter bringing a mix of rain and snow to parts of the Ozarks, Ohio Valley, Tennessee Valley and Appalachians through Monday night as s​now is expected to arrive in the Northeast by early Tuesday. "Many of these areas will see six to 12 inches of snow, with some areas especially over the higher elevations near the Poconos, Catskills, and adjacent areas of southern New England seeing in excess of 12 inches," the NWS said. Newsweek has reached out to National Weather Service via email for comment. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use In a post on X, formerly Twitter, NWS Albany shared maps of the winter storm as it warns that snow totals will be the heaviest south of I-90. "Their has been a slight shift further south with the storm track late tonight thru Tue across eastern NY & western New England. Snow totals have decreased from the Capital Region, northern Catskills, and southern VT northward. Heaviest totals are possible south of I-90," NWS Albany wrote. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Meanwhile, New York City is under a winter weather watch, along with Long Island as snow totals could reach 6 to 12 inches north of the city, into northwestern New Jersey and the Hudson Valley. Coastal flooding will also accompany the storm as it's anticipated for the Jersey Shore and parts of Long Island, according to the agency. In addition, NWS New York shared another map showing the total expected amount of snow for the northeast, as areas such as Connecticut could see between 8 and 12 inches of snow, while southeastern Connecticut could see slightly less. "We've put a new snow forecast out this morning for a winter storm tonight and tomorrow. Winter Storm Watches now in effect for NYC, LI and NE NJ. A full briefing will be released soon," NWS New York wrote on X. A travel advisory has also been in place for areas expecting snow as forecasters warned it may make travel difficult. In addition to traffic conditions, forecasters have also warned that the powerful winds and heavy snow could damage trees and power lines. "The nor'easter will bring strong winds to the region on Tuesday which coupled with the heavy snowfall could damage trees and power lines. The strong winds will also bring a threat for coastal flooding," the NWS said. The winter storm follows a severe thunderstorm that brought rain and hail to parts of Texas on Sunday, which is predicted to move across the mid-South and southeast at the start of this week. People are seen in Central Park in the snow on January 19 in New York City. Maps from the National Weather Service show winter storm Lorraine taking aim over the mid-Atlantic and New England on... People are seen in Central Park in the snow on January 19 in New York City. Maps from the National Weather Service show winter storm Lorraine taking aim over the mid-Atlantic and New England on Tuesday as millions of people brace for snow. More Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

A group of people in black jackets carry a blue and white cart through a snowy street with a city skyline in the background.

2024-02-12 17:11:50+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/maps-show-expected-snowfall-northeast-1869194

['Weather and Environment']

[0.95]

Likely

Unlikely

9e07f1a604

Newsweek

Who is Judge Scott McAfee? Man deciding whether to disqualify Fani Willis - Newsweek

Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said on Monday that it's possible District Attorney Fani Willis could be disqualified from former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case regarding the allegations against her. Willis has found herself at the center of a potential ethics violation related to her alleged affair with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor whom she hired to lead the interference case, and they will face a hearing on Thursday. McAfee is the Fulton County judge overseeing Georgia's sweeping racketeering case, in which Trump and 18 co-defendants were indicted by a state grand jury in August and face criminal charges for allegedly attempting to overturn the state's results in the 2020 election won by President Joe Biden. McAfee was the Georgia inspector general from 2021 to 2023. In addition, he previously served as a senior assistant district attorney in Fulton County and an assistant United States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. The 34-year-old was appointed to be a Fulton County Superior Court judge by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on January 19, 2023, in Atlanta. McAfee said on Monday that it's "possible" District Attorney Fani Willis could be disqualified from former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference... Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on January 19, 2023, in Atlanta. McAfee said on Monday that it's "possible" District Attorney Fani Willis could be disqualified from former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case. More Jason Getz-Pool/Getty Images Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Newsweek has reached out to the Fulton County Court via email for comment. During a Monday hearing, which sought to determine whether Willis, Wade and others from the district attorney's office will have to testify during Thursday's hearing, McAfee said it's possible Willis could be disqualified from the Trump case based on allegations by one of the election intereference case co-defendants. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Thursday's hearing is expected to have McAfee weigh in for the first time on the accusations being made against the DA. However, McAfee agreed with Willis' attorney and spared her from being the first to testify about misconduct allegations made against her, stating that "it would be important that from the outset we're not talking about calling Ms. Willis as the first witness." He left the door open for the district attorney to testify later on, saying that the defense "established a good-faith basis for relevance" for Willis' testimony. The allegations Willis faces were first made when one of Trump's co-defendants in the case, Michael Roman, filed a motion three weeks ago claiming that Wade and Willis were at one point romantically involved during the investigation of Trump, adding that the special prosecutor and district attorney had been "profiting significantly from this prosecution at the expense of the taxpayers." In Willis' response, which called the initial court order "a ticket to the circus," her office criticized Roman's lawyers for subpoenaing Willis, Wade and others on the prosecution team. These actions, it said, aimed to draw "more breathless media coverage and intrude even further into the personal lives of the prosecution team in an effort to embarrass and harass the district attorney personally." On Monday, McAfee clarified that Thursday's hearing would be limited to "whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed and whether it continues." "That's only relevant because it's in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship," he added.

A judge in a courtroom, wearing a black robe, sits with a microphone in front of him, with the American flag in the background.

2024-02-13 19:32:20+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-scott-mcafee-decide-fani-willis-disqualify-1869643

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.9 ]

Likely

Unlikely

18736eea37

Newsweek

Nikki Haley Mocks Donald Trump, Joe Biden With Competency Test at Rally - Newsweek

Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley took aim at President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump on Saturday when her team handed out a mental competency test to people who attended her rally in South Carolina. The former United Nations ambassador is trailing Trump in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. However, she has repeatedly questioned Trump's mental competency on the campaign trail and argued that Trump and Biden are too old to serve second terms as president. In addition, after her loss in the New Hampshire primary, Haley, 52, challenged Trump to face her directly, saying: "He thinks he'd do better [on a mental test] than me. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. But if he thinks that, then he should have no problem standing on a debate stage with me." She has continued those attacks since turning her attention to her home state of South Carolina's primary as its Republican primary will take place on February 24. Haley, who was a former governor of the state, is expected to make three stops in South Carolina as part of her campaign bus tour this weekend. Republican presidential hopeful and former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley speaks during a campaign event on Saturday in Newberry, South Carolina. Haley took aim at President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump on Saturday... Republican presidential hopeful and former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley speaks during a campaign event on Saturday in Newberry, South Carolina. Haley took aim at President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump on Saturday when her team handed out a mental competency test to people who attended her rally in South Carolina. More Allison Joyce / AFP/Getty Images During her first stop at a rally in Newberry, South Carolina, CBS News political campaign reporter Nidia Cavazos wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that Haley's team handed out a mental competency test aimed at whether Biden or Trump can pass it. The competency test asks, "Can you pass a mental competency test? Can Joe Biden? Can Donald Trump?" Meanwhile, questions on the test vary as they aim to test one's language, memory, attention and naming skills. One of the questions cover "delayed recall" as it states, "I read some words to you earlier. Tell me as many of those words you can remember." Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Newsweek has reached out to Haley, Trump and Biden's campaign via email for comment. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 This is not the first time Haley has called for a mental competency test among Trump and Biden as she previously, shortly after announcing her bid for president, pushed for all political candidates age 75 years and older to undergo "mental competency tests" prior to running for office. Meanwhile, questions related to the age and mental fitness of both Trump, 77, and Biden, 81, have been consistent talking points during the primary season. Additionally, age has also been a concern among voters in a hypothetical rematch between Biden and Trump. In a previous Newsweek poll conducted last year, a majority of voters across all generations believe that aging politicians should be tested for mental fitness, with support for the measure being slightly stronger among Americans aged between 57 and 75—the so-called baby boomers. The poll was conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies on behalf of Newsweek among a sample population of 1,500 eligible voters in the country. It found that 75 percent of all Americans agree that politicians of a certain age should be required to take competency tests to prove their mental fitness for office, with support rising with age. This comes as Trump, while on the campaign trail, has made a series of gaffes and came under more criticism after he shared on Truth Social in November a medical report saying that he is in excellent health and his cognitive health was exceptional. However, this also comes as Biden has also had a history of verbal missteps that have come under heightened scrutiny as he campaigns for reelection. Trump, meanwhile, has seized on Biden's slip-ups, saying his mental abilities is a major issue in his ability to govern. "We have a guy in the White House who can't put two sentences together and who could not find his way off this stage," the former president said in New Hampshire in November.

A woman in a blue jacket stands with a microphone in front of an American flag, gesturing with her right hand.

2024-02-10 20:11:13+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/nikki-haley-takes-aim-donald-trump-joe-biden-over-competency-test-1868806

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

a28187acaa

Newsweek

America Needs a 'Black Wives Matter' Movement To Rebuild the Black Family - Newsweek

For millions of people across the country, February is a time to reflect on the contributions black Americans have made to our rich national history. But for a handful of educators, the first week of this month is dedicated to amplifying year-round efforts to introduce the values of the Black Lives Matter movement into K-12 classrooms. One of those principles is to "disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family structure." But rebuilding—not destroying—the black family should be the top priority for people who claim to care about race and equality. What America needs today is a "Black Wives Matter" movement that reestablishes marriage as the foundation of black family life and increases the percentage of black children who are born to—and raised by—their married biological parents. At the core of this movement are three words: marriage before carriage. "Marriage before carriage" was the norm for black Americans for most of the 20th century. U.S. Census data show that from 1890 to 1960, black men and women were more likely to be married by age 35 than their white counterparts. But by 1965, when the state of the black family concerned policymakers enough to issue the Moynihan report, one in four black children were born to unmarried parents. Today, the non-marital birth rate for black women is 70 percent, and 44 percent of black children live with a single mother. The Left claims to care about racial equality, yet it's hard to find a single civil rights organization or progressive politician who will discuss this issue publicly. Their acceptance of the status quo is bad for women and children. Newsletter The Josh Hammer Report Top Weekly Conservative Takes Senior Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer shares top conservative viewpoints weekly. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Over 45 percent of single mothers with children under the age of six live in poverty, while married couples with children have a single-digit poverty rate. Decades of research have also shown that children raised in homes with married parents have better social and emotional outcomes than children in any other arrangement. A movement to revitalize the black family would do far more than address child poverty, however. Husbands and wives have duties toward one another, not just their children. A couple's vows express a commitment to stay together despite the difficulties—financial instability, illness, age—that every person will face at some point in life. A pledge to maintain the union "in sickness and in health" is not part of any cohabitation arrangement or co-parenting agreement I've ever heard of. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 A child looks up at his mother during a double funeral service for Lola M. Simmons-Jones and her daughter Lashaye Antoinette Allen, who both died of coronavirus, at the Denley Drive Missionary Baptist Church in... A child looks up at his mother during a double funeral service for Lola M. Simmons-Jones and her daughter Lashaye Antoinette Allen, who both died of coronavirus, at the Denley Drive Missionary Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas on July 30, 2020. - Lola M. Simmons-Jones passed due to the coronavirus on July 15, her daughter Lashaye Antoinette Allen passed away from the coronavirus on July 20. Dallas County reported a record number of COVID-19 related deaths in a single day at 36, according to local health officials. This brings the total to 658 confirmed deaths since the first one was reported March 19. More Bryan R. Smith / AFP/Getty Images Rebuilding the black family requires a comprehensive and concentrated approach. That includes education. Middle and high school students need to learn about the three-step anti-poverty plan often referred to as the "Success Sequence"—finish high school, get a job, and marry before having children. Historically black colleges and universities should also play a major role. Hampton University launched its National Center for Black Family Life last year. Others could follow its lead, equipping students to become spouses in addition to scholars. Some could even partner with local nonprofits to offer family support services to the surrounding community. One of the most important institutions in this fight is the black church. Many black pastors across the country have thriving family ministries. Unfortunately, many progressive preachers see support for abortion access and same-sex marriage as more worthy social justice causes than rebuilding the black family. A successful "marriage before carriage" campaign would also require a very different investment strategy for black cultural capital. Media, music, television, film, and social media would all need to be harnessed to promote a culture of marriage and family. This would be a welcome change from music and imagery that conditions men to see women as disagreeable and sexually promiscuous. Put simply, rebuilding the black family demands a transformation of black America's political priorities and cultural norms. There are people who claim complex economic and social forces determine the life outcomes of a little black boy in the inner city. But, somehow, they believe that the relationship between the parents who created him is irrelevant to those outcomes. The truth is that many of our most vexing social ills, whether observed in the schoolhouse or the courthouse, are a result of what happens in the home. If the ubiquity of BLM slogans and signs could change the minds of millions on matters of race, there is no reason to believe a Black Wives Matter movement wouldn't do the same for black family life. The fight for the black family will not be easy, but the health and well-being of our children are worth it. Delano Squires is a research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

A person with a white mask on their head is seated in a room with other individuals, some of whom are wearing black clothing.

2024-02-07 21:08:09+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/america-needs-black-wives-matter-movement-rebuild-black-family-opinion-1867116

['Opinion/Editorial' 'Politics' 'National']

[0.85 0.75 0.65]

Likely

Unlikely

ac417ea047

Newsweek

Democrats Want Joe Biden to Challenge RFK, Third Parties - Newsweek

Amid concerns President Joe Biden may be hurting his chances in the 2024 election over third-party candidates, some Democrats are urging Biden to challenge independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. among other third-party candidates. Biden and Donald Trump, the frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary, are continuing to campaign around the country as they both are likely to face each other in a rerun of the tumultuous 2020 presidential election. However, according to a recent CNN poll conducted by SSRS and released on February 1, Trump has a four-point lead, while YouGov recorded Trump ahead by one point in a poll of registered voters taken between January 24 and 30. US President Joe Biden on February 6, 2024. Some Democrats are urging Biden to challenge independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. among other third-party candidates. US President Joe Biden on February 6, 2024. Some Democrats are urging Biden to challenge independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. among other third-party candidates. Mandel NGAN / AFP/Getty Images Meanwhile, Kennedy Jr., the former Democratic Party candidate who in October changed his party affiliation in an attempt to contend for the 2024 election, has previously emerged as Biden's closest challenger for the 2024 Democratic Party since announcing his White House bid in April. Despite his party affiliation, Kennedy has received a sympathetic hearing from many conservatives, thanks to his coronavirus vaccine skepticism, with Fox News star Sean Hannity describing him as the Democrats' "best option" to beat Biden. However, on Wednesday, Jim Kessler, a Democratic strategist with Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, warned Biden about the potential impact third-party candidates can have on the election, specifically regarding the possible votes for Trump. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "There are strong opinions on both candidates, but the negative opinions about Donald Trump among a large number of Americans are nothing like any candidate has experienced and have been able to turn that into a win. So what Donald Trump needs is third-party candidates to siphon off the anti-Trump coalition," Kessler told Newsweek via phone. "Spoiler third-party candidates are an essential ingredient for any Trump win, and that is why they have been silent about No Labels and RFK," Kessler added. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek has reached out to Biden's campaign and Trump's campaign via email for comment. Kessler told Newsweek via phone Biden still has time to address those who may be considering a third party candidate, but stresses Biden makes the distinction that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Trump. "There's a long time between now and November, so he'll have plenty of time, but he needs to make clear that a vote for a third-party candidate is not a protest vote, it is a Trump vote. And if you care about democracy, if you care about normalcy in America, don't vote for a third-party candidate," Kessler told Newsweek. "These third party candidates are dangerous...So this is a danger and a warning. These third-party candidates have no chance of winning the race, they will not come close to the 270 electoral college votes they need to wi,n and so their only role is to be a spoiler," Kessler added. Fears over whether independent contenders could take away support for Biden's reelection bid come after last month's Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll, in a hypothetical match-up, saw Trump's lead rise slightly to 8 points with Kennedy added into the mix. In that hypothetical three-way race, Trump scored 41 percent to Biden's 33 percent, while Kennedy raked in 18 percent. With independent candidate Cornel West and the Green Party's Jill Stein also added to the ticket alongside Kennedy, Trump's lead over Biden climbed to 11 points, with 42 percent to the incumbent's 31 percent. In addition, polling has also indicated that American voters are displeased with both major-party frontrunners. Sixty-seven percent of 1,250 respondents to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were "tired of seeing the same candidates in the presidential elections and want someone new." However, Kessler notes this is not new, but that warns that there are only two options and those displeased with the options have to decide. "It's not the first time a large number of Americans, particularly at this point in an election, are not thrilled with the two top choices of the party. The reality is there are two outcomes to this race, either Donald Trump is president or Joe Biden, there is not a third option, so you're going to have to make a choice. What is best for America? What is best for Democracy?" Kessler told Newsweek. Mark Weaver, a Republican strategist, previously told Newsweek in October that he expects Kennedy to pull more from Biden than from Trump in a hypothetical matchup. "Although it's a close call...There are more movable voters in Biden's camp who would never move towards Trump than the reverse," Weaver said. "While core Republicans view Kennedy more favorably than core Democrats, that's a short-term effect due to Kennedy's heterodox views on a few issues. But those people, in the end, are still likely to vote for Trump."

A man in a suit stands in front of two American flags, one blue with stars and stripes and the other with a yellow fringe.

2024-02-07 23:44:10+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/democrat-warns-joe-biden-third-party-candidates-1867984

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

6f59c5c0c5

Newsweek

Iran Executes Four Accused of Being Linked to Israel's Spy Agency - Newsweek

Iran Executes Four Accused Of Being Linked To Israel's Spy Agency Four men convicted of having links to Israel's national intelligence agency have been executed, according to state media in Iran. The group had been convicted of planning to sabotage a defense ministry facility in the city of Isfahan in 2022 in an operation allegedly organized by Mossad, Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency reported, according to the Associated Press. The execution of the Iranian nationals, named as Mohammad Faramarzi, Mohsen Mazloum, Vafa Azarbar and Pejman Fatehi, followed their death sentences handed down in September 2023 being upheld. The method of execution was not listed but in Iran it is usually by hanging, the AP reported. 🚨🇮🇷IRAN EXECUTES FOUR ALLEGED MOSSAD AGENTS The Iranian Ministry of Justice has announced the execution of four individuals accused of being linked to Israel's Mossad. Reportedly recruited on July 22, they received training in African countries and entered Iran via Iraqi... pic.twitter.com/JsVXmTcMql — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 29, 2024 Advocacy group Iran Human Rights said the four men were Kurdish political prisoners who had been arrested in the city of Urmia on June 22, 2021, and subsequently sentenced to death by Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court. The group said that during their detention the four men were not allowed to meet with their families or lawyers, and that the only visit they were permitted was the day before their execution. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Mazloum's wife, Joanna Taimasi told Iran Human Rights that they had heard nothing since the arrests of the men and that the group had traveled to Urmia "unarmed and on behalf of the Komala party for political activities where they were arrested." An image shows protesters in Berlin demanding the release of prisoners in Iran on July 31, 2023. Iran announced on Monday that it had executed four Iranian nationals convicted of links with Mossad, Israel's security... An image shows protesters in Berlin demanding the release of prisoners in Iran on July 31, 2023. Iran announced on Monday that it had executed four Iranian nationals convicted of links with Mossad, Israel's security agency. More Getty Images Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 She added that they had been tortured into making forced confessions in which they said they were Mossad agents and Israeli spies, and had planned to blow up an industrial center in Isfahan. When contacted for comment, Iran Human Rights Group referred Newsweek to a statement by its group director Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam on Monday that the convictions were based on confessions under torture and without a fair trial. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "and the corrupt judiciary of the Islamic Republic must be held accountable for these murders," he added. "The least reaction of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the executions should be the cancellation of Nada Al-Nashif's deputy commissioner's trip to Iran," Amiry-Moghaddam said, referring to a scheduled visit by the envoy on February 2. Marta Hurtado, spokesperson of the UN Human Rights Office, told Newsweek in a statement on Tuesday: "The human rights situation in Iran is dire, and it is therefore important to seek ways to have conversations about these concerns. "We need to try to see whether there are any opportunities to improve the human rights situation in Iran. That is the purpose of the Deputy High Commissioner's visit." People took to social media to express anger at the executions. "Heartbroken and outraged to wake up to the news of the execution of four young Kurdish men by the Iran regime," Sangar Khaleel a Kurdish fixer based in Erbil, Iraq, posed on X. "Iran must stop the killing of the Kurds." "The only reason why we Kurds get killed because we refuse to be part of their systematic oppression," posted the blogger PêL. Last month, Tehran executed three men and a woman and jailed several others following convictions for links with Mossad, the AP said. Newsweek has contacted the Iranian foreign ministry and the UNHCR for comment. Update 1/29/24, 7:25 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Iran Human Rights and further information. Update 01/30/24 12:37 p.m. ET: This article was updated with comment from Marta Hurtado.

A group of people holding signs with the hashtag #STOPEXECUTIONS and the words 'FREE JAMSHID'.

2024-01-29 08:06:56+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/iran-executes-mossad-israel-1864689

['International' 'Politics']

[0.9 0.8]

Likely

Unlikely

14c3316900

Newsweek

Democrat Warns U.S. Response to Jordan Attack Could Get 'Murky' - Newsweek

Senator Tim Kaine said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday morning that the U.S. response to the deadly drone attack in Jordan could get "murky" beyond the military actions that are determined as self-defense. "A president always has the ability to act in self-defense and that definition of self-defense is somewhat broad. So those who have attacked our troops, if he knows who they are and believes they are going to do it again, the president can act to stop them, but beyond self-defense it gets murky," Kaine said. "There is no current congressional authorization allowing war against these Iranian-backed militia groups or Houthis in Yemen in the Red Sea," Kaine said. Newsweek has reached out to Kaine via email for comment. Context Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Three U.S. military personnel were killed and at least 34 injured on Sunday in a drone strike on a U.S. base in northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border. President Joe Biden said that the attack was carried out by a "radical Iran-backed militant group operating in Syria and Iraq," although Iran denied any responsibility for the strike. The deaths mark the first U.S. troops killed in the Middle East since the start of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "While we are still gathering the facts of this attack, we know it was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq," the president said in a statement released by the White House. "We will carry on their commitment to fight terrorism. And have no doubt—we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing." Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) speaks to reporters during a vote in the Senate Chambers of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 25, 2024 in Washington, DC. Kaine said the U.S. response to the deadly drone... Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) speaks to reporters during a vote in the Senate Chambers of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 25, 2024 in Washington, DC. Kaine said the U.S. response to the deadly drone attack in Jordan could get "murky" beyond the military actions that are determined as self-defense. More Getty Images/Anna Moneymaker What We Know Biden and the Department of Defense have vowed to respond to these attacks. "We know that Iran is behind it. And certainly, as we've said before...Iran continues to arm and equip these groups to launch these attacks, and we will certainly hold them responsible," Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said during a press briefing. In addition, Biden faces increasing demands to strike Iran but has been reluctant to hit the country amid fears it could spark a direct war, perhaps even a major conflict involving other Middle East nations. Tensions have risen in the Middle East in recent months amid the war between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The conflict has pressured the Biden administration on its policies in the region, including from members of his own party who have called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Views Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin vowed during a press conference Monday that Washington will "take all necessary actions to defend the U.S." in response to the attack in Jordan. John Kirby, White House National Security Council spokesperson, has said, however, that the Biden administration does not want a "wider war with Iran" as a result of a U.S. response. Meanwhile, amid several congressional Republicans calling on Washington to strike inside Iranian territory, Daniel R. DePetris, a fellow at Defense Priorities, wrote in a Thursday opinion for Newsweek that striking Iran should not be an option. "Calls for going above and beyond proportional retaliation, to targets inside Iran itself, will simply create more problems and compel the Iranians to respond directly. The U.S., then, would be juggling multiple adversaries simultaneously at a time when the White House apparently wants to prevent the cycle of violence from getting even worse," DePetris wrote. What's Next? Although it is still unclear what actions the Biden administration will take, Joseph Votel, a retired U.S. Army general who served as head of U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Forces Command, previously told Newsweek that U.S. officials now are likely "analyzing and evaluating leadership, command and control and supply chain targets associated with the specific militia that orchestrated this attack." Newsweek has reached out to the White House via email for comment. Meanwhile, in Tuesday's CNN interview, Kaine said he would like to see action taken against those directly engaged in the attack, adding that he doesn't want the U.S to be at war. "The most likely response is action directly against the groups responsible for the attack and those are likely Iranian-backed militia groups in Syria near the Jordanian base where these service member lives were lost," Kaine said. Update: 1/30/24, 11:05 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information.

An older man with white hair and a suit is seen from the shoulders up, looking to the side with a serious expression.

2024-01-30 15:00:32+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/democrat-warns-us-response-jordan-attack-could-get-murky-1865312

['Politics' 'International']

[0.9 0.8]

Likely

Likely

5f5d43913a

Newsweek

Mike Johnson's 4-Word Response to Claim He's Tanking Border to Help Trump - Newsweek

House Speaker Mike Johnson gave a four-word response on Tuesday over claims he is killing the border deal to help former president Donald Trump. Congress has sought to pass a bill to tackle what Republicans have dubbed a "border crisis" amid an uptick in asylum seekers entering the United States. There were more than 2.4 million encounters at the border during the 2023 fiscal year, up from roughly 1.7 million in 2021, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data. However, the GOP-led House does not appear to agree with the bipartisan bill proposed by a coalition of Democratic and Republican senators, as conservative hardliners argue the bill would not go far enough to end illegal immigration into the U.S. In addition, Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has previously said the Senate deal would be "dead on arrival in the House." While speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Johnson was asked by CNN's chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju about concerns over the border deal and if the Republican is trying to kill the deal in order to help out Trump in his presidential campaign. "Have you spoken to [Trump] about the Senate [border] proposal, and are you simply trying to kill this to help him out in the campaign?" Raju asked. However, Johnson rejected the claim by stating, "No, Manu, that's absurd." Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use "We have a responsibility here to do our duty. Our duty is to do right by the American people, to protect the American people. First, the most important job for the federal government is to protect its citizens, we are not doing that under President Biden," Johnson added. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek has reached out to Johnson's office, Trump's campaign and Biden's campaign via email for comment. Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, has urged Republicans not to accept anything less than a "perfect" border deal before the general election in November, sparking questions about whether some Republicans are working to prevent Biden from scoring a victory by signing the border bill into law. "I have talked to former president Trump about this issue at length and he understands that, he understands we have a responsibility to do here. President Trump of course wants to secure the country, he is the one who talked about border security before anyone else did, he ran on, as you remember, building the wall why because he saw this catastrophe coming. He knew that if we did not get control of it we would be in this situation," Johnson said. Concerns over Trump weighing in on the border bill also come after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has recently taken heat for new comments that suggest that Trump wants to make immigration a central theme for his 2024 campaign—despite Republican legislators working to improve the situation at the border or to provide more foreign aid for Ukraine amid its ongoing war with Russia. McConnell reportedly told Senate Republicans that the GOP should not do anything to "undermine" their party's presumed nominee, adding, "The politics on this have changed." Meanwhile, Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, voiced criticism of Republicans opposing the bill during an interview on Fox News Sunday. "It's interesting. Republicans four months ago would not give funding for Ukraine, Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy," he said. "So we actually locked arms together and said, 'We're not going to give you money for this. We want a change in law.'" Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on January 30, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Johnson gave a 4-word response on Tuesday over claims he is killing the border deal... Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on January 30, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Johnson gave a 4-word response on Tuesday over claims he is killing the border deal to help former president Donald Trump More Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A man in a suit stands in front of the US House of Representatives seal with a serious expression.

2024-01-30 20:52:11+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-johnson-confronted-over-border-deal-donald-trump-1865425

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

ebbdc56c4d

Newsweek

Republican Head Quits After Kari Lake Threatens to Release 'Damaging' Audio - Newsweek

Arizona Republican Party Chair Jeff DeWit resigned on Wednesday after former Arizona gubernatorial hopeful and current U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake threatened to release a "damaging" audio recording, DeWit alleged. In a statement posted to X, formerly Twitter, DeWit discussed his decision to step down: "This morning I was determined to fight for my position. However, a few hours ago I received an ultimatum from Lake's team: resign today or face the release of a new more damaging recording. I am truly unsure of its contents, but considering our numerous past open conversations as friends, I have decided not to take the risk. I am resigning as Lake requested in the hope that she will honor her commitment to cease her attacks," DeWit said. U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake of Arizona is pictured on January 15, 2024, in Des Moines, Iowa. Arizona GOP Chair Jeff DeWit resigned on Wednesday after Lake called on him to step down and threatened... U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake of Arizona is pictured on January 15, 2024, in Des Moines, Iowa. Arizona GOP Chair Jeff DeWit resigned on Wednesday after Lake called on him to step down and threatened to release more leaked audio involving DeWit. More Alex Wong/Getty Images This comes after Lake called on the chairman to resign on Tuesday after a separate audio leaked, reportedly showing that DeWit tried to convince her to stay out of the state's U.S. Senate race. Newsweek was not able to independently verify the recording. The recording, first reported by the Daily Mail, purportedly captures DeWit offering Lake money in exchange for her staying out of politics for two years. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use In a statement emailed to Newsweek, Lake's campaign reiterated the audio's contents regarding DeWit's offering, adding that the former chairman has not "recognized how unethical his behavior was." "The tape speaks for itself: The Arizona GOP Chairman Jeff DeWit attempted to bribe Kari Lake. Thankfully Kari is an extremely ethical person who rejected DeWit's multiple attempts to offer her money and corporate board seats in exchange for Kari not running for public office. She will be an incredible Senator for Arizonans. No one from the Kari Lake campaign threatened or blackmailed DeWit," Lake's campaign said in a statement. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 "It is unfortunate that Dewit hasn't recognized how unethical his behavior was and still hasn't apologized to Arizona Republicans. DeWit's false claims are just par for the course. The Arizona GOP must be relieved to have his resignation. Now we can focus on getting ethical leadership and win big in 2024," Lake's campaign added. DeWit, who previously served as state treasurer and joined the Trump 2020 campaign, raised "serious legal and moral" questions regarding the audio recording. In his statement announcing his exit, DeWit said that the tape was "selectively edited" and used in a "deceptive" way. He claims that despite the conversation appearing against Lake, she was actually employed by him in DeWit's private company. "Contrary to the notion of me being an enemy of Lake's, this conversation was recorded while I was actually employing Lake in my private company. In fact, for over a year and a half we had many conversations where I was looking out for her financial interests. The ethical breach in her recording of our conversation, while Lake was my employee, raises serious legal and moral concerns," the statement read. DeWit continues by stating that since that conversation, Lake has been on a "mission to destroy" him. "I said things I regret, but I realize when hearing Lake's recording that I was set up. I believe she orchestrated this entire situation to have control over the state party," DeWit added in his statement. Update 01/24/24, 4:33 p.m.: This article was updated with further comment from Lake and DeWit.

A woman in a pink dress is speaking into a microphone with the KCCI 8 logo, surrounded by media equipment and people in the background.

2024-01-24 20:30:23+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-republican-party-chair-jeff-dewit-resigns-1863750

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Likely

b38215e5e4

Newsweek

Ron DeSantis Returns to Florida in 'Trump's Shadow': Florida Newspaper - Newsweek

After Florida governor Ron DeSantis suspended his 2024 presidential campaign, the Republican has returned to his home state of Florida only to be in the midst of "Trump's shadow," according to a Florida newspaper. DeSantis, once viewed by some political experts as the Republican with the greatest chance to outlast Trump in the primary, struggled to gain traction as Donald Trump continued to dominate state and national polls. DeSantis dropped out of the Republican presidential primary Sunday evening, saying he does not see a "clear path" to win following his second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. However, the Florida governor did endorse Trump, describing his rival as "superior to the current incumbent." His announcement came just days before the second nominating contest in New Hampshire, where polls showed him placing a distant third behind Trump and former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley—the last two prominent Republicans left in the race. On Tuesday, daily newspaper the Miami Herald published an opinion column by the Miami Herald editorial board, in which the column discusses how the rest of DeSantis' three year term as governor will continue to play out amid his failed attempt at presidency, adding that DeSantis is now living in "Trump's shadow." Republican presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on January 19, 2024, in Nashua, New Hampshire. After DeSantis suspended his 2024 presidential campaign, the Republican returned to his home state of Florida in the midst of... Republican presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on January 19, 2024, in Nashua, New Hampshire. After DeSantis suspended his 2024 presidential campaign, the Republican returned to his home state of Florida in the midst of “Trump’s shadow,” according to a Florida newspaper. More Brandon Bell/Getty Images Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Newsweek has reached out to DeSantis' office via email for comment "His path forward is murky, to be sure. He still lives in the same state with Trump, the man whose endorsement gave the Florida governor an essential boost when he was a little-known congressman running for governor. So he is almost literally in Trump's shadow even now," the column read. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 The column, titled "With a public smackdown, DeSantis flexes on Florida. We have three long years to go" continues to ask how the Republican will go forward in making decisions in his official capacity as the column criticizes DeSantis' campaign efforts. "So how he'll go forward in Florida, Trump's home state, after months of jabs between the two candidates is unclear. He was reluctant to fully take on Trump during the campaign, never really going hard against the former president, perhaps afraid to alienate the MAGA base for just this moment. How much more reluctant will he be now that Trump is likely to be the GOP candidate?" the column added. However, the column warns Florida residents, adding that DeSantis did endorse Trump and may have a role if Trump is elected. "He did endorse Trump as he ended his own presidential campaign. And if Trump were to win another term — as terrifying a possibility as that is — there's the open question of whether DeSantis might find a role in Washington," the column said. "That leaves Florida with a wounded, grudge-bearing governor who is out to prove he still can exert power. And an insurrectionist ex-president intent on revenge for losing the seat four years ago. In other words, it leaves Floridians right in the cross-hairs, for three interminable years," the column said.

A man in a blue suit is speaking into a microphone with a blurred face, standing in front of a dark background with a red and white striped object to his left.

2024-01-24 00:09:06+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/ron-desantis-trumps-shadow-1863395

['Politics' 'National']

[0.95 0.8 ]

Likely

Likely

6d9f5e77e8

Newsweek

Feminist Charity Founder Trashes Joe Biden, Suggests Donald Trump is Better - Newsweek

The co-founder of a feminist grassroots organization that campaigns against U.S. involvement in war has come out against President Joe Biden over his Israel policy and has suggested Donald Trump is a better politician. Biden has faced political pressure from the left since October, when he supported Israel's military response to Palestinian militant group Hamas carrying out a surprise attack in the south of Israel that killed roughly 1,200 people and resulted in the seizure of hostages. Israel's response in Gaza has killed over 25,000 Palestinians, according to the Associated Press, citing health authorities in Gaza. The conflict hasn't just been limited to Israel and Gaza and the U.S. and its allies have carried out attacks on Houthi bases in Yemen after the rebel group targeted shipping in the Red Sea in response to the war in Gaza. President Joe Biden speaks during an event at the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 19, 2024. The co-founder of feminist grassroots organization CODE PINK has attacked the president over his Israel policy. President Joe Biden speaks during an event at the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 19, 2024. The co-founder of feminist grassroots organization CODE PINK has attacked the president over his Israel policy. Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images The U.S. has long been an ally of Israel and Biden has supported the country with aid and weapons. He has also resisted calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, amid a global outcry, but he has been toughening his approach to Israel recently. In December, he told a campaign fundraising event that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is "starting to lose support" and that changes needed to be made because of the mounting death toll in Gaza. Biden has faced backlash for his backing of Israel, with a December poll by the New York Times/ Siena College finding that nearly 75 percent of a sample of voters aged between 18 and 29 disapprove of how the Democrat is handling the conflict in Gaza and Irish politicians criticizing him. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Now, the co-founder of feminist group CODE PINK has turned against Biden. Posting on X, formerly Twitter, Medea Benjamin wrote: "Tell me this: I think Trump is awful but is there anything Trump did during his terrible 4 years as president that comes even close to the horror of Biden's support for genocide in Gaza?" Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Newsweek contacted Medea Benjamin on X, and CODE PINK and a Biden representative via email to comment on this story. CODE PINK is a left-wing, feminist grassroots organization founded in 2002 that is working, according to its website, to "end U.S. warfare and imperialism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect resources into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs." In October, when members of the group protested outside Democrat Bernie Sanders' office to try and secure peace in Ukraine, Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene posed with them for a picture. The group later said she had "opportunistically approached" them. As for Trump's Israel policy, in an op-ed published by Newsweek on October 17, he outlined plans to prohibit anyone supporting Hamas from immigrating to the U.S. and reaffirmed his support for Israel. "When I return to the White House, I will once again stand with Israel 100 percent," the former president wrote. "The United States will fully support Israel in defeating, dismantling, and permanently destroying the terror group Hamas." He also said he would reinstate and expand his Muslim travel ban and "begin the largest deportation operation in American history," among other actions. During a rally in November, he suggested the Hamas attack on Israel would not have happened if he had still been president.

A man in a dark suit stands at a podium with a microphone, gesturing with his right hand. Behind him is a seal with 'UNIDENTIFIED' visible, and the American flag is partially visible to the left.

2024-01-22 13:39:42+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-israel-donald-trump-codepink-1862711

['Politics' 'International']

[0.95 0.85]

Likely

Unlikely

4334207b49

Newsweek

Two Conservatives Challenge the Davos Divas - Newsweek

Both men are lifelong academics and educators, one an economist and the other a historian. Both are leaders of conservative movements within their respective countries: Javier Milei is the president of Argentina and Kevin Roberts the president of the Heritage Foundation, America's premier conservative research and advocacy group. Both were at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, last week speaking on behalf of national sovereignty and self-governance and against the rise of global governing elites and their business, media and nongovernmental organization allies, many of whom have a habit of gathering in august venues to solve the world's problems. Into the breach the two men stepped, and neither was there to win a popularity contest. Milei's focus was on economics, and Roberts added cultural issues to the mix too. "I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger," Milei began. "And it's in danger because those who are supposed to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that inexorably leads to socialism and thereby to poverty." Milei was just getting started. Newsletter The Bulletin Your Morning Starts Here Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use Unfortunately, in recent decades the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism. Some have been motivated by well-meaning individuals who are willing to help others, and others have been motivated by the wish to belong to a privileged caste. We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world. Rather, they are the root cause. Milei went on to talk about his home country's experience with collectivism. Exclusively Available to Subscribers Try it now for $1 Thirty-five years after we adopted the model of freedom, back in 1860, we became a leading world power. And when we embraced collectivism over the course of the last 100 years, we saw how our citizens started to become systematically impoverished, and we dropped to spot number 140 globally. Argentina President Javier Milei speaks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 17. “I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger," he told the audience. Argentina President Javier Milei speaks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 17. “I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger," he told the audience. Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images Milei then spent a few minutes giving the Davos crowd a brief economic history tutorial. In 1800, he noted, 95 percent of the world's population lived in extreme poverty and had lived like that for centuries. That number dropped to 5 percent by 2020 thanks to capitalism and free markets. Milei then went after capitalism's "social justice" critics. They say that capitalism is evil because it's individualistic and that collectivism is good because it's altruistic. Of course, with the money of others. So they therefore advocate for social justice.... The problem is that social justice is not just, and it doesn't contribute to general well-being. Milei next took direct aim at organizations like the WEF. Neo-Marxists have managed to co-opt the common sense of the Western world, and this they have achieved by appropriating the media, culture, universities—and also international organizations. The latter case is the most serious one probably, because these are institutions that have enormous influence on political and economic decisions of the countries that make up the multilateral organizations. He then explained how the West was turning to a new and more insidious form of socialism. Today, states don't need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of the lives of individuals. With tools such as printing money, debt, subsidies, controlling the interest rate, price controls and regulations to correct the so-called market failures, they can control the lives and fates of millions of individuals. Milei closed things out with these words to entrepreneurs and business owners everywhere. Do not surrender to a political class that only wants to stay in power and retain its privileges. You are social benefactors. You're heroes. You're the creators of the most extraordinary period of prosperity we've ever seen. Let no one tell you that your ambition is immoral. If you make money, it's because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being. Do not surrender to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution. The state is the problem itself. The next day, Milei's American counterpart didn't waste any time challenging the prevailing views of the Davos crowd. "The very reason that I'm here in Davos is to explain to many people in this room and who are watching—with all due respect, nothing personal—but that you are part of the problem," Kevin Roberts began. He then explained what a conservative administration should do if it wins back the White House. The agenda of every single member of [the] administration needs to do is compile a list of everything that's ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them wholesale. Anyone not prepared to do that and take away this power of the unelected bureaucrat and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be a part of the new administration. Roberts doubled down on this theme when asked what actions a newly elected conservative president should take on his first day in office. There needs to be pushing through Schedule F civil service reform so that the president can fire a good number of the unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state.... The administrative state is the greatest threat to democracy in

A man in a suit and tie stands at a podium with microphones, with a blue background that reads 'WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM'.

2024-01-23 20:00:29+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com

https://www.newsweek.com/two-conservatives-challenge-davos-divas-1863349

['Politics' 'International']

[0.8 0.7]

Likely

Likely