Archive by Author

The Memo: Republicans’ fervor to go after Fauci could backfire

Anthony Fauci is set to retire from public service, but Republicans have no intention of letting him leave the spotlight.

GOP lawmakers plan to seek testimony from the outgoing director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases once they take control of the House in January.

Fauci, for his part, says he has no problem going back to Capitol Hill.

Asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday whether he would appear after stepping down next month, Fauci replied, “Oh, of course. I mean, I’m very much in favor of legitimate oversight. I’ve testified before Congress … literally hundreds of times, in many oversight hearings.”

But even if both sides are agreeable to further congressional probes, the political ramifications of such a showdown are unpredictable.

Many Republicans believe public health experts such as Fauci, as well as Democratic politicians, advocated for excessive lockdown measures during the coronavirus pandemic.

If they are right in thinking that the public is still resentful of those moves — with school closures, in particular, remaining controversial — there could be a political benefit in grilling Fauci, especially for those on the right.

But if, on the other hand, the public is eager to simply put the pandemic in the rearview mirror — which it increasingly appears to be — the political utility of high-profile testimony from Fauci is much more questionable.

That is particularly the case given that voters face significant problems in the here, now and near future, such as high inflation and the possibility of recession.

It’s plausible that aggressive questioning of Fauci — who is no shrinking violet when it comes to defending himself — could backfire if it comes to be seen as raw partisan theater.

Even some Republicans confess to nervousness.

“I think it is appropriate to bring Fauci for a couple of Oversight hearings to ask about the handling of COVID — in order to make recommendations, find out how decisions were made and create better practices,” said one Republican strategist. “However, it would be unproductive to keep him attending hearings time after time in order to score political points.”

In a sign of the continued sensitivity around the issue, however, the strategist requested anonymity to offer an opinion.

The recent midterm elections were striking for how little salience COVID-19 had, given that political debates around the issue were white-hot not so long ago.

In one of the two major surveys of actual voters, conducted by NORC for The Associated Press and Fox, only 2 percent of voters judged the pandemic to be the biggest issue facing the country, amounting to a tie for last place among the nine issues tested.

In the other major exit poll, COVID-19 was not even included in the options for the most important issue. The question was instead dominated by inflation, abortion, crime, gun policy and immigration.

But the GOP isn’t letting its COVID-19 critiques — or Fauci — go.

A Republican National Committee spokesman emailed reporters Monday assailing President Biden for allegedly being too soft on China regarding COVID-19, and hitting Fauci for an “openness to more American lockdowns” — though the Fauci remark cited was actually in reference to RSV, not COVID-19.

Last week, as Fauci prepared to give his final White House briefing, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) tweeted that the scientist “thinks resigning will prevent him from being held accountable. He’s wrong. We’ll be bringing him in ASAP.”

Beyond any specifics, Fauci has become a rhetorical punching bag for some leading figures on the populist right of the GOP, who can seem to be trying to outdo one another in the fervor of their attacks. However it plays with the general public, the Republican base is sure to greet with relish any rough handling of Fauci.

When he announced his imminent retirement in August, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) responded: “Never in our nation’s history has one arrogant bureaucrat destroyed more people’s lives.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) told a rally around the same time, “Someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Potomac.”

Larry Gostin, a Georgetown Law professor who specializes in public health — and a longtime friend of Fauci’s — told this column that he believed Republicans bringing the infectious diseases expert to face their wrath on Capitol Hill would be “politically, a very unwise move.”

Gostin argued that even many Republican voters are getting exasperated with “the politicization of COVID … and want to go back to a semblance of normalcy without the yelling and screaming.”

He also argued that attempts to besmirch Fauci run the risk of feeding stereotypes of the GOP as being “anti-science and anti-medicine.”

In addition, Gostin asserted, “knowing Tony as well as I do, he is rather likely to give the Republicans a bloody nose in any hearings, as he has done many times.”

To be sure, Fauci’s previous Capitol Hill exchanges with trenchant critics including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) have produced some fire — and viral moments. On one occasion in January, Fauci was picked up on a hot mic seemingly calling Marshall “a moron.”

There could be more such exchanges coming soon. But the GOP will need to play the politics carefully. 

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

McCarthy fight for Speakership looms over lame-duck December

For House Republicans, much of the next five weeks will be overshadowed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) quest for the Speakership amid opposition from a handful of hard-line right-wing members that threatens to sink his bid.

McCarthy has made moves to boost his conservative credentials in recent weeks as a minority criticizes his leadership. Internal House Republican Conference debates over rules and McCarthy’s management of lame-duck legislative issues could also sway his position with those skeptical of his leadership.

The GOP leader won his party’s nomination for Speaker earlier this month against a long-shot challenge from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a former chair of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, in a 188 to 31 vote, with five others voting for neither of the two. But that is just the first step in McCarthy’s quest, and he needs to win majority support on the House floor on Jan. 3 to secure the Speakership.

At least five House GOP members — Reps. Bob Good (Va.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.) and Biggs — explicitly say or strongly indicate they will not vote for McCarthy on the floor. And with Republicans winning a slimmer-than-expected majority of around 222 seats to around 213 Democrats, that puts McCarthy’s Speakership in the danger zone.

McCarthy needs 218 votes on the floor, assuming every House member casts a ballot for a Speaker candidate and there are no absences or “present” votes, though it is possible for a Speaker to be elected with fewer than 218 votes.

If no one wins a majority, the vote will go to another ballot, a scenario that last happened a century ago. The longest Speakership election in history occurred in the 1850s and took 133 ballots over two months.

Allies of the GOP leader maintain optimism that he will secure the Speakership.

“I’m of the opinion that on Jan. 3 we’ll come together as a conference and elect Kevin McCarthy to be Speaker of the House,” Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who is likely to chair the House Oversight and Reform Committee next year, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “There are certainly five to eight members that have said they’re leaning towards voting no against Kevin McCarthy … but I’m hopeful at the end of the day that we will come together as a conference and elect Kevin.”

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) on “Fox News Sunday” pointed out a key dynamic in McCarthy’s favor: There is no viable Republican alternative to McCarthy.

“He’s worked hard. He’s accomplished the goal, albeit a slim one, of winning back the House majority, and he deserves it. And I don’t believe there’s anyone else in our conference who could get to 218,” Fitzpatrick said.

But Biggs said on the “Conservative Review” podcast that he thinks the number of “hard noes” on McCarthy could be around 20 GOP members, which would sink his bid. Biggs has also predicted that an alternative consensus candidate will emerge before Jan. 3.

Conservative firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has broken with her Freedom Caucus colleagues to become one of McCarthy’s most vocal supporters, warning that moderate Republicans could join Democrats and elect a compromise moderate Speaker. McCarthy skeptics have dismissed that prospect as a red herring.

This week, the House Republican Conference will consider another batch of rules change proposals that includes some requests from the Freedom Caucus. Those include a measure to ban earmarks, which were brought back in this Congress as “community project funding” after a decadelong ban.

Republicans will also elect new regional representatives this week under an expanded structure that gives more power to rank-and-file members. Those members will be part of the House Republican Steering Committee, the body of a few dozen members that controls committee and chairmanship assignments for the party.

McCarthy said earlier this month that the new map that increases the number of representatives from 13 to 19 pushes “power further down to more regions, more to the conference itself” and “dilutes the power greater to the members” — addressing a request from conservatives.

In another apparent gesture to critics, McCarthy during a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border before Thanksgiving called for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign or potentially face impeachment. 

“Let’s not be ambiguous. Mayorkas needs [to be] impeached. Period. No hesitation,” Biggs responded in a tweet.

McCarthy also recently reiterated a promise to remove three Democrats from committee assignments: Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) from the House Intelligence Committee over Schiff’s handling of investigations of former President Trump’s ties with Russia and Swalwell’s relationship with an alleged Chinese spy, and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee over what he says are past antisemitic comments.

Schiff hit back at McCarthy’s promise on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.

“McCarthy’s problem is not with what I have said about Russia. McCarthy’s problem is he can’t get to 218 without Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar and Matt Gaetz, and so he will do whatever they ask,” Schiff said.

McCarthy also said in a Facebook post last week that the House will start every day with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance with “no exceptions,” a custom that has been happening daily on the House floor for decades, as outlined by the House rules. He also said that the text of the Constitution will be read aloud on the House floor on the first day of the new congressional session, which McCarthy tweeted “hasn’t been done in years.” 

Another immediate test of McCarthy will be his management of his conference during the lame-duck legislative session. Congress’s to-do list before the end of the year includes the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a Dec. 16 government funding deadline and a White House request for an additional $37.7 billion in Ukraine assistance.

Ukraine funding is a likely flashpoint for House Republicans, with many conservative members opposed to any new funding and others who say there should be funding for military support but are skeptical of economic and humanitarian aid.

And Biggs suggested on “Conservative Review” that Republicans should hold up the NDAA over provisions he described as “woke crap” and to push the military to reinstate service members who were discharged due to refusal to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

“Let’s hold the bill hostage. Let’s leverage what we have,” Biggs said. “Leverage only happens once in a while when you’re in the minority.”

McCarthy said after House GOP leadership elections this month that he thinks final passage of the NDAA should be delayed until after Republicans take control of the House. The House passed a version of the NDAA earlier this year, which McCarthy supported and the Freedom Caucus opposed, and the Senate is considering its version of the bill during the lame-duck session.

“I’ve watched what the Democrats have done in many of these, especially in the NDAA and the wokeism that they want to bring in there,” McCarthy said. “I actually believe the NDAA should hold up until the first of the year, and let’s get it right.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats succumb to political reality on same-sex marriage bill

The Senate’s Respect for Marriage Act has progressives arguing that efforts to safeguard same-sex unions remain unfinished after concessions were made to Republican demands for bolstered religious liberty protections.

The bill as it currently stands would officially repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require state recognition of legal same-sex and interracial marriages but would not codify the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex unions nationwide or prevent the high court from eventually overturning the landmark decision.

“It would be great if the bill went further, but we don’t have the votes for the bill to go further,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Changing America.

“I think this is an enormously important first step and I don’t think there are any guarantees that the Supreme Court will not overturn the precedent they set recently with Obergefell, so this is important to protect the rights of same-sex couples across the country.”

The Obergefell ruling barred states from enforcing statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. Should the Supreme Court overturn the ruling, as it did with Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion, the issue of same-sex marriages would be returned to the states.

The Respect for Marriage Act requires that states recognize same-sex marriages, but does not go as far as Obergefell in requiring that states perform those marriages.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a leading progressive, called the legislation a positive “first step,” but said “we’ve got more work to do” when it comes to preserving equal marriage rights.

However, the possibility of going further in the immediate future is remote given that House Republicans are set to retake the chamber in January.

“I want to see the day when we have 100 votes in favor of no discrimination, not just for who we love, but also in any activity,” Warren said.

Naomi Goldberg, deputy director of the Movement Advancement Project, which tracks state and federal legislation affecting the nation’s LGBTQ community, told Changing America that the legislation was also constrained by the Constitution.

The bill “does not require that every state allow same-sex couples to marry – the federal government can’t do that constitutionally,” she said. “What the Respect for Marriage Act would say is that you must recognize valid marriages regardless of sexual orientation, national origin and race.”

“What’s important,” Goldberg added, “is that it doesn’t touch the current statutory or constitutional patterns that exist in the majority of states. Those are still on the books.”

Efforts to repeal state-level bans have been met with resistance from conservative legislators despite record-high support for marriage equality among American adults. In the Senate, Republicans were concerned that religious liberty protections may be eroded by federal legislation protecting marriage equality.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) forced the upper chamber to delay a procedural vote on the bill this month until 10 p.m. after he was unable to win the necessary support for his amendment to further strengthen the religious liberty provisions.

“They shouldn’t be able to punish religious belief,” Lee said on the Senate floor before the Nov. 16 vote. “That’s all I want. A protection saying the federal government may not punish any individual or entity based on a religious or moral conviction-based belief about marriage. That is not too much to ask.”

A bipartisan amendment introduced by senators this month seeks to address some of those concerns by reaffirming religious liberty and conscience protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and existing federal law and clarifying that the Respect for Marriage Act will not authorize the recognition of polygamous marriages.

Senators including Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) are hoping the added religious protections will win over Republicans still on the fence when the measure is brought up for a final vote this week, though progressive leaders and advocates argue the amendment dehumanizes same-sex couples and reduces their unions to “second class” marriages.

“We’re settling for crumbs,” Alejandra Caraballo, a prominent LGBTQ activist and instructor at Harvard Law’s cyberlaw clinic, tweeted after the amended bill was released.

Still, senators have argued that they did the best they could given their narrow majority in the Senate.

“This bill maximizes the protections we were able to get with the votes we have,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Changing America. “We can certainly build on that to try to fully codify the constitutional law, but this was an important and necessary step.”

“We wouldn’t have gotten 62 votes with another proposal at this time,” he said.

While at least 12 Senate Republicans and 47 House Republicans are likely to put the bill over the top, it is notable that more than 75 percent of GOP lawmakers did not vote for the proposal overall, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

The Senate will finalize its work on the Respect for Marriage Act this week with a pair of votes before the House is expected to OK it shortly after. President Biden has pledged to “promptly” sign the measure into law once it reaches his desk.

Source: TEST FEED1

McConnell holds the cards in spending fight

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is calculating whether he wants to strike a deal with Democrats on a year-end spending package before Republicans take control of the House in January. 

The stakes are high for McConnell, who faces regular attacks from former President Trump and earlier this month survived the toughest challenge to his leadership of the Senate GOP after a bruising battle with National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Rick Scott (Fla.). 

McConnell signaled to colleagues before the election that he favored passing an omnibus spending package before the end of the year, but that was before Senate Republicans fell short of expectations on Election Day, fueling conservative calls for new GOP leadership. 

Senate Republican sources say McConnell will want to hear from fellow GOP senators at lunch meetings this week before deciding whether to agree to an omnibus spending package, which would likely include tens of billions of dollars in military and economic aid for Ukraine — a top McConnell priority. 

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) said there’s going to be a debate within the GOP conference this week over spending strategy and pointed out there are two factions, one favoring a deal with Democrats and another calling for a freeze on spending until Republicans take over the House. 

“I think we’re probably having a lot of discussions about that this week,” Thune said. “I think our members are going to be … in different camps on whether or not to do an omni or to just do a [continuing resolution].” 

Thune acknowledged that funding for Ukraine would have a tough time passing if attached to a stopgap spending bill. 

“Boy, that would be hard to get it on a [continuing resolution] right now,” he said. 

“Clearly we’ll see what the requests are, what the needs are,” he added. “We have a lot of members on our side who are very interested in trying to help any way we can. But that hill is getting steeper.” 

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Monday that he’s offered Republicans a top-line spending number, which would include defense and nondefense discretionary spending levels. 

“I’ve offered a good number,” he said, dismissing the prospect of a stopgap funding measure that simply freezes federal spending at current levels.

“A continuing resolution doesn’t help anybody,” he said, noting that “we don’t have much time left” until government funding expires after Dec. 16. 

Leahy and Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said McConnell signaled before the election that he favored passing an omnibus spending bill before Christmas, instead of pushing decisions into 2023 and a new Congress. 

“I think we ought to do our jobs,” Shelby told reporters in September. “I want to help Leahy best I can to meet our obligation.”

“I think McConnell is of that persuasion,” he added. “Some people want to kick [funding decisions] down the road.” 

Leahy confirmed Monday that he also thought that McConnell wanted to get the omnibus passed in December, instead of punting it into next year, despite pressure from conservatives such as Scott and Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). 

“I’m not in their caucus, but I think Sen. Shelby and I had the same impression,” he said. 

One of the strongest arguments that Shelby and other Republican members on the Appropriations Committee have for passing an omnibus spending bill is that it would help the Department of Defense plan in the face of growing threats from Russia and China. 

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin wrote a letter to congressional leaders Monday arguing that a continuing resolution lasting into next year would hamstring military preparation and training. 

“The CR costs us time as well as money, and money can’t buy back time, especially for lost training events,” Austin wrote, referring to the problems caused by passing a stopgap spending measure instead of an omnibus package. 

“Under the CR, Congress prohibits the military from commencing new initiatives, such as those requested by our theater commanders in the Indo-Pacific and around the world or in support of service members and their families at home,” Austin wrote. 

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) hammered on the potential impact on national defense during a floor speech Monday. 

He warned a stopgap spending measure “will not only cost our military billions every month, it will also freeze new investments in critical military infrastructure.” 

“It will mean many staffing and personnel decisions will be put on hold,” he added. “When we see some of the advances some of our competitors — China and Russia — have made in military equipment, we can’t afford to sit still.” 

The push for a longer-term stopgap spending measure to delay negotiations on the omnibus until Republicans control the House next year is being led by Scott, Lee and Cruz, who led the critiques of McConnell’s leadership during two intense closed-door meetings that GOP senators held after failing to win control of the Senate on Election Day. 

The conservatives laid out their argument for postponing negotiations on spending priorities in a Fox News op-ed published in September. 

They argued that if Republicans control a chamber of Congress, they can block efforts to fund the Biden administration’s plan to beef up IRS enforcement. 

“Instead of funding thousands of new IRS officials to audit and harass Americans, we should spend that money to hire new border patrol agents and finally secure our borders,” they wrote. 

“The worst move imaginable would be to gift the Democrats one last liberal spending spree in December as they leave power,” they wrote. 

But not all conservatives think it would be smart strategy to punt major spending negotiations until next year, when Republicans will have a small majority in the House, making it likely the next Speaker will have to depend on Democrats to pass spending legislation through the lower chamber. 

“If you go back to 2013, we had a Republican House — with a larger margin — and a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president and we employed the [government] shutdown as the leverage and we got absolutely nothing out of that,” said Grover Norquist, a prominent conservative activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform. 

He said the negotiating leverage of House Republicans next year will depend largely on their ability to stay unified. 

“If you’ve got 10 or 15 people that say, ‘I’d rather be on Newsmax than cut the budget,’ then what are we waiting for? Because you’re going to have to buy 10 Democrats’ vote,” he said. 

Right now, 218 House Republicans have yet to unify behind House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) bid to become Speaker.

Source: TEST FEED1

House Democratic Rep. Donald McEachin dies at 61

Rep. Donald McEachin, a Democrat representing Virginia’s fourth Congressional District since 2017, died Monday night after a battle with colorectal cancer, according to his office. He was 61.

Eachin’s chief of staff, Tara Rountree, said in a statement the congressman had been experiencing “secondary effects of his colorectal cancer from 2013.”

“We are all devastated at the passing of our boss and friend, Congressman Donald McEachin,” Rountree said. “Valiantly, for years now, we have watched him fight and triumph over the secondary effects of his colorectal cancer from 2013.”

“Tonight, he lost that battle, and the people of Virginia’s Fourth Congressional District lost a hero who always, always fought for them and put them first,” she added.

Developing.

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP senators slam Trump over dinner with white supremacist

Senate Republicans across the ideological spectrum slammed former President Trump for having dinner with Nick Fuentes, an outspoken white supremacist and antisemite, who broke bread with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate before Thanksgiving.  

Republican senators regularly try to duck questions about Trump’s conduct or give measured responses to avoid provoking the former president’s wrath, which he is quick to dole out on social media or in press releases.  

But there was little holding back on Monday when senators were asked about Trump’s controversial meeting with Fuentes, who has become a prominent white supremacist and antisemitic commentator since attending the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va.

“That’s just a bad idea on every level,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters. “I don’t know who’s advising him on his staff, but I hope that whoever that person was got fired.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a Trump ally who gave the former president a “Champion of Freedom” award at Mar-a-Lago last year, declared, “There’s no room for antisemitism or white supremacy in the Republican Party. Period.”  

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted twice to convict Trump on impeachment charges, let loose on Trump.  

“There’s no bottom to the degree which he’s willing to degrade himself and the country, for that matter. Having dinner with those people was disgusting,” he told reporters.  

Asked if he wanted Trump to remain under the GOP’s tent, Romney replied, “I don’t think he should be president of the United States. I don’t think he should be the nominee of our party in 2024.” 

“And I certainly don’t want him hanging over our party like a gargoyle,” he added.  

Asked if it was a lapse in judgment, Romney said, “It’s a character issue.”  

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), a prominent Republican moderate, said Trump should have never met with Fuentes. 

“I condemn white supremacy and antisemitism. The president should never have had a meal or even a meeting with Nick Fuentes,” she said.  

Trump claimed in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West, asked to have dinner at Mar-a-Lago and “unexpectedly showed up with three of his friends, whom I knew nothing about.”  

Ye, however, said that Trump was “really impressed” with Fuentes.  

Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), a member of the GOP leadership team, said he had “never heard” of Fuentes, but after a reporter mentioned Fuentes was a white supremacist, the Texas senator said it was “bad.”  

“No question about it,” he said.  

Retiring Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), the Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman, told reporters, “I wouldn’t want to have dinner with either one of those guys, or I wouldn’t meet with either one of those guys.”  

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) also called for a staff shake-up in response to Trump’s dinner with Fuentes and Ye, who himself has made a slew of antisemitic statements in recent weeks.  

“If the reports are true and the president didn’t know who he was, whoever let him in the room should be fired,” Tillis said.  

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declined to comment Monday about Trump’s meeting with Fuentes but said he would have more to say at the Tuesday leadership press conference.  

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told a reporter for CNN that he hoped Trump would condemn Fuentes. 

“I hope he will because I know [Trump] is not an antisemite. I can tell you that for a fact that Trump is not, but this guy [Fuentes] is evil,” he said. “And that guy is a nasty, disgusting person.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.) was one of the first Senate Republicans out of the gate criticizing Trump earlier in the day.  

“President Trump hosting racist antisemites for dinner encourages other racist antisemites. These attitudes are immoral and should not be entertained. This is not the Republican Party,” Cassidy tweeted.  

Some Republicans, however, waved aside the controversy.  

“I could care less who they have dinner with,” said retiring Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial. “Do I look like somebody that cared?” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump takes sharp GOP criticism over meeting with white nationalist

Former President Trump is facing sharp criticism from Republicans, including some who served in his administration, over his dinner with a prominent white nationalist. 

The incident underscores the types of headaches some in the GOP are hoping to avoid as they push to move on from Trump in the 2024 presidential race, even as they worry he could win a Republican primary. 

“President Trump was wrong to give a white nationalist, an antisemite and a Holocaust denier a seat at the table, and I think he should apologize,” former Vice President Mike Pence told NewsNation in an interview, while insisting that Trump himself is not antisemitic or racist.

Pence was the most notable GOP official to weigh in on Trump’s dinner late last week with the rapper Ye, formerly Kanye West, and prominent white nationalist Nick Fuentes. 

But a number of other GOP senators also criticized the president over the remarks as they were peppered with questions by reporters upon returning to the Capitol. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.), one of a handful of GOP senators who voted to convict Trump in an impeachment trial over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, tweeted Monday that Trump hosting Ye and Fuentes “encourages other racist antisemites.”

“These attitudes are immoral and should not be entertained. This is not the Republican Party,” Cassidy tweeted.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), another one of the seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump in 2021, told reporters on Monday Trump “should never have had a meal or even a meeting with Nick Fuentes.”

Several GOP senators who voted against Trump’s conviction, including Senate Minority Whip John Thune (S.D.) and Sen. Rick Scott (Fla.), who led the GOP’s Senate campaign arm and is seen as a Trump ally, were also critical. 

Trump’s former ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, earlier had criticized Trump over the meeting, saying “even a social visit” from those espousing antisemitism was unacceptable.

Trump late last week hosted Ye at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. The rapper, who has been widely condemned and lost business deals in recent months for his own antisemitic rhetoric, brought with him Fuentes, an outspoken Holocaust denier who has in recent years hosted a white nationalist conference.

The former president has issued several statements in the aftermath of the meeting, none of which explicitly disavowed Ye’s or Fuentes’s past rhetoric.

“So I help a seriously troubled man, who just happens to be black, Ye (Kanye West), who has been decimated in his business and virtually everything else, and who has always been good to me, by allowing his request for a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, alone, so that I can give him very much needed ‘advice,’ ” Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday. “He shows up with 3 people, two of which I didn’t know, the other a political person who I haven’t seen in years. I told him don’t run for office, a total waste of time, can’t win. Fake News went CRAZY!”

To some Republicans, Trump holding court with an avowed antisemite highlights the risks with nominating him for president for a third time.

“This is just awful, unacceptable conduct from anyone, but most particularly from a former President and current candidate,” Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor who is mulling his own 2024 bid, tweeted in response to the Trump meeting.

The meeting also reflects how easy it has become for fringe figures to gain access to Trump since he left the White House. Former aides expressed concerns about who was in Trump’s ear in the waning weeks of his presidency, but without the infrastructure of the White House in place, Trump is more likely to grant an audience to extremists like Fuentes.

“Mr. Trump isn’t going to change, and the next two years will inevitably feature many more such damaging episodes. Republicans who continue to go along for the ride with Mr. Trump are teeing themselves up for disaster in 2024,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote in a piece published Sunday.

While criticism from the likes of Christie and the Journal’s editorial board is nothing new for Trump, others in the party, including GOP leaders and potential 2024 candidates for president, have remained largely silent over the controversy.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has not weighed in on the meeting. McCarthy previously condemned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) for attending a conference with Fuentes.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is expected to offer comments on the controversy on Tuesday.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley are among those believed to be eyeing presidential bids who have not offered any comment on Trump’s meeting with West and Fuentes.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has in recent weeks inched toward criticizing Trump without naming his former boss, and did so again over the weekend when he decried antisemitism as a “cancer.”

“We stand with the Jewish people in the fight against the world’s oldest bigotry,” Pompeo tweeted.

Republicans spent four years trying to deflect, explain or dismiss Trump’s latest controversial comments or actions, and it is likely to once again become a central issue for the party.

Trump has already announced his candidacy for 2024, and he may soon be back on Twitter, giving him an even wider audience to espouse unfounded or incendiary claims.

“Ever since the election in 2020, I think the president’s descended deeper into the heart of darkness here,” Marc Short, a top aide to Pence and a former official in Trump’s White House, told CNN on Sunday. “I think it’s a big challenge [and] another reason Republicans are looking in a different direction in 2024.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden calls on Congress to intervene to avert rail shutdown

President Biden on Monday called on Congress to pass legislation to avert a rail shutdown before Dec. 9, warning of major disruptions to the U.S. economy if lawmakers don’t act.

He said Congress should pass a bill “immediately to adopt the Tentative Agreement between railroad workers and operators — without any modifications or delay — to avert a potentially crippling national rail shutdown.”

Biden’s plea to Congress comes amid an ongoing labor standoff that could shut down crucial shipments of food and fuel.

In response to Biden’s call, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement, “This week, the House will take up a bill adopting the Tentative Agreement — with no poison pills or changes to the negotiated terms — and send it to the Senate.”

“It is my hope that this necessary, strike-averting legislation will earn a strongly bipartisan vote, giving America’s families confidence in our commitment to protecting their financial futures,” Pelosi said.

The tentative Biden-backed agreement in September was approved by labor and management negotiators, but not every rail union has signed on.

Biden said that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg have been in regular touch with labor leaders and management since then but see no path to resolve the dispute at the bargaining table.

The secretaries have since recommended that the administration seek congressional action to solve the issue. Biden said that while he is a “proud pro-labor President” and “reluctant to override the ratification procedures,” Congress has to work to adopt the deal.

“On the day that it was announced, labor leaders, business leaders, and elected officials all hailed it as a fair resolution of the dispute between the hard-working men and women of the rail freight unions and the companies in that industry,” he said.

Biden, in his statement, warned about the outcome if there is a shutdown.

“Let me be clear: a rail shutdown would devastate our economy. Without freight rail, many U.S. industries would shut down,” he said, adding that union workers would be out of work, communities would struggle to get chemicals that ensure clean drinking water and farmers and ranchers would be unable to feed their livestock.

The tentative deal reached in September would give union members a 14 percent raise, and workers whose pay had been frozen would get a higher wage increase and a boost in medical care. The Biden administration was largely credited at the time by both sides for stepping in to avert a strike.

The president said that the agreement was reached in good faith by labor and management and warned against changes. He said he shares the workers’ concerns about the agreement not including time to recover from illness or care for a family member but that he is working to advance paid leave.

“Some in Congress want to modify the deal to either improve it for labor or for management. However well-intentioned, any changes would risk delay and a debilitating shutdown,” he said.

“But at this critical moment for our economy, in the holiday season, we cannot let our strongly held conviction for better outcomes for workers deny workers the benefits of the bargain they reached, and hurl this nation into a devastating rail freight shutdown,” he added.

—Updated at 6:47 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

How close were House races? A few thousands votes could have swung control

Republicans retook the House majority in the midterms, but just a few thousands votes in five races could have swung the outcome in favor of Democrats.

In the days after the election, Democrats still had an outside chance to eke out a House win — but Republicans last week narrowly crossed the 218-vote threshold to take House control.

The GOP appears on track to win 222 seats in the 435-seat chamber, meaning Democrats came just five seats short of the majority.

TargetSmart’s Tom Bonier calculated Sunday that Democrats could have held the House if just 3,340 Republican voters instead cast their ballots for Democrats in the five closest House races won by Republicans.

Republicans won in those districts by just over 7,000 votes combined, according to the latest tallies — meaning that Democrats could also have won by mobilizing a few thousand more voters in those elections.

In Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, far-right Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert beat out Democrat Adam Frisch by just 554 votes — a margin so slim it triggered an automatic recount in the state.

Republican John Duarte beat out Democrat Adam Gray by just 593 votes in California’s 13th District. Along with Colorado’s 3rd, the district is one of the two races still undeclared nearly three weeks after Election Day.

In Michigan’s 10th District, Republican John James won by 1,601 votes over Democrat Carl Marlinga, despite significant blue successes elsewhere in the state. The party flipped the Michigan state House and Senate and secured the governorship in a legislative trifecta, and Democrat Hillary Scholten flipped Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District on the other side of the state.

Republican Zach Nunn won Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District by just 2,144 votes over Democrat incumbent Rep. Cindy Axne, flipping the seat that also represents heavily Democratic Des Moines. Axne had been elected in 2018 as part of the “blue wave” that brought the Democrats to their current House majority.

In New York’s 17th District, Republican Mike Lawler won over Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the head of House Democrats’ campaign arm, by 2,314 votes in the first general election loss for a campaign chair of either party since 1980. 

Assuming Republicans win the uncalled races in Colorado in California, the 222-213 House seat split would be a reversal of the results in the 2020 election cycle, when the House broke in the Democrats’ favor by the same numbers. 

Though a loss for Democrats, the results are far from the “red wave” many in the GOP predicted ahead of the midterms. 

House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) last year said Republicans would flip 60 seats or more in the lower chamber, and Republicans were optimistic about being able to take over the Senate as well.

But Democrats grew more hopeful about their chances in both chambers as poll results and special elections showed strong voter support despite historical headwinds against the party in power.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the eve of Election Day that she was “optimistic” about House races others labeled “too close to call” and later contended that her party had a chance to hold on to the House.

“I have always objected to the presentation, the media thread that was out there [that] you can’t win because it’s an off year,” Pelosi said on the day of the midterms.

Democrats will keep control of the Senate, with the Georgia runoff next week determining whether they take 50 or 51 seats.

Young voters appear to have been a major block against the red wave, with post-election research indicating this year’s midterms saw the second-highest turnout among voters under 30 in the last three decades.

That demographic voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, giving the party a critical boost in key races such as the Pennsylvania Senate contest. Though Democrats have typically done well with young voters, Brookings research shows this year saw the group shift even more toward blue candidates.

Young women in particular broke hard for Democrats: CNN exit polling shows nearly three-quarters of women under 30 cast blue ballots. Slightly more than half of women overall were found to have supported Democrats in House races specifically.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said that Republican voters “didn’t show up” for the party on Election Day.

Source: TEST FEED1