Archive by Author

Weather delays reopening of baby formula plant

Abbott — a major baby formula manufacturer that produces the Similac brand of baby formula — on Wednesday announced that severe weather at its plant in Sturgis, Mich., has caused the plant to cease production and will likely delay the production of new products there for at least a few weeks.

The production of the specialty baby formula, EleClare, has ceased entirely as a result of the damage to the plant from the severe weather in southwestern Michigan.

High winds, hail, power outages and flooding impacted the plant, which will cause the company to need to conduct repairs and sanitation tests before reopening safely to continue formula production.

Abbott stated that they have informed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the weather-related delay, and that based on historic demand for EleClare, there should not be an impact to supply-and-demand for the speciality product.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf commented on the situation via Twitter, assuring the public that this setback should not influence the recovery in baby formula supply throughout the United States after noting that he had spoken to the CEO of Abbott about the Sturgis plant closure.

Califf explained on Twitter that the current supply of baby formula being produced elsewhere than the Sturgis plant is still an overproduction based on demand from 2021 and that it would be more than enough to supply American parents and caregivers with formula for their children.

“Making sure that parents and caregivers have access to both safe and available infant formula remains a top priority for the FDA, and our teams are working night and day to help make that happen,” added Califf.

The baby formula shortage has been caused in part by a recall of several formula products at Abbott’s plant, which began in February.

At the time of the recall, Abbott said it found “evidence of Cronobacter sakazakii in the plant in non-product contact areas.” The bacteria is a food-borne pathogen, and infection from it is rare but can be fatal.

The lack of production at the Abbott facility caused a supply chain disruption, from which has taken the company months to recover.

Source: TEST FEED1

Street outside Saudi Embassy in DC renamed Jamal Khashoggi Way

Part of a Washington, D.C., street outside of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia on Wednesday was renamed to honor slain Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

“Today we officially unveil Jamal Khashoggi Way,” D.C. Council chair Phil Mendelson said in a tweet.  

“Society cannot effectively function without a free and fair press. By designating the street fronting of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia after Jamal Khashoggi, the District is creating a memorial in his honor that cannot be covered up or repressed,” he added in another tweet.

Mendelson also said the decision was “to reaffirm support for democracy and freedom of the press, and to send a message of solidarity to those upholding these values around the world.”

The bill to rename the street passed unanimously in December but required approval from the mayor and had to undergo congressional review before it became law.

Since 2018, activists have pressed for the street to be named after Khashoggi, even putting up their own sign that said “Khashoggi Way” after the council said it would not immediately consider a proposal that would ceremonially rename the street in December of that year. 

Khashoggi was a Saudi-born journalist and American citizen with extensive experience reporting in the Middle East. Prior to his murder, Khashoggi was writing opinion columns that criticized the Saudi government.

Both the CIA and United Nations later found that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and his government, were involved in planning the journalist’s killing. 

Now, President Biden is expected to have a controversial meeting with the crown prince during a visit to Saudi Arabia scheduled for next month.

A senior administration official confirmed on Monday that the meeting would take place but emphasized that it would take place alongside “dozens” of other Gulf leaders. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Three keys to finding drought solutions in the West

There is no end in sight to the relentless drought drying up the Western United States. And virtually everyone and everything is being affected, from farmers facing massive water cuts, to young salmon swimming in dangerously warm water before they can reach the sea, to rural residents’ seeing their drinking water wells go dry.

I’m pleased to see that Congress is paying attention. Against this grim backdrop, I testified this week at a Senate committee hearing on drought solutions. In other testimony, Bureau of Reclamation Commission Camille Touton highlighted the huge magnitude of Western water challenges by urging states to identify within two months how to conserve 2 million to 4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to prevent reservoirs from hitting dangerously low levels.

As many of us testified, we need an unprecedented level of collaboration to address this dire situation. Collaboration is one of at least three essential keys to finding the durable solutions required to sustain Western rural and urban communities, farmers and ranchers and aquatic ecosystems in a drier, more erratic future.

Collaboration

Historically, water challenges in the West have too often spiraled into conflicts. This tendency to fight just won’t work anymore. It’s too slow and often means protracted litigation resolved with another static, inadequate plan. Long-lasting, adaptive solutions are most likely to come from good-faith collaboration that brings the best minds and talents from across the stakeholder spectrum.

One exciting example of what can come from broad collaboration is California’s new Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program. Even with smart infrastructure investments, it’s estimated that between 500,000 and 1 million acres of agricultural land will have to come out of production in California’s San Joaquin Valley to balance groundwater supply and demand, as required by the state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act enacted during the last drought.

Unmanaged, this transition will put many farm workers out of work and result in a patchwork of dusty fields with invasive weeds and even worse air quality.

To avoid this devastating outcome, the state of California has made an initial investment of $50 million in the Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program. The intent is to transform the Central Valley into a water-resilient agricultural region by repurposing previously irrigated land into a mosaic of vibrant new uses that require less water while providing other needed benefits to the community, including habitat corridors, wildlife-friendly groundwater recharge areas and outdoor recreational spaces for families.

This program was created through an incredible collaboration, with support from a wide variety of interests: water and county agencies, community-based organizations, environmental nonprofits and agricultural groups. This concept is adaptable, with local collaboration, to a range of conditions throughout the drought-plagued West. Congress can accelerate progress by funding similar programs beyond California and empowering federal agencies to actively engage as partners.

Good data and information

For collaboration and programs like the Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program to work, we need good information. How do we know if we are saving water if we aren’t measuring and monitoring?

The more quickly we can use accurate measurements and monitoring to develop a shared understanding of our situation and trajectory, the more quickly and efficiently communities can come together to develop new strategies that they desperately need.

In Congress, this means supporting long-standing programs, like the U.S. Geological Survey’s Streamgaging Network and Department of Agriculture’s SNOTEL system, and new tools, like the OpenET water data platform developed by a team of partners including NASA, Desert Research Institute, Environmental Defense Fund and many others.

Demand and supply solutions

Finally, we need the broadest portfolio of tools that we can assemble because this drought challenge is too huge for one single solution funded by one government agency. That means not just relying on increasing supply.

We can no longer depend on a steady income of rain and snow in the West to refill our water account. So, our toolbox must include tools for reducing the demand.

California’s Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program is an example of a strategy that incentivizes demand reductions, by paying landowners to put their agricultural lands to work in new ways that reduce water use. We also need familiar strategies like urban water conservation, reuse and recycling and water-saving agricultural practices like crop switching.

We give a lot of attention to big-ticket water infrastructure investments, which do need to be part of the effort. But infrastructure investments must extend to our long-neglected natural infrastructure. This includesmaintaining healthy watersheds that collect rain and snowmelt, rivers that convey water and support vital ecosystems, as well as groundwater aquifers that can store far more water than reservoirs above the ground.

We can no longer hope the next winter will bring heavy snow and rain to relieve the pressure of the near-term drought. We need actions that directly respond to the compounding and extreme risks of climate change — more severe, longer droughts punctuated by more intense storms. How we respond now — and we must respond quickly — will shape the future of agriculture, communities and ecosystems across the West for years to come.

Maurice Hall is vice president of Climate Resilient Water Systems at the Environmental Defense Fund.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ron and Casey DeSantis: 2024’s formidable couple are ‘spooking’ Trump

Before presidential candidates make their official announcement, they must be confident that their spouse is equally enthusiastic, supportive and strapped in for a wild ride. 

Now consider Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), whose wife Casey is said to be emboldening his 2024 White House ambition five months before his (presumed) reelection as governor. That soft bombshell was recently dropped in a Washington Post piece headlined: “The shadow race is underway for the Republican presidential nomination.”

The Post reported, “DeSantis’s wife, Casey, a former television host and among a small circle of confidants, wants him to run for president.” It’s newsworthy only because Florida’s first lady wields tremendous power as the governor’s most influential adviser.

Polished and articulate, Casey DeSantis, age 42, is camera-ready from her Emmy award-winning television career — envisioning her current title on the nation’s most prestigious set. Casey’s private encouragement of her husband, now publicly revealed, helps us answer “yes” to the second most-asked question in the 2024 GOP stratosphere: “Will DeSantis run if Trump runs?” (Naturally, “Will Trump run?” is first.)

While ambition fuels the DeSantis’s White House dreams, their timing is prudent and politically justified, as the Post explained:

“The couple believes that the governor’s skills are uniquely matched to the current political climate, and are wary of waiting six years, by which time the tides may have shifted. DeSantis has not indicated if he would defer a campaign if Trump runs.”

DeSantis’s refusal to rule out running against the former president is a long-time bone of contention, reportedly sparking Trump’s “souring” on the 43-year-old governor. With elections approaching, the widely predicted Trump v. DeSantis war of oversized egos is about to go nuclear. So, imagine Trump’s fury after reading the Post’s quote that DeSantis “has told donors ‘No one’s nomination is inevitable.'” Advantage: DeSantis.

That same political truth applies to “No one’s victory is inevitable.” However, match-up polls with the governor’s likely opponent, Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.), are impressive. And again, Trump’s ire was raised when the Post revealed DeSantis’s reelection goal:

“Beating Trump’s 2020 margin of three percentage points in Florida has become a key campaign goal, according to three people familiar with the conversations.” (Those same unnamed “three people” revealed Mrs. DeSantis is cheerleading his presidential run.)

Remember, three percentage points is a quantum leap from when DeSantis was elected governor in 2018 with a 0.4 percentage point victory over Democrat Andrew Gillum. Furthermore, if DeSantis is reelected by at least three points, he wins national bragging rights, including the right to drive Trump ballistic. Whereas winning by five points would be a “Florida landslide,” catapulting DeSantis to “frontrunner” status.  

Florida’s close races are legendary. The last time a gubernatorial election was won by a margin greater than 1.2 percentage points was in 2006. Ironically, the Republican victor was none other than Charlie Crist, then a Republican, who defeated his Democratic opponent by 7.1 percentage points.

Then in 2014, Crist, as the Democrat nominee for governor, lost to incumbent Republican Gov. Rick Scott by one percentage point. Hence, since 1998 – after a string of consecutively elected GOP governors – Crist might be the Democratic nominee best suited to thwart DeSantis’s reelection and future Oval Office occupation. But don’t bet on that.

DeSantis, with a 56 percent job approval rating and 38 percent disapproval, is beloved by many Florida Republicans, who assume he’ll become “President DeSantis.” His campaign war chest of $124 million overflows since 42 billionaires from 15 states have opened their wallets with expectations beyond Florida. Even Elon Musk is a fan.

All eyes are watching whether Trump will graciously support and campaign with his home state governor. Or is Trump “taking aim” and “spooked” by DeSantis, as reported this week in Rolling Stone?:

“Donald Trump in recent months has been telling confidants that he may launch his 2024 presidential campaign early — and that he’s considering launching it in Florida to stick it to Gov. Ron DeSantis.” Here is why:

DeSantis’s increasingly frequent fundraising emails emulate Trump’s MAGA-base branding, with the governor wrapping himself in the message mantle of Trumpism without mentioning Trump.  

Recall the Washington Post’s quote: “The couple believes that the governor’s skills are uniquely matched to the current political climate.” That “political climate” is fear of national decline — which Gov. DeSantis has operationalized with his confrontational fight-fight Trump-inspired governing style that the left calls “authoritarian.”  

Here is a preview of DeSantis’s 2024 presidential message doubling as his gubernatorial reelection campaign quoted from recently received emails:

“Our country is currently facing a great threat. A new enemy has emerged from the shadows that seeks to destroy and intimidate their way to a transformed state, and country, that you and I would hardly recognize.”

“This enemy is the radical vigilante woke mob that will steamroll anything and anyone in their way. Their blatant attacks on the American way of life are clear and intensifying: stifling dissent, public shaming, rampant violence, and a perverted version of history. “

“I am choosing to counter this enemy with faith, with reason, and with freedom. As Governor of the Free State of Florida, I have chosen to lead with a vision that builds America up rather than tears it down.”

“I promise you; I will never stop fighting.”

Gov. DeSantis’s fighting message, more articulate than Trump’s, is gaining traction. Meanwhile, Predictit, the popular online betting prediction platform, has him edging ahead of Trump for the GOP nomination.  

Casey DeSantis is also a fighter. She recently beat breast cancer with “six rounds of chemotherapy, a surgery, six weeks of radiation” and reentered the campaign trail last month. Fox News reported what Florida’s first lady told the crowd:

“Never ever give up, never ever back down.”

“I am the testament that God is great, that God is good, and hope is alive.”

Her father told her, “‘Casey, have faith and don’t let the bastards win.’”

That could be DeSantis’s campaign mantra.

Myra Adams writes about politics and religion for numerous publications. She is a RealClearPolitics contributor and served on the creative team of two GOP presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Follow her on Twitter @MyraKAdams.

Source: TEST FEED1

Familiarity with Juneteenth grows in year since federal holiday designation: Gallup

More Americans know at least a little about Juneteenth since it was designated as a federal holiday last year, according to a poll released on Thursday.

The survey from Gallup showed that 88 percent of respondents said they knew at least a little bit about Juneteenth, compared to 71 percent in May, 2021. 

More specifically, 29 percent in the new poll said they knew a little bit, 42 percent knew some and 17 percent knew a lot.

Eleven percent knew nothing at all, down from 28 percent who knew nothing in May of last year. 

At that time, 34 percent knew a little bit about the holiday, 25 percent knew some and 12 percent knew a lot. 

The new survey also showed that 45 percent of respondents agreed that Juneteenth should be a federal holiday, up 10 points from the 2021 poll. 

Additionally, 63 percent now say public schools should teach about the day in their curriculum, up from 49 percent last year.

When broken down by race, 60 percent of white and Hispanic respondents in the new poll each said Juneteenth should be included in history curriculums, as did 86 percent of Black adults, according to Gallup.

The survey, conducted between April 24 and May 17, included 5,971 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

The 2021 poll came just about a month before Congress passed legislation to recognize Juneteenth as a federal holiday.

The holiday marks the day in June 19, 1865, when enslaved people in Texas were informed of their freedom after Robert E. Lee surrendered in the Civil War. It is also known as “Emancipation Day.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Israel and Iran: Five minutes to Armageddon?

Israel and Iran are rapidly approaching an inflection point over Tehran’s nuclear program, and what was the atomic equivalent of a controlled clash between the two countries is now devolving into an unconstrained chain reaction. In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations agency tasked with globally overseeing nuclear technology and use, reported that Iran possesses enough fissile material to construct a nuclear bomb. Jerusalem’s long-feared specter of Tehran becoming an existential threat to Israel is now very real and imminent.

Iran’s amassing of 95 pounds of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) is deeply concerning. Sufficient HEU mass is required for a nuclear chain reaction to sustain itself and Tehran has ominously crossed that minimum threshold. More telling, however, is Iran’s decision to enrich its HEU stockpile to 60 percent — a level significantly beyond the 3 percent to 5 percent HEU enrichment needed to produce fuel for medical experiments and nuclear power plants. Spoken or not, Tehran is clearly aiming for 90 percent HEU enrichment, the level necessary to build an atomic bomb.

For Israel, it is 1981 redux — when then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and his security cabinet authorized Operation Babylon to destroy Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facility in Osirak, Iraq. Baghdad’s atomic threat was largely theoretical in nature in 1981; Iran’s today is far more dire and will be exponentially more difficult to eliminate.

The ayatollahs have been down this path before, targeting Israel and Saudi Arabia. Known as the Amad Plan, Iran intended to build five 10-kiloton nuclear warheads by 2003, according to documents seized from a Tehran warehouse in 2018 by Mossad, Israel’s espionage agency. Iran even had begun developing an atomic test site in the “Mars-like dead zone” of the Lut Desert, roughly 500 miles northeast of Dubai or 1,500 miles east of Tel Aviv.

Guardrails aimed at avoiding this crisis — tenuous as they were — are fast dissipating. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is all but dead. Brokered by the Obama administration in July 2015, the accord was intended to severely curtail Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. The Trump administration badly undercut JCPOA by unilaterally withdrawing in May 2018. The agreement was by no means perfect; however, it did serve to stunt Iran’s uranium enrichment while buying Jerusalem valuable time to plan and refine military options, if needed.

Despite stated interest in returning the U.S. to JCPOA, President Biden failed to capitalize on the five-month window of opportunity he had at the beginning of his administration to engage Tehran’s moderates. Hardliners ended up dominating Iran’s June 2021 elections, resulting in arch-conservative Ebrahim Raisi being elected as Iran’s new president. 

Iran under Raisi is increasingly combative and non-cooperative. On June 6, Rafael Grossi, director-general of the IAEA, reported to the agency’s board of governors that Tehran had failed to provide “explanations that are technically credible” with respect to finding nuclear materials at “three undeclared locations in Iran.” Further, Iran began installing “advanced IR-6 centrifuges” in clusters, thereby chillingly accelerating Tehran’s enrichment of uranium by as much as 50 percent.

In response, the IAEA board censured Tehran, resulting in Iran cutting off IAEA camera feeds that monitored Iran’s nuclear activities. Grossi believes, if left unaddressed, the IAEA’s inability to evaluate Iran’s atomic sites in real time likely will be a “fatal blow” to the JCPOA. 

The Pentagon fully realizes that time is not on Israel’s side, nor that of the U.S. and its allies. In March, now-retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, then commander of U.S. Central Command, testified in a Senate hearing that Iran has “3,000 ballistic missiles,” including variants capable of reaching Tel Aviv, while assessing Tehran’s nuclear “breakout” is now measured in “weeks,” not “months.” 

Israel concurs. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett acknowledged on June 12 Iran is “dangerously close to getting their hands on nuclear weapons.” Earlier, Jerusalem — in an atypical disclosure for Israel — declared it has sufficiently extended the range of its U.S.-supplied Lockheed Martin F-35I Adir stealth fighter-bombers to complete any missions tasked to them in Iran. Israel’s message to the ayatollahs was loud and clear: Israel can reach deep inside Iran and exit Iranian air-space unseen. Either abandon pursuit of nuclear weapons or risk getting hit.

If forced to attack Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s primary target would be destroying the centrifuges enriching HEU in Natanz, Fordow, and elsewhere — all of which are buried deep underground. It is the only military means by which Jerusalem could avert Tehran from reaching the 90 percent HEU enrichment level. Numerous tertiary targets also would need to be eliminated. Iran Watch lists 38 known nuclear-related sites in total.

Jerusalem’s planning must anticipate Hezbollah, Hamas and other Tehran-backed militias aggressively responding in kind if Israel launches a raid into Iran. In all likelihood, before Israel’s air forces could return to Israeli airspace, massive volleys of rocket fire would be hitting the country from Lebanon, Gaza and Syria — and possibly even from Iran itself. Striking Iran’s nuclear facilities would be only the beginning, not the end, of a hot war between Israel and Iran.

Prepared or not, Israel and Washington both appear to be out of time — Iran’s threat is substantial, and it is only intensifying. Until now, Jerusalem’s “war between wars” covert approach against Iran was sufficient to tactically frustrate Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, largely via sabotage and assassinations of key Iranian nuclear physicists. It no longer is — not when HEU is 60 percent enriched. Measured in Doomsday Clock terms, it is five minutes to midnight in Jerusalem and Tehran — and in Megiddo, the historical biblical site of Armageddon in Israel.

Mark Toth is a retired economist, historian and entrepreneur who has worked in banking, insurance, publishing and global commerce. He is a former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis, and has lived in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world, including London, Tel Aviv, Augsburg and Nagoya. Follow him on Twitter @MCTothSTL.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: Pence struggles to escape Trump’s long shadow

A new, bright spotlight is about to be shone onto the complicated relationship between former President Trump and his former Vice President Mike Pence.

The third televised hearing of the House Select Committee on Jan. 6, set for Thursday afternoon, will focus on efforts by Trump and his allies to pressure Pence to help overturn the 2020 election. 

Pence resisted those efforts, and President Biden’s victory was duly confirmed.

These days Pence is widely thought to be mulling his own possible bid for the White House in 2024. If he goes forward, it will require careful management of the dynamics between him and his former boss.

One Pence adviser said that the former vice president has no intention of going scorched earth against Trump but that he intends to chart his own course. 

There have already been signs that he has been doing so, on everything from Georgia’s primary elections to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Thursday’s hearing will, by its nature, demonstrate the distance between Pence and Trump, which grew to a crescendo when pro-Trump protesters on Jan. 6 called for Pence to be hanged. 

Pence refused to leave the Capitol that day, despite being asked twice by Secret Service to evacuate, according to a book by Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker of the Washington Post published last year.

The hearing will feature witnesses close to Pence.

Greg Jacob, his chief counsel at the time of the insurrection, is expected to offer public testimony. Jacob was central to efforts to push back on Team Trump’s attempts to suggest that Pence could somehow act to prevent Congress’s certification of votes from the electoral college.

The Trump scheme, advocated by conservative lawyer John Eastman, would have had Pence declining to count the electoral college votes from certain states where Trump supporters put up uncertified alternate slates of electors. Rather than declare Biden the rightful victor, the election’s outcome would then have been determined by state congressional delegations and perhaps a handful of state legislatures.

Amid the chaos of Jan. 6, Jacob at one point emailed Eastman, telling him, “Thanks to your bullshit we are now under siege.”

Retired U.S. Appeals Court Judge Michael Luttig, an informal advisor to Pence, is also expected to appear before the committee. And former Pence chief of staff Marc Short has previously testified in private.

The bigger picture, beyond Thursday, is one in which Pence has sought to escape from Trump’s shadow without alienating voters who still revere the former president.

“I think he is definitely running, and I think he is pretty plausible,” said Republican strategist John Feehery, who is also a columnist for The Hill. “But he has got to somehow peel the religious conservatives away from Trump. They are still pretty tight with Trump, and a lot of them don’t like Pence because he is seen as having turned on Trump.”

In a February speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Pence contended that Trump had been incorrect in his theories about what any vice president could do.

“President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election,” Pence said.

But he was careful to wrap that argument in terms that would be appealing to most Republicans.

“Frankly there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president. Under the Constitution, I had no right to change the outcome of our election. And [Vice President] Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat [the Democrats] in 2024,” he said.

The following month, soon after Russian President Vladimir Putin had launched his invasion of Ukraine, Pence told a crowd of Republican donors, “There is no room in this party for apologists for Putin. There is only room for champions of freedom.”

The remark was widely seen as an implicit shot at Trump, who had praised the Russian president’s “savvy” and strategic “genius” in the days leading up to the invasion. But Pence did not name Trump.

Last month, Pence rallied with Republican incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp on the night before primary elections in Georgia. 

Trump had desperately sought to oust Kemp, because he too had resisted efforts to overturn the election. 

Again, Pence confined his remarks largely to praise of Kemp’s record and made no mention of Trump. 

In the end, Kemp defeated Trump’s choice, former Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), in a landslide.

GOP strategist Rick Tyler, a Trump critic, argued that “It’s clear that Pence is rolling out his distancing” from the former president.

Praising Pence’s self-discipline, Tyler said, “I think Mike has a long way to go but I also think he is very smart and he will be patient, and he will take his political opportunities when the environment is right.”

Tyler acknowledged that 2024 is a now-or-never moment for Pence if he wants to ever become president. But he also predicted that Pence was too cautious a politician to throw his hat into the ring without seeing a real chance of success.

It all comes back to Trump, once again. 

If Pence wants the nomination, he will be vying for the support of voters who still overwhelmingly view the former president in favorable terms. 

An Economist/YouGov poll released Wednesday showed 80 percent of Republican voters holding a favorable view of Trump. Pence was viewed favorably by a notably lower majority, 64 percent.

Other opinion polls show the steep gradient Pence faces. A Politico/Morning Consult poll earlier this month showed him in third place in a hypothetical battle for the 2024 nomination. 

With 12 percent support, Pence was close to second placed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, at 18 percent, but way behind Trump, at 51 percent.

Pence has not testified to the Jan. 6 committee. 

But he’ll be watching events on Thursday as closely as anyone, for what they say about his future as well as his recent past.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage. Brett Samuels contributed reporting.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democratic senators say Biden should make call on second term

Democratic senators are pushing back on whispers within their party that President Biden, 79, is too old to run for a second term. 

Senators say they will strongly support Biden if he opts to run for re-election, despite growing concerns over his low public approval rating and his ability to win a grueling presidential election when he will be 81 years old.  

Biden’s viability as a candidate in 2024 is becoming a hot topic of debate even though the next presidential election is more than two years away.  

The New York Times reported Sunday that many Democratic lawmakers and party officials increasingly view Biden as “an anchor that should be cut loose in 2024,” citing interviews with 50 Democratic officials.

Former chief Obama political strategist David Axelrod told The Times that Biden’s age “would be a major issue.”  

But Democratic senators are trying to stamp out talk of replacing Biden, fearful that the last thing they need heading into the 2022 midterms is more intra-party dissension.  

“I think it’s too soon to start that speculation. He’s got to complete this year, second year of his presidency. Then of course the speculation will grow. I can’t say at this point what I would recommend,” Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said when asked about party officials who have privately raised misgivings about a second Biden term.  

Durbin acknowledged that Biden’s age will be a discussion in the run-up to 2024 but argued that Biden is doing well, given the enormous challenges he faces on high inflation and the war in Ukraine.  

“Age is a factor for everybody but I don’t see any evidence that he can’t perform and I think he’s doing so at the highest levels,” Durbin said.  

Some Democratic lawmakers are voicing frustration that donors and party officials are getting distracted by speculation about Biden’s political future instead of focusing on the very real threat that they may lose control of the Senate in November.  

One Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity warned that Biden’s ability to get things in Washington and add to his record of accomplishments before the 2024 election will be severely diminished if Republicans win back the Senate majority.  

“There’s a lot of worry,” the senator acknowledged. “My focus is really on the midterms because we have to keep the Senate majority. If we don’t keep the Senate majority, the Biden presidency is gravely undermined and he may not be able to run again.” 

“Here’s what I think of all the speculation: Instead of all of the handwringing and head-holding aimed at 2024, I just wish that people would focus a little more on the midterms and put their money where their mouths are,” the senator added.  

Speculation over Biden’s future is complicated by widespread expectations among Democrats that former President Trump is going to make another run for the White House and has an excellent chance of winning the GOP nomination.  

Biden’s already shown he can beat Trump in a head-to-head matchup and Democratic lawmakers are leery about talk of replacing him with another nominee who doesn’t have a proven track record of winning on the national level.  

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, said she’ll support whatever decision Biden makes about running for re-election.  

“I’m a supporter of the president, whatever he wants to do,” she said.  

Stabenow said she hasn’t heard whispers from fellow Democrats who don’t want Biden to run for another term.  

“I’ve been so busy negotiating the mental health and gun package. I’m not hearing that,” she said.  

Biden’s political future has come under greater scrutiny amid polls showing his approval rating steadily sinking.  

A Reuters/Ipsos poll published Wednesday showed that Biden’s approval rating has fallen in three straight weeks, dipping to 39 percent. The two-day survey of 1,005 adults showed that 56 percent of Americans disapprove of Biden’s job performance.  

Most Democratic senators, despite such polls, publicly say they fully expect Biden to run for a second term, even though he would be 82 years old on Inauguration Day 2025.  

“I look forward to working hard for Joe Biden’s re-election in 2024,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), one of Biden’s closest allies on Capitol Hill.  

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said “he’s going to be the nominee and he’s going to be strong.” 

Asked about reports that a growing number of Democrats think Biden should step aside for Vice President Harris or another rising progressive star to run for the presidency, Casey said, “I don’t agree with any of that.”  

He said Biden “will be ready to run and will have a lot to talk about when he runs.”

“I think the biggest problem we’ve had is we don’t lift up and brag enough about what he has done and what we’ve done with our majorities,” Casey said, referring to passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan to help the nation through the COVID-19 pandemic, a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, a postal reform bill, and the confirmation of the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.  

Casey also said that Democrats need to do more to highlight Republican opposition to popular proposals, pointing out that most Republicans voted against the bipartisan infrastructure package and not a single GOP lawmaker voted for the American Rescue Plan.  

The Hill reported in April that Biden plans to run for a second term but that hasn’t quelled speculation that he’ll change his mind if he can’t improve his low approval rating.  

Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are some of the names floated as potential presidential candidates should Biden step away from office.  

Biden’s defenders on Capitol Hill argue his job approval rating is being weighed down by inflation and that it’s not his fault, putting the blame instead on oil companies and other companies who have raised prices to fatten profits.  

“I think it’s tough when factors behind his control like inflation are happening. I understand people’s frustrations,” said Stabenow, who doesn’t think Biden is getting enough credit for what he did to keep the economy strong despite the pandemic.  

“He spent the first year making sure people’s lives were saved and children got back to school and people survived and small businesses survived,” she said. “The problem is with price gouging on gas prices and other prices that have gone up, that’s what people feel.” 

Democratic lawmakers predict that if Biden decides to retire from public service after four years in the White House, it will open the gates for a crowd of challengers to replace him.   

“I think this is Joe’s decision and I think if he runs, he’ll get plenty of support. And if he decides not to, look out Nellie! There will be a lot of happy TV stations,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), predicting political drama that would drive television ratings if Biden steps aside.  

Tester said as many as 20 Democrats could throw their hats in the ring if Biden forgoes a second term but he doesn’t think that’s likely. 

“I already think Joe’s going to run again. I do,” he said.  

He argued that former President Clinton’s job approval rating dropped below 40 percent in 1993, prompting predictions he couldn’t win a second term.  

Clinton later soundly beat then-Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) in the 1996 presidential election.  

Clinton, however, was 50 years old when he won a second term. Dole was 73.   

Source: TEST FEED1