Categories Uncategorized

Trump calls Biden 'an enemy of the state'

Former President Trump on Saturday called President Biden “an enemy of the state” in response to a primetime speech in which Biden called Republicans influenced by Trump a “threat” to democracy.

“This week, Joe Biden came to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to give the most vicious, hateful and divisive speech ever delivered by an American president,” Trump said, adding that Biden vilified the more than 70 million people who voted for the GOP nominee in 2020. “As threats to democracy and as enemies of the state, you’re all enemies of the state,” he said gesturing to his supporters. “He’s an enemy of the state.”

Trump made the remarks at his first rally since the Aug. 8 FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property. He came to Pennsylvania to rally for GOP Senate candidate Mehmet Oz and gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano.

“Two months from now the people of Pennsylvania are going to fire the radical left Democrats and you are going to elect Doug Mastriano as your next governor, and you are going to send my friend Oz, he is a great guy, to the US Senate,” the former president said. “You’re going to elect an amazing slate of true America first Republicans to Congress.”

But Trump also made Biden the focus of his rally, in which he also criticized the FBI and the Department of Justice, who are investigating the former president and his handling of hundreds of classified documents, some of which were designated top secret in possible violations of the Espionage Act as well as other federal laws.

“The FBI and the Justice Department have become vicious monsters, controlled by radical left scoundrels, lawyers and the media, who tell them what to do,” Trump said.

Biden spoke Thursday night from Philadelphia, where he tied Trump and other so-called “MAGA Republicans” to the spread of conspiracy theories and casting doubt on the presidential election.

“Not every Republican, not even a majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology,” Biden said. “But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.”

Trump also called the FBI search at his Mar-a-Lago home an example of “the very real threats of American freedom.”

“There could be no more vivid example of the very real threats of American freedom than just a few weeks ago you saw when we witnessed one of the most shocking abuses of power by any administration in American history,” Trump said. “The shameful raid and breaking of my home Mar-a-Lago was a travesty of justice.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Will Joe Manchin run for president?

With President Biden and Donald Trump currently the most likely nominees of their respective parties and remarkably unpopular, it seems the presidency could be up for grabs in 2024. Could Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) make a bid for the White House? And would it work?

Until Manchin’s agreement to support the improbably named “Inflation Reduction Act,” his actions during the Biden administration looked like any Democratic Senator in a conservative state trying to thread the needle for re-election. After winning several statewide elections by comfortable margins, Manchin only won re-election in 2018 by less than 4 points and failed to top 50 percent. Worse, Manchin ran over 20 points behind his Republican colleague, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).

Opposing much of Biden’s agenda in 2021 made Manchin popular with Republicans but severely damaged his standing with Democrats. According to a Morning Consult West Virginia poll, his approval among Democrats fell from 63 percent down to 44 percent from early 2021 to April of 2022, while his approval among Republicans shot up from 35 percent to 69 percent. His overall approval in West Virginia went from 51 percent to 57 percent.

Based on that early polling, it looked like Manchin had successfully positioned himself to survive re-election in a Republican state, with only a potential Democratic primary challenge to worry about. However, given the extreme unlikelihood of any Democrat other than Manchin keeping the seat, it would seem improbable that Democrats would throw Manchin overboard.

No more country roads

Why would Manchin not run for re-election and instead tilt at the presidential windmill?

Perhaps because his time as a D.C. power broker is likely coming to an end.

If Republicans take the Senate majority, Manchin is just a minority senator with little leverage. Lost in all the RINO insults hurled at Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the fact that both have generally stuck with their GOP colleagues. Manchin may have little to no leverage with a Republican majority.

Manchin only matters to the Democrats when they need his vote. His centrist views are anathema to the leftist ‘intelligentsia’ and activists who dominate party leadership. If Democrats pick up one seat, they can play Manchin off against their other thorn, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). A two-seat gain for Democrats ends even that leverage.

There is nothing worse in politics than the abrupt shift from powerful to irrelevant.

But a run for president could be just the tonic.

The question for Manchin would be whether to run in a Democratic primary or to run as an independent straight out of the gate. If he were to choose the independent route, he most likely would be running to make a statement rather than making a legitimate bid for Oval Office.

The record of third party/independent candidacies is pretty poor. A candidate from a new party has never won the presidency since at least before the Civil War. The best performance was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, who finished second and managed to throw the election to the execrable Woodrow Wilson. Since that election, no independent has so much as carried a state, except for purely regional candidates in 1924, 1948 and 1968. The best a national candidate has done was Ross Perot in 1992, managing 18.9 percent of the popular vote and almost winning Maine.

Manchin might be able to finagle the nomination of the embryonic Forward Party, giving him some semblance of organization and fundraising. And he would be a perfect fit, given that the Forward Party appears to be half attitude, half McKinsey-style consulting firm and totally searching for an actual identity.

Manchin might even get some real traction with voters.

Perhaps in a race between an 81-year-old Biden and a 78-year-old Trump, voters will opt for the relative youth and vigor of a 77-year-old Manchin.

The reality of an independent bid is Manchin in the public spotlight, with his rhetoric forcing both major party nominees to react. Manchin would be a spoiler candidate with the ability to tip the race. He would most certainly cost either the Democrats or the Republicans the White House, at least that is what the eventual loser will say.

The end for Joe Biden?

A more interesting alternative is a Manchin bid for the Democratic nomination.

Manchin announcing for president would almost certainly be the end for Biden’s re-election hopes.

While Democratic voters are not necessarily thirsting for Manchin, they are looking for someone other than Biden. Only 37 percent of Democrats want Biden to run again in a recent YouGov poll, making his 84 percent approval rating with his fellow partisans looking quite hollow.

Out of touch with the loudest segment of the party, Manchin could bet on appealing to moderate and more centrist Democratic voters — or even to voters repelled by the rancor that is endemic on the progressive left. More so, he could position himself as a winner. After all, Biden swept the Democratic field primarily based on a fear that the other candidates could not beat Trump.

Today, the script has flipped for Biden. Trump, in spite of his continued buffoonery and mounting legal problems, is now leading Biden in several state and national polls. Biden’s national approval remains stubbornly stuck in the low 40s. Vice President Kamala Harris looks like hardly a better option with an even worse approval rating than Biden, 6 points lower in the YouGov poll.

Perhaps Manchin figures he could win if facing a scrum of hard-core progressives and a stumbling Vice-President. He would have a difficult time of it. The Democratic primary process, while improved for moderates in that it has whittled away many of the activist-dominated caucuses, remains trouble for a candidate who cannot get majorities. The proportional allocation of delegates is set up for a long primary process, provided multiple candidates can maintain some strength.

With Manchin so detested by the liberals, it seems highly unlikely their favorites would slowly bow out as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) did for Biden. As sitting vice president, even a wooden candidate like Kamala Harris should be able to last. That could lead to a brokered convention, where it seems likely the progressives would sort things out amongst themselves and leave Manchin out in the cold.

A Manchin candidacy looks to be akin to Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 challenge to Lyndon Johnson — ultimately quixotic, but the start of a feeding frenzy that brings down an unpopular incumbent.

And that just might be the goal for Manchin.

Will he decide to get the last laugh on the Biden administration and their attacks on him by bringing down the whole edifice?

In a last twist of fate, a collapse of Biden’s re-election hopes could be the path for a truly progressive Democratic nominee. And wouldn’t that be the ultimate irony? Joe Manchin, bete noire of the liberals, hands the left just what they want.

Keith Naughton, Ph.D., is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm. Naughton is a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant. Follow him on Twitter @KNaughton711.

Source: TEST FEED1

Top House Democrat says 'mainstream' Republicans are fighting against MAGA to defend democracy

Rep. Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.) on Sunday said “mainstream” Republicans are pushing back against the MAGA wing of the GOP to defend democracy, adding that “leading conservative voices” are largely in agreement with Democrats in condemning the attack on the U.S. Capitol and pushing back on claims the 2020 election was stolen.

During an interview with “Fox News Sunday” guest host Mike Emanuel, Maloney defended President Biden’s primetime speech on Thursday night, when the president warned Americans the nation faces a threat to democracy from “extremist” supporters of former President Trump and his MAGA wing of the GOP.

“The point of that speech is that mainstream Republicans and Democrats agree on things — it’s wrong to attack the United States Capitol, to spread a pernicious lie about the election being stolen,” Maloney, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said. “I mean, Republicans and Democrats are in large part in agreement.

“It’s the MAGA movement that is extreme, that has ripped away reproductive freedom, that justifies the attack on the Capitol, that plays footsie with white supremacist and QAnon conspiracy theorists,” he continued. “That’s what the president was talking about.”

Biden delivered the primetime address to Americans after he compared the MAGA movement to “semi-fascism,” drawing the ire of GOP leaders who called for him to apologize to the political party for the comments.

His address last week drew more consternation from the GOP, with top Republicans blasting him as a “divider-in-chief” and saying his speech was a “condescending lecture” that will further polarize the nation.

But Maloney on Sunday noted that some GOP leaders and former members of Trump’s administration, including former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr, have spoken out against the conspiracy the 2020 election was stolen.

“This is mainstream [Republicans] versus MAGA,” he said. “The president has a duty to defend American democracy, and he is in agreement with leading conservative voices. … This isn’t just President Biden.”

Source: TEST FEED1

FEMA administrator says there's no timeline for when Jackson, Miss. will have access to water

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Deanne Criswell said on Sunday there is no timeline for when residents of the city of Jackson, Miss. will have access to drinkable water. 

“I think it’s still too early to tell,” Criswell told host Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.
“I think that having EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, we had a really good conversation on Friday about what it’s going to take in the assessments that they’re doing.” 

“And so it’s going to happen in phases,” she added. “The focus right now is making sure we can get bottled water out.”

Criswell visited Jackson on Friday along with the Biden administration’s infrastructure director, Mitch Landrieu, and the city’s mayor, Chokwe Antar Lumumba (D). 

“We’re providing temporary measures to help increase the water pressure so people can at least flush their toilets and use the faucets,” Criswell told Bash on Sunday.

“The longer term and the midterm about how long it’s going to take to actually make it safe to drink, [I] think we have a lot more to learn about what it’s going to take to get that plant up and running.” 

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) declared a state of emergency last week over the city’s water crisis. 

Lumumba told ABC News that water issues in city, which has a majority of Black residents, have been prevalent for decades, citing the lack of capital improvement, required maintenance and human capital to repair its aging system. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Seven races that could decide the Senate majority

Democrats and Republicans are suiting up for a fierce final stretch to the November midterm elections.

With Labor Day seen as the unofficial general election kickoff, they have just over two months to win over voters.

The upper chamber is split 50-50, but Democrats hold a slight edge over Republicans through Vice President Harris’s tiebreaking vote. That one-woman majority has helped Democrats deliver a number of legislative victories, including a multibillion-dollar climate, tax and health care package.

This November, Democrats are looking to expand that majority to tick more tasks off of their agenda, while Republicans are intent on tipping the balance of power in their favor to put a check on Democrats in Washington.

These are the seven Senate races that could decide the majority in the upper chamber:

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is home to one of the most highly watched Senate contests this cycle, with Republican celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz facing off against Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) for the seat being vacated by Sen. Pat Toomey (R).

Democrats view the race as one of their best pickup opportunities in the upper chamber, and two election forecasters last month moved the race from “toss-up” to “lean Democrat.”

Oz, who was endorsed by former President Trump, won the Republican nomination by just 1,000 votes over former hedge fund CEO David McCormick. Fetterman, who is considered a progressive, easily beat out centrist Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.) for his party’s nomination.

The race between the two men has turned personal.

Fetterman has worked for months to portray Oz as a carpetbagger from New Jersey and an out-of-touch television-star-turned-politician, while Oz has tried to put a spotlight on Fetterman’s health.

The lieutenant governor suffered a stroke in May, days before the primary, which kept him off the campaign trail for about three months.

Fetterman holds a strong lead over Oz in FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls, 48.3 percent to 40.2 percent.

Ohio

Ohio is hosting a marquee Senate race this cycle, with Rep. Tim Ryan (D) going head-to-head against “Hillbilly Elegy” author and venture capitalist J.D. Vance to replace Sen. Rob Portman (R), who opted not to run for another term.

Vance, who has Trump’s endorsement, bested a crowded field of GOP candidates to win his party’s nomination, while Ryan easily skated onto his party’s ticket.

Ryan, a 10-term congressman and 2020 presidential candidate, is seeking to present himself as a sensible moderate in his quest to win over voters in a state that voted for both Trump and former President Obama twice. He has distanced himself from Biden on some occasions, and previously said he “agreed with Trump on trade.”

Vance, a Trump critic-turned-supporter, touted his closeness to the former president during the primary battle, but then largely dissipated from the spotlight.

Ryan has significantly outraised Vance, raking in $9.1 million in the second quarter compared to Vance’s $2.3 million. Last month, the Senate Leadership Fund — a PAC aligned with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — funneled $28 million into Ohio for TV and radio ads bolstering Vance.

Ryan holds a razor-thin lead over Vance in FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls, 45.2 percent to 44.6 percent. The seat is rated “lean Republican” by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Georgia

After winning a nail-biting special election runoff last year that helped Democrats secure their majority in the evenly split upper chamber, Sen. Raphael Warnock (R-Ga.) is back on the ballot with hopes of winning a full term in Congress.

His seat was widely viewed as one of the GOP’s best pickup opportunities, but Republicans have been growing concerned over their nominee, former college football Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker.

Walker has been bruised by unforced errors on the campaign trail, revelations regarding his business experience and successes, allegations of domestic abuse and news that he has three previously undisclosed children.

But Walker is backed by Trump and Mitch McConnell and has high name recognition in the state.

On the money front, Warnock has proven to be a prolific fundraiser, ranking in more than $17.2 million in the second quarter of this year. Walker raised around $6.2 million in the same time period.

Still, the race remains close, according to FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls, with Warnock currently holding a slight edge over Walker, 46.7 percent to 45 percent.

The seat is rated a “toss up” by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Arizona

In Arizona, Republican venture capitalist Blake Masters is challenging Sen. Mark Kelly (D), who won a special election in 2020 and is now vying for a full term.

Kelly — a retired NASA astronaut who is one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for reelection this cycle — has worked to present himself as a moderate, bucking Biden and his party on a number of occasions throughout his short tenure as a senator. 

Masters, who is endorsed by Trump and has support from Republican megadonor Peter Thiel, has put a spotlight on his close ties to Trump and at one point said he would have objected to the results of the 2020 presidential election.

But he has appeared to be moderating his tone in recent days, editing his campaign website to soften language regarding his stance on abortion and election .

Kelly has maintained a lead over Masters, according to FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls. He is currently ahead of his GOP challenger, 50.2 percent to 42.4 percent.

The seat is rated a “toss up” by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Nevada

Nevada is shaping up to be a potential problem for Democrats, with former Attorney General Adam Laxalt (R) mounting a bid against Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D).

While Cortez Masto holds a slight lead, Republicans see the Silver State as a potential pickup opportunity this November. The seat is rated a “toss up” by the Cook Political Report.

Still, Cortez Masto significantly outraised Laxalt in the second quarter, raking in more than $7.5 million, compared to the Republican’s $2.8 million.

Laxalt, who is backed by Trump and served as the co-chairman of his reelection campaign in Nevada in 2020, has expressed support for unproven claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump — a stance that Democrats have since seized on.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin is home to another marquee Senate race this cycle, with two-term Sen. Ron Johnson (R) facing a challenge from progressive Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes (D).

Democrats see the Badger State race as a seat they can flip. Johnson, a close Trump ally who is known for making controversial comments, is one of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans vying for reelection this cycle.

He has gotten wrapped up in the House Jan. 6 select committee’s investigation, drawn headlines for his stance on coronavirus vaccines and most recently, he suggested that Social Security and Medicare should be classified as discretionary spending.

On the Democratic side, Barnes has highlighted his parents’ connection to unions, his experience community organizing, his time spent as a state lawmaker and his job serving as lieutenant governor.

Barnes has come in ahead of Johnson in a few polls last month, but Johnson significantly outperformed Barnes in fundraising during the second quarter, raking in more than $7 million compared to the Democrat’s more than $2.1 million.

Despite his controversies, Johnson has won two uphill Senate battles, including an upset victory in 2016 after being all but left for politically dead.

The seat is rated a “toss up” by the Cook Political Report.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire holds its primary on Sept. 13, so Democrats don’t yet know who will take on Sen. Maggie Hassan (D) in November. But they do know she’s vulnerable.

Hassan, who was first elected to the Senate in 2016, has made abortion a top issue for her campaign after the Supreme Court overturned the landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade. 

She bucked the Biden administration earlier this year on its plan to end a Trump-era immigration policy — a stance a number of vulnerable moderate senators up for reelection took.

On the Republican side, retired Army Gen. Don Bolduc is an early leader of the pack in the primary. In a University of New Hampshire Survey Center Granite State poll conducted last month, Bolduc held a 21 point lead over his closest opponent, state Senate President Chuck Morse.

Businessmen Vikram Mansharamani, finance executive Bruce Fenton and former Londonderry Town Manager Kevin Smith are also running for the GOP nod.

The race is currently rated “lean Democrat” by the Cook Political Report.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why China is fuming over NASA’s Artemis program

Most of the civilized world is thrilled at the mission of Artemis 1, the NASA-led first step for returning human beings to the lunar surface. The same cannot be said about China. An article in the Global Times, China’s English language mouthpiece, has some snarky things to say about Artemis and NASA in general. The article stated, “as NASA is trying hard to relive its Apollo glories, China is working on innovative plans to carry out its own crewed moon landing missions.”

The article accused the United States of fomenting a new space race. “China’s crewed moon landing is more in line with scientific principles, but NASA might grow more hostile against China in the space domain given the huge pressure it is facing to maintain its global leadership in moon exploration.”

A recent CNN article suggests that the Chinese are right when they accuse the United States of conducting a space race. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson referred to such a contest.

Scott Pace, former executive director of the National Space Council and current director of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute, laid out the stakes of the new space race.

“It’s not just our machines or our people that we send into space. It’s our values. It’s who we are. It’s things like rule of law, democracy, human rights, and a free market economy. I see Artemis and our human expansion into space as a projection of our American values. It’s about diplomatically shaping this new domain that we depend on,” Pace said.

Zhao Lijian, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, accused the United States of “smearing” China’s “normal and reasonable outer space endeavors.” We are to believe a country that practices genocide against the Uyghur minority group, threatens Taiwan and engages in cyber espionage along with other clandestine activities around the world plans nothing alarming in space.

An old adage states that when you are receiving flack, you are over the target. So, it is with the Chinese complaints about Artemis. The snark with which Chinese officials are greeting Artemis does not demonstrate disdain for the program but more likely fear of the NASA-led international return to the moon effort.

Beijing knows what happened during the last race to the moon, when the Apollo 11 mission helped the United States win the Cold War. China also knows that soft political power, a nation’s ability to shape world events without direct use of military force, is one of many prizes that can be won by returning to the moon. The Chinese are determined that China and not the United States win that prize.

However, superpower competition for bragging rights is not the most important reason for expanding human civilization into space. Increasingly, human beings depend on a host of technological devices to prosper and survive. Everything from smart phones to electric cars and the technology to power them need natural resources to build and maintain them. Too little of those natural resources exist on Earth to keep the production lines going. Mining operations have environmental consequences that are hard to mitigate.

Mining natural resources from the moon, asteroids and other venues outside Earth will become increasingly important if human civilization is to survive and thrive. Every resource from industrial metals such as iron, aluminum and titanium, to rare earths is out there for the taking. Space is also a source of energy, from sunlight that can be captured by space-based solar power stations and beamed to Earth, to helium-3 mined on the moon and used as fuel in clean-burning fusion power plants.

Besides the development of an infrastructure to mine, process and transport space resources in an economic manner, the big question is, who will own them?

The United States and the other signatories of the Artemis Accords envision a system in which private companies will own the resources they extract, although not the territory they reside on, because of the Outer Space Treaty. These companies will develop space resources and sell them to other companies that will build useful things out of them. This regime will usher forth a new era of abundance and peace.

If its behavior on Earth is any indication, China’s approach will be more imperial in its nature. Beijing will not be disposed to share the bounty that space has to offer. It will use control of space resources to dominate the Earth. Such a future should be avoided at all costs.

 Mark R. Whittington is the author of space exploration studies “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond,” and “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. 

Source: TEST FEED1

An alternative strategy for Democrats to secure the midterms

With just eight weeks until the midterm elections, things are starting to look up for Democrats.

They now lead the generic vote after trailing Republicans for months: nearly one-half (47 percent) of registered voters say they would vote for a Democrat, compared to 44 percent for a Republican, per recent Wall Street Journal polling.

Further, gas prices are on the decline, President Biden’s signature spending bill passed, and voters in Kansas — a state Trump won by 15 percent in 2020 — resoundingly rejected a Republican-led abortion ban, indicating that protecting abortion rights could be a motivating issue for voters in November.

Democrats are also outperforming expectations in special elections across the country. This week, Democrat Mary Peltola defeated Sarah Palin for Alaska’s vacant House seat, and last week, Democrat Pat Ryan won an upset victory over Republican Marc Molinaro in New York’s 19th Congressional District.

While these are encouraging developments for Democrats, it would be a mistake to say that the party is not still electorally vulnerable. Inflation continues to destroy Americans’ purchasing power, gas prices — while they have steadily decreased — remain high, gun violence is terrorizing cities and Southern states continue to experience huge surges in illegal immigration.

Ultimately, in order for Democrats’ momentum to continue through November, the party needs to adopt a third-way agenda — and specifically, demonstrate their ability to practice fiscal prudence and lead on both crime and immigration reform, while also continuing to advocate for abortion rights and gun safety. 

Practicing fiscal prudence is a key component of a new Democratic approach. Rising prices and the high cost of living are weighing on American families, and Democrats can’t afford to be dragged further to the left on economic policy. The party needs to communicate about how they will lower costs, secure America’s energy independence and avoid tax increases that strangle American businesses and families.

Further, as crime rates surge across the country — with nearly 9-in-10 (89 percent) of Americans saying crime is a “very” or “somewhat” important issue to them, per Economist/YouGov polling — Democrats should pledge ahead of the midterms to pursue a grand bargain with Republicans on criminal justice legislation in the new Congress.

This deal would involve funding and strengthening local law enforcement, while also making the criminal justice system fairer for Black Americans, who are disproportionately victims of police misconduct and are mistreated under the current system.

Beyond the necessity and practicality of such reforms, by prioritizing crime reduction, national Democrats can shield electorally vulnerable members of their party against GOP attacks linking Democratic policies to rising crime rates.

Critically, national Democrats also must make a concerted effort to reject irresponsible bail reform policies, which allow dangerous criminals to go free. This become a signature marker of the current class of liberal district attorneys and is emerging as a major vulnerability for Democrats in 2022.

Even in deep-blue New York City, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of voters believe these bail reform policies have resulted in increased crime. As a result, the New York district attorney, as well as those in other liberal cities — Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago, among them — have faced significant national blowback, with some even facing recall elections because of these policies. 

Immigration is another key issue that Democrats can double down on ahead of the midterms. Given the crisis in our country — both at the border and in terms of the status of millions of hardworking undocumented immigrants — Democrats need to make a visible effort to move to the center on this issue. 

Over the past year and a half, Americans have been bombarded with news about record-high illegal border crossings and ICE detention centers over capacity. For their part, Republicans have been successful in tying the border crisis to the Biden administration’s failed policies and to the broader national trend of rising crime.

At the same time, progressives have slammed Biden for not making more of an effort to keep his campaign promises to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and protect Dreamers.

Thus, over the next eight weeks, Democrats can advocate for balanced, moderate and targeted immigration policies that secure the border, permanently protect Dreamers and create a pathway to citizenship for more than 11 million undocumented immigrants. 

Last Thursday in a speech to the nation, President Biden demonstrated — for the most part — the type of centrist, conciliatory leadership that Democrats need to practice if they hope to maintain midterm momentum.

Speaking to the current divisions in the U.S., Biden made clear that he was not seeking to demonize all Republicans by calling out the Trump-wing of the party for their attacks on democracy, and said that he hopes to work with the majority of the GOP to find common ground for the sake of the nation.

“Now, I want to be very clear, very clear upfront. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans are MAGA Republicans … I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans … I’m an American president, not a president of red America or blue America, but of all America,” Biden said. 

Later in the speech, he urged the country to build a future that does not dwell on the “past, not on divisive culture wars, not on the politics of grievance,” but on “a future we can build together.”

While other segments of President Biden’s speech were less conciliatory, he largely struck the right tone by appealing to the non-MAGA wing of the Republican party and underscoring the importance of preserving American democracy.

Over the next eight weeks, it is essential that Democrats communicate an uplifting vision for the future that is focused on addressing the nation’s most pressing issues — inflation, crime and immigration — while also advocating stanchly for protecting abortion rights, safeguarding gay marriage, strengthening gun safety laws and securing American democracy. 

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. His new book is “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Our narrowing options in Ukraine

Some six months since the start of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the emergence of three realities in the war is forcing Washington to wrestle with some hard choices.

The first is that the combination of Ukrainian courage and U.S. technology has proved quite potent in blocking Russia’s attempt to conquer the bulk of Ukraine. American air defense support has denied Russia the air superiority essential to the rapid advance of its ground forces. American anti-tank weapons and targeting intelligence have prevented Russia’s armor from sweeping into Kyiv, and Russia has suffered significant personnel losses, particularly in its officer corps. Putin has been forced to downsize his battlefield ambitions and rely on a barrage of stand-off artillery and rocket strikes to slowly grind down Ukraine’s defenses in its Donbas region.

The second is that despite this defensive success, Ukraine has been unable to build offensive momentum and force the Russian military to withdraw. The delivery of advanced American artillery, rocket and missile systems has certainly helped Ukraine to strike Russian supply lines and weapons platforms, but its infantry has not been able to muster the numbers required to seize ground defended by Russian forces. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insists that his long-promised offensive against Russian forces near Kherson will change this picture. But a near-term Ukrainian victory in the war is difficult to imagine.

The third is that American efforts to strong-arm Putin into retreat by crippling the Russian economy and isolating him on the world stage have sputtered. Western sanctions are no doubt hurting Russia; the International Monetary Fund forecasts a 6 percent decline in Russia’s GDP this year, and its technology sector faces a grim future. But this compares to a greater than 40 percent economic plunge in Ukraine. Russia’s currency is stronger today than it was before the war, despite President Biden’s vow to “turn the ruble into rubble.” Russian earnings from energy exports have actually grown thanks to higher oil prices and reluctance outside the West to join sanctions. Putin is persona non grata in the West, but he is hardly a pariah in the rest of the world, as his scheduled attendance at the G-20 summit meeting in Indonesia in November will attest.

Meanwhile, the economic fallout from the war is landing on the West as well as on Russia. Americans are grappling with higher gasoline and food prices. Europe is facing not only the prospect of a cold winter, but also significant disruptions in key industries, as sanctions-related shortages of natural gas and other Russian commodities take their toll on the construction, metals, and automotive sectors. Germany, highly dependent on Russian energy supplies, is headed toward significant economic turbulence in the coming months if current trends continue.

These realities have reshaped Putin’s strategy. Recognizing America’s advantages in battlefield technology, Putin has turned the conflict into an endurance contest that plays to Russian strengths. He is relying increasingly on China and the Global South to outflank Western sanctions, while counting on the vaunted pain tolerance of the Russian people to outlast Western political resolve. And he is apparently calculating that, even with sustained Western support, Ukraine cannot match Russia’s reserves of manpower, munitions and economic resilience in a war of attrition. Putin may be unable to conquer Ukraine altogether, but he can turn it into a bleeding wound for years to come, unable to mend itself and in no condition to join NATO.

Unless we change the terms of engagement, time may well be Putin’s ally in Ukraine. What choices do we have to counter his moves?

Tightening the economic noose around Russia will be ineffective. Any faint hopes we may once have entertained for winning China’s support against Russia were destroyed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent visit to Taiwan. Western sanctions on Russia have proved to be an economic bonanza for India, which is eagerly purchasing Russian oil at discount prices and reselling it in Europe. On balance, the Global South is far more alarmed by perceived American economic and cultural imperialism than by Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Military escalation in pursuit of a Ukrainian victory would be an enormous gamble. Washington’s large cadre of hawks insists that we should “pull out all the stops by providing Ukraine the means it needs to prevail.” But this almost certainly would require much more than simply sending longer-range artillery and rocket systems. Ukraine needs massive help operating and maintaining these systems, equipping and manning its air force, and training and expanding its ground forces — all time-intensive tasks that could drag the United States more deeply into the fighting. Those advocating all-out military support for Ukraine presuppose that Putin would accept defeat rather than risk a direct — and possibly nuclear — clash with NATO. If that assumption were proved wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic.

Fostering political change inside Russia is at best a long-term endeavor. But if Washington means to encourage opposition to Putin, its current approach is backfiring. Even Russians who have no love for Putin and lament the rupture in relations with the West have been shocked by the degree of Western animus toward the Russian people and culture in recent years. The United States is doing little to appeal to Russia’s citizenry or to show that we are open to improved relations in return for improved Russian behavior. Washington’s recent announcement that it is establishing a separate military command to oversee the aid mission in Ukraine appears to bear out Putin’s messaging to Russians that their fight is with the United States, which is intent on Russia’s demise.

As long as we are unwilling to steer toward a compromise settlement — which, as Kyiv itself proposed early in the war, would have to involve some form of armed neutrality for Ukraine — we face a choice between escalating our involvement and engaging in an endurance contest in which Putin likes his chances. Neither approach is likely to end well for Ukraine or for the United States.

George Beebe is director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He is a former director of Russia analysis at the CIA, and a former staff adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on Russian affairs.

Source: TEST FEED1

7 injured in Norfolk, Virginia shooting

A shooting in Norfolk, Va. early Sunday morning left seven people injured, authorities said, two of whom have life-threatening injuries.

Norfolk Police on Sunday received a call around midnight about a shooting in the 5000 block of Killam Avenue, near the campus of Old Dominion University, the department tweeted.

Seven people were injured and taken to the hospital.

Two of those injured have life-threatening injuries, with the remaining five having non-life threatening injuries.

No other details were immediately released.

–-Developing

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump must explain what he did and why he did it

On Aug. 8, 2022, FBI agents searched several areas in Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. They removed 15 boxes, 14 of which contained U.S. government documents marked classified, secret, or top secret.

To protect national security, an ongoing criminal investigation, and the individuals involved in it, FBI and Department of Justice officials have a duty, at least for now, not to divulge the contents of the documents, and what prompted them to request a search warrant. Former President Trump has an obligation to explain what he did and why he did it.

To date, Trump’s public statements have been limited to attacks on the FBI, DOJ, and Biden administration, many of which are unsubstantiated or demonstrably false.

Although the search warrant was approved by a judge magistrate, Trump maintained that his home was “under siege” and “occupied” by FBI agents, in a manner akin to the corrupt practices “in broken Third World countries.” He said the “raid” was one episode in a “witch hunt” designed by “Radical Left Democrats” and implemented by Justice Department officials, who are colluding, he said, with President Biden to prevent Trump from running for president in 2024.

Trump asserted that he had issued a “standing order” while he was president that documents moved from the Oval Office to his residence were to be immediately and automatically deemed to be declassified. The alleged mandate did not include consultation with or even notification of relevant agencies; 18 top officials of the Trump administration have characterized the claim that he issued this standing order as “ludicrous,” “a complete fiction,” and “bulls—t.” One of them, former White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, said he could not “imagine that anyone who worked in the White House would have allowed that order to go forward without dying in the ditch to stop it.”

Trump suggested — without evidence — that Biden knew in advance about and approved the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. He also insinuated that FBI agents — “This, after all, was the FBI” — had planted the documents they said they found on the premises.

The former president has insisted that his attorneys and representatives “were cooperating fully” and that “the government could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it.” We now know that his representatives slow-walked the National Archives for over a year, that a grand jury issued a subpoena and DOJ officials visited Mar-a-Lago seeking compliance with it — and still all the documents were not handed over. Although a Trump lawyer certified that all material marked classified had been returned, the search on Aug. 8 yielded twice as many classified documents as had been returned by Trump’s lawyers when they swore there were no more.

If Trump still believes that anyone who is “extremely careless in the handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” is “not fit” to serve in a position of authority in the U.S. government, then he must publicly address the questions that arise from his apparent decision to retain such information in an unsecured location in his home.

Trump should explain why he, unlike his predecessors, should own government documents generated during his tenure in office, and why he chose to transfer specific documents to Mar-a-Lago. Many Americans may sympathize with his desire to keep the meteorological map of Hurricane Dorian he marked up with a black Sharpie or “love letters” from Kim Jong-Un, the Supreme Leader of North Korea. But possession of top secret documents about human and technological sources and methods has already prompted speculation that he wants to prevent the National Archives from acquiring material that could damage his reputation; have close-at-hand communications that he could use to embarrass, intimidate, or injure someone he believes slighted or poses a threat to him; or, among Trump’s conspiracy-driven critics, to accumulate information he can sell.

Trump should also provide a detailed account of who had access to the material stored at Mar-a-Lago, which is a private club visited by many people, who, of course, do not have security clearances. He must indicate as well whether any documents were altered, moved to another location, or destroyed.

The stakes are very high for Trump — and the nation.

The Department of Justice is investigating potential crimes, including mishandling of government records, violations of the Espionage Act (i.e., retention or mishandling of documents containing information that could harm national security or help foreign adversaries), and obstruction of justice.

As U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) declared in 2016, there are many people on the political right “who are going to have to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump, because this is not going to end well, one way or the other.”

If the former president, whose Teflon coating may be wearing thin, wants to dispel perceptions that he is hiding something, and prove Rubio wrong, he has his work cut out for him — especially if, as with the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, he cannot rely on the truth to do it.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of “Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century.”

Source: TEST FEED1