Category Archives: Republican

Schumer says voters worried that MAGA Republican Party was different than the Republican Party that they knew  The Hill

More:

Schumer says voters worried that MAGA Republican Party was different than the Republican Party that they knew - The Hill

The archives currently contain two classes of hindcasts.

Both are described in detail below, with links to the datasets, validation statistics from buoy match-ups, and visualizations of the model data fields.

These hindcasts have been developed in stages, as part of a NOPP project to improve the physics packages of wind-wave models. In atmospheric modeling, a statistically homogeneous dataset can be generated by performing a reanalysis with consistent model setup and using all available data for the entire period. There is not enough data to develop a similar reanalysis for wind waves. However, wave dynamics are different from atmospheric dynamics, in the sense that they represent a forced/damped problem rather than an initial value problem, and wind forcing is the dominant process driving wave dynamics. Therefore it's possible to produce an accurate hindcast without assimilating wave data, but using a wind field from a long-term reanalysis such as the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR, Saha et al 2010). This is a couple reanalysis of atmospheric, oceanic, sea-ice, and land data, at much higher resolution than previous reanalysis.

The production hindcast uses the operational multi-grid spectral wave model WAVEWATCH III with operational NCEP winds and ice fields as input forcing fields. No wave data assimilation is performed. The model is run after the end of each month, with all available data.

UPDATE: 21 Dec 2020 EMC's WAVEWATCH III global wave model Multi-1 will be decommissioned in NCEP operations in February 2021. It is being replaced by a new configuration of global wave model coupled to GFS v16. Details of GFS v16 are available here. There is a plan in place to run the GEFS v12 wave model reanalysis/reforecasts for a period of 20 years starting in 1999. Details on these will be made available later.

Read the original here:

WAVEWATCH III Hindcast and Reanalysis Archives

1. Republicans who question U.S. aid to Ukraine may soon have the power to end it  Los Angeles Times
2. Watch as support for funding Ukraine erodes among Republicans  CNN
3. Ukraine aid under threat in Republican-controlled House  Axios
4. Congressional Republicans Look to Sow Chaos in Ukraine if They Retake Congress  The New Republic
5. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read more:

Republicans who question U.S. aid to Ukraine may soon have the power to end it - Los Angeles Times

Hundreds of Republican midterm candidates have questioned or spread misinformation about the 2020 election.

Hundreds of Republican midterm candidates have questioned or spread misinformation about the 2020 election.

Together they represent a growing consensus in the Republican Party, and a potential threat to American democracy.

Together they represent a growing consensus in the Republican Party, and a potential threat to American democracy.

They include candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and the state offices of governor, secretary of state and attorney general many with clear shots to victory, and some without a chance. They are united by at least one issue: They have all expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. And they are the new normal of the Republican Party.

About the data Karen Yourish and Danielle Ivory collected and analyzed statements of more than 550 Republican midterm candidates. Read more about their reporting.

More than 370 people a vast majority of Republicans running for these offices in November have questioned and, at times, outright denied the results of the 2020 election despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, according to a monthslong New York Times investigation. These candidates represent a sentiment that is spreading in the Republican Party, rupturing a bedrock principle of democracy: that voters decide elections and candidates accept results.

This skepticism has stretched into political races in every state and is still frequently being raised as a campaign issue, The Times has found, nearly two years after Donald J. Trump was defeated. Hundreds of these candidates are favored to win their races.

Far from fading over time, as many Americans had hoped, election lies and misinformation have proved strikingly resilient, even amid a political campaign season in which far more is being said by candidates and their party officials about issues like inflation and abortion. The Times has for the first time identified more than 240 candidates who are still casting doubt on the presidential election this year many of them within the last couple of months.

The Times analysis is a detailed accounting of the spread of election denial in the Republican Party. The analysis incorporates not only what candidates have said, but also when. Many candidates views have changed over time as new conspiracies were born, as Mr. Trump demanded fealty, and as primary voters weighed in, The Times found. Some candidates became less vocal after the Capitol riot, and some have consistently pushed falsehoods about the election.

The timeline below tracks the candidates expressions of doubt over three distinct periods: on the day of or before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, after the riot, and this year as the midterm elections have approached.

74 candidates questioned the 2020 election through the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

On or beforeJan. 6, 2021

Rest of 2021

2022

Michael Cloud, 27th District, TexasThe allegations of irregularities in the vote-counting process should be concerning to everyone. Nov. 6, 2020

Michael Cloud, 27th District, TexasThe allegations of irregularities in the vote-counting process should be concerning to everyone. Nov. 6, 2020

136 candidates questioned the 2020 election on and off in the last two years.

On or beforeJan. 6, 2021

Rest of 2021

2022

Diana Harshbarger, First District, Tenn.There's ample evidence that unchecked ballot harvesting has led to mischief and voting irregularities. June 24, 2022

Diana Harshbarger, First District, Tenn.There's ample evidence that unchecked ballot harvesting has led to mischief and voting irregularities. June 24, 2022

64 candidates questioned the 2020 election in 2022.

On or beforeJan. 6, 2021

Rest of 2021

2022

Scotty Moore, Ninth District, Fla.The movie 2000 Mules proves election fraud happened and President Trump won in a landslide. May 9, 2022

Scotty Moore, Ninth District, Fla.The movie 2000 Mules proves election fraud happened and President Trump won in a landslide. May 9, 2022

103 candidates have persistently questioned the 2020 election.

On or beforeJan. 6, 2021

Rest of 2021

2022

Mary Miller, 15th District, Ill.They know even a glancing review would uncover the greatest heist of the 21st century. Dec. 29, 2020

Mary Miller, 15th District, Ill.They know even a glancing review would uncover the greatest heist of the 21st century. Dec. 29, 2020

Note: Some candidates were not public figures until recently. Their records of casting doubt on the 2020 election may not be publicly available.

No evidence of widespread irregularities was found by top Trump administration officials in the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which investigated the election, or by judges throughout the country and even auditors commissioned by political operatives intent on proving fraud.

The Times scoured the public records of more than 550 Republican candidates in all 50 states, examining their social media accounts, political emails, newsletters, speeches, interviews and campaign materials. The analysis distinguished between the many dozens of candidates who said unequivocally (and inaccurately) that the 2020 election was stolen, and those who stopped short of that falsehood but criticized the election, often persistently, in ways that were seemingly more reasonable but perhaps more influential.

The Times did not automatically categorize candidates who objected to the 2020 Electoral College results or who supported lawsuits challenging the results as denying the election outright. As a recent Times investigation reported, those candidates often cited more nuanced arguments for their votes or said they did not want to overturn the outcome.

The Times investigation found that about 70 percent of Republicans running for Congress had questioned the election of President Biden, who won seven million more votes and 74 more electors than Mr. Trump. Of those, nearly two-thirds are favored to win their races, according to the Cook Political Report, which provides race ratings for Congress and governor.

Among Republican candidates running for state offices that can play a significant role in elections and recounts governors, attorneys general and secretaries of state more than half expressed misgivings about the 2020 election. The share was higher, about 65 percent, among candidates running for governor. About half of those candidates for governor are favored to win.

For Republican candidates who would rather talk about something other than the last presidential election, some have learned that the partys base, and its unofficial leader, Mr. Trump, wont let them drop the issue. It has become, in many cases, the price of entry to the Republican ticket.

Wisconsin Republicans learned this lesson the hard way.

In early June, Mr. Trump upended the Republican primary for governor in Wisconsin by endorsing Tim Michels, a wealthy construction magnate, over Rebecca Kleefisch, a former lieutenant governor of the state and a favorite of local Republicans.

The endorsement apparently came with strings.

During a July debate, Mr. Michels said he would not prioritize decertifying the 2020 election in Wisconsin, a legally implausible process that nonetheless remained a fixation of Mr. Trump.

I have to focus on beating Tony Evers this fall, he said, referring to Wisconsins incumbent Democratic governor.

A roar came from Mar-a-Lago, communicated through aides to Mr. Michels, demanding that he embrace the decertification movement, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Mr. Michels reversed course, saying that he was very, very fired up about this election integrity issue and pledging to consider signing a decertification bill if legislators passed one.

By the final days of the primary, Mr. Michels was promoting the election conspiracy theory amplified in the film 2000 Mules and was promising to consider signing legislation clawing back Wisconsins 10 electoral votes from the 2020 election.

The former president has backed nearly 70 percent of the candidates that The Times identified as questioning the 2020 election and who are favored to win their races.

Of the more than 370 candidates who expressed skepticism about the 2020 election, about half are incumbents, nearly all of whom are favored to keep their seats.

About a fifth of the candidates are current members of Congress who, on Jan. 6, 2021, objected to the Electoral College results a distinction that, according to a recent Times report, has become politically (and financially) profitable.

In the months following the Capitol riot, nearly 80 percent of the objectors who are running for re-election took some kind of official action that, in effect, continued to promote questions about the 2020 election. These included signing congressional letters alleging widespread fraud or inappropriate interference in the 2020 race; co-sponsoring legislation to fix what they deemed to be problems that emerged during that election; and joining a new Election Integrity Caucus, which has spearheaded a lot of these initiatives.

The candidates identified by The Times include people who have questioned the 2020 election in ways both explicit and subtle.

Fewer than one-third have staked out the most extreme position stating, without any evidence, that the election was stolen or rigged.

An even smaller number of the candidates who explicitly said the election was stolen, about three dozen of them, are favored to win. They include incumbents like Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama, Representative Lance Gooden of Texas and Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida all of whom have tweeted falsely, sometimes repeatedly, that the election was stolen as well as candidates running for the House, like Mike Collins in Georgia, Joe Kent in Washington State and Anna Paulina Luna in Florida.

In a recent video, Mr. Collins walks toward the camera with a gun, saying: You count the legal votes that were cast in the state of Georgia? Donald Trump won this state, period. At the end of the video, he shoots what appears to be a voting machine, and it explodes. Mr. Biden won the election in Georgia by more than 11,000 votes.

The video below shows how some of the most ardent election deniers have made their claims, even though Mr. Biden received more than 51 percent of the popular vote, winning in battleground states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Mark Finchem for Ariz. Secretary of State We know it and they know it.

Mark Finchem for Ariz. Secretary of State Donald Trump won.

Brian Flowers for Miss. 2 Trump won, and everyone knows it.

Blake Masters for Ariz. Senator I think Trump won in 2020.

Mike Collins for Ga. 10 You count the legal votes that were

Mike Collins for Ga. 10 cast in the state of Georgia.

Mike Collins for Ga. 10 Donald Trump won this state.

Tudor Dixon for Mich. Governor Do you believe Donald Trump legitimately

Tudor Dixon for Mich. Governor won the 2020 election in Michigan?

Tudor Dixon for Mich. Governor Yes.

Anna Paulina Luna for Fla. 13 Yes, I believe that

Anna Paulina Luna for Fla. 13 President Trump won that election,

Anna Paulina Luna for Fla. 13 and I do believe that voter fraud occurred.

Karoline Leavitt for N.H. 1 I am the only candidate in this race

Karoline Leavitt for N.H. 1 to say that President Trump won in 2020.

Kari Lake for Ariz. Governor We had a fraudulent election, a corrupt election,

Kari Lake for Ariz. Governor and we have an illegitimate president

Kari Lake for Ariz. Governor sitting in the White House.

J.R. Majewski for Ohio 9 Do you believe that Joe Biden is the legitimate president

J.R. Majewski for Ohio 9 of the United States?

J.R. Majewski for Ohio 9 Hell, no.

Lisa McClain for Mich. 9 Tell me Joe Biden won.

Russell Fry for S.C. 7 It is very clear that it was rigged.

Lance Gooden for Texas 5 I will not accept the results of a rigged election.

Morgan Luttrell for Texas 8 It was taken from us.

Morgan Luttrell for Texas 8 Yes, maam.

Jim Bognet for Pa. 8 In 2020, President Trump endorsed me for Congress.

Jim Bognet for Pa. 8 But that election was stolen from us.

Marjorie Taylor Greene for Ga. 14 The dirty, rotten Democrats stole the election.

Rand Paul for Ky. Senator The election in many ways was stolen.

Rayla Campbell for Mass. Secretary of State We watched our elections

Rayla Campbell for Mass. Secretary of State be stolen.

J.D. Vance for Ohio Senator I think the election was stolen from Trump.

Kay Ivey for Ala. Governor The fake news,

Kay Ivey for Ala. Governor Big Tech and blue-state liberals stole the election

Kay Ivey for Ala. Governor from President Trump.

Most election skeptics, however, have not denied the 2020 results entirely. Instead, The Times found, they have sown doubt by suggesting, sometimes repeatedly, that there are unresolved questions or that further investigation is needed.

Some have said they do not know who legitimately won the election, or they have conceded that Mr. Biden is the president, but not necessarily because he was elected fairly. Some have said that there were irregularities or interference in the election but that perhaps those did not change the results.

Others have changed their positions, like Don Bolduc, a Senate candidate in New Hampshire. At an August debate, Mr. Bolduc said, I signed a letter with 120 other generals and admirals saying that Trump won the election, and, damn it, I stand by my letter.

Im not switching horses, baby, he said.

On Sept. 15, he did.

Read more here:

These Republican Candidates Questioned the 2020 Election. Many Will Win - The New York Times

Eric Trump, son of former President Donald Trump, on Friday discussed how the GOP has been reshaped in his father's image, and added that there is "no longer a Republican Party."

The younger Trump made the claim during an appearance on conservative news channel, Newsmax. The clip of Eric Trump's TV appearance was shared on Twitter by left-leaning pundit and former federal prosecutor, Ron Filipkowski, and has been viewed over 100,000 times as of Saturday afternoon.

"He's fundamentally changed the party," Eric Trump said about his father. "It's no longer the Republican Party, it's the Trump Party."

The claim is not a new one for the younger Trump, who has made similar comments in past interviews while discussing the present and future state of the Republican Party. During another Newsmax appearance in August, he said the same thing while discussing Representative Liz Cheney's primary defeat against Trump-endorsed GOP challenger, Harriet Hageman.

"There's no question. I mean, it's not even the Republican Party," Eric Trump said at the time. "I'd say it's actually the Trump party."

During his appearance in August, the former president's son also went into greater detail on his claim about the GOP, and said that his father's endorsements have "brought in a whole new party." Trump's endorsements this year have led to primary wins 92 percent of the time, according to Ballotpedia.

"My father has literally brought in a whole new party from the RINO [Republican in name only] class of the Republican Party," Eric Trump said. "He literally brought in a whole new party that stands for something totally different than the wider class of the Republican Party ever stood for. My father's really redefined what the party is, how the party speaks to its constituents and I think it's exactly why you have this overwhelming support in all of the people he's endorsed."

During his most recent appearance on Friday, Eric Trump also discussed the public hearings of the House select committee investigating last year's Capitol riot, saying that "not a single person cares about" them.

"Not a single person cares about the J6 hearings," he said. "The Republicans are absolutely going to steamroll the Democratic Party because they haven't accomplished anything in two years. This is all coordinated, it's all made up. It's all a diversion, a distraction."

Contrary to his claims, the select committee's hearings have appeared to draw significant interest, with the eight televised hearings from the summer averaging 13.1 million viewers, with the first hearing drawing in around 20 million. A PBS poll from July also found that 50 percent of respondents agreed that Trump should face charges for his involvement in the January 6, 2021, riot. However, only 28 percent believed he will actually be prosecuted.

Newsweek reached out to Donald Trump's press office and the Republican National Committee (RNC) for comment.

Read more from the original source:

Eric Trump Declares There Is 'No Longer' a Republican Party - Newsweek

Congress, the executive branch, and the American people deserve to know whos influencing research and public policy in our country, is how Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the most stringent recent proposal, put it.

Yet while the proximate controversy, and the subject of Grassleys bill, involve money from foreign sources, the logic of the criticism is that think tanks have an outsize effect on public policy and the public is therefore entitled to know whos calling the shots. Its a logic that doesnt necessarily stop at the waters edge.

Consider the highest-profile left-wing critic of Brookings, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, whose broadsides against nefarious foreign funders often elide into broadsides against nefarious domestic donors: Special interest money slithers through Washington like a snake, and for years Ive been sounding the alarm about corporations and foreign governments secretly using think tanks to lobby, Warren said in a statement. Her own bill, which predates the Allen tumult, would require think tanks to disclose donors not just foreign ones that pay for lobbying materials, among other things.

For all the joy that conservative pols have taken at Brookings latest turn in the barrel, conversations with people around the industry reveal an irony: Any potential new wave of government-mandated disclosure rules, especially those that go beyond foreign money, would actually represent a bigger cultural change at right-wing organizations, some of which historically have tended to see donations as a form of free speech. Establishmentarian center-left outfits like Brookings already share significant pieces of that information thanks in part, it should be noted, to previous funding imbroglios, and their reliance on corporate dollars. (The Heritage Foundation, by contrast, says less than two percent of its income comes from corporate sources.)

The last spate of transparency efforts, which followed a blockbuster set of New York Times reports in 2014 and 2016 about donor influence at think tanks, was embraced way more on the left than the right, one longtime conservative think tank figure tells me. (To be clear, this veteran of fundraising told me, thats because it was centrist and liberal outfits that had been caught out.) While a visitor to Brookings website can today peruse annual reports that identify top donors, the American Enterprise Institute says it doesnt provide that information as a matter of course.

Its going to be a harder, bigger disruptor for center-right think tanks, even though more of them say they dont take foreign government money, says Enrique Mendizabal, who leads On Think Tanks, a research outfit that researches the think tank business.

Its also notable that none of the proposals that have been publicized since the tumult at Brookings would have done much about Allen, whose allegedly fishy work for Qatar was done before he took over Brookings and would theoretically be covered by the Foreign Agent Registration Act. (Hes denied improper behavior and hasnt been charged with any wrongdoing.)

What the scrutiny of Allen did do, though, was re-focus attention on the organizations broader history with the emirate. In June, I reported on a 2007 contract with the Qatari government establishing a Brookings outpost in Doha while handing its autocratic regime an unusual and unattractive degree of contractual prerogatives over an independent organization. The previously unreported contract has been cited by members of Congress supporting new disclosure rules and demanding federal investigations. (In a final irony, it was during Allens tenure that Brookings actually disaffiliated from its Doha center and began eschewing funding from non-democratic governments.)

That Qatar deal wound up in angry public letters by Warren as well as a quartet of GOP senators, and in the most stringent of the bills introduced following Allens departure, the Think Tank Transparency Act, sponsored by Grassley and Michigan GOP Rep. Jack Bergman.

Not only does their measure require the quick disclosure of all funding from foreign sources, including private citizens, it also orders think tanks to share the contracts so that the public would know, as in the case of Brookings Doha center, whether management had agreed to submit a budget and program agenda to a government ministry. And it says any briefings for Congress or the executive branch funded by the foreign donation be labeled as such. The prospect of having to announce the support of the government of Qatar or Norway on every paper prepared for a federal policymaker is something that fills a lot of think-tankers with dread.

Under the bill, the rules apply to nonprofits that spent at least 20 percent of resources influencing public policy, which is how it avoids looping in art museums or cancer-research facilities or other nonprofits. Technically, theres no legal definition of think tank.

Another measure, the Fighting Foreign Influence Act, with bipartisan sponsorship that includes Democratic Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Katie Porter (Calif.) as well as the far-right Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.), would require think tanks to declare any funding from foreign governments and political parties, which would then be published by the Treasury Department.

None of this would have happened if not for John Allen, says Ben Freeman, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a longstanding critic of think tanks as a place where foreign entities can skirt FARA rules and have a real impact on American policy and public opinion. Freeman says the attention generated by the fall of Allen even if a large portion of it was just partisan pile-on by folks who dont like Brookings politics did more to galvanize the issue than any number of the papers he and colleague Eli Clifton have produced as theyve built a cottage industry as think-tank watchdogs.

I call it an enormous dark-money operation, Freeman says. Lets be honest here, these think tanks are going to play a vital role in advising policymakers and members of government about what would be good policies, presumably, in the national interest. The lack of mandatory disclosure, the fact its all voluntary, the fact that theres no enforcement, even of the accuracy of these voluntary disclosures, it all kinds of builds towards what is potentially an enormous national security problem.

Under the status quo, there are few rules about who a think tank may accept money from and who it has to tell. And there are probably as many internal policies as there are think tanks: The Heritage Foundation doesnt take any money from governments of any sort, foreign or domestic. Brookings does take money from governments, but only democratic ones. The Center for American Progress also takes foreign money, but not for any specific project. It also discloses donors, unless those donors choose to remain anonymous, something deep-pocketed types occasionally do to avoid being hit up by others. AEI doesnt disclose donors, but does release a graph about where the money comes from. And those are just the biggest outfits, the ones that can support sizable accounting staffs.

Freeman and Clifton say most of the larger places could abide foreign-donation transparency rules, despite the paperwork hassle. Many are already partly there. But the less august realms of the think tank sphere may prove trickier. I think where this matters a lot is at places that dont disclose any of this stuff and where, for the first time, were going to get a look under the hood there and see just how swampy it might be, Freeman says.

Like a lot of observers, the pair are skeptical about whether the measures can actually become law in a quickly-expiring Congress. But its likely that they presage future rough times for research outfits facing scrutiny from genuine reformers as well as ideological foes who just want to discredit the policy industry. That aspect of the national mood concerns even some folks who favor more transparency.

We should be wary of anything that undermines the use of expertise in policymaking, says David Solimini of the Stimson Center, an international-relations focused think tank. Stimson, he says, currently discloses its overseas and domestic donors, though it allows individual donors to opt for anonymity.

For folks whove made their lives in think tanks the heart of the matter is something more fundamental and unmentioned in any of the legislation and agitation: Just what are think tanks, anyway?

A quintessentially Washington industry whose research shapes public policy, whose jobs incubate future administrations, and whose role in Congressional testimony and media influences American public opinion, leaders of the institutions have often cast their world as a universe of dispassionate scholarship.

In the current climate of criticism, though, theyre being cast as something much earthier a part of the advocacy game, more like lobbyists with PhDs than like college professors who study Tennyson or Mayan civilization. And if lobbyists and foreign agents should have to declare who pays them, the logic goes, shouldnt it be the same for think tanks, which after all are subsidized by the government via their tax-exempt status?

Its an uncomfortable question for the self-esteem of think-tank employees, many of whom dont want to think of themselves as grubby influence-peddlers. But its also a problematic one for the folks who need to raise money for the outfits, which unlike colleges cant charge tuition.

People in the think tank world are worried, says Ken Weinstein, the former head of the conservative-oriented Hudson Foundation. They want to keep the focus on the scholars. They dont want to talk about the funders. The motives of the funders are not always the motives of the think tanks.

Mendizabal, who studies think tanks around the world, tells me hes in favor of broad transparency but wary of government regulations that could give aid and comfort to authoritarian regimes elsewhere that have cracked down on independent research organizations. Allegations of foreign meddling have been part of the playbook in countries like Russia that seek to quash any research or opinions that lack an official stamp.

As for the bigger question of what this new climate means for think tanks identities, he says he thinks part of the problem is that top organizations have become victims of their own hype. Though they like to describe themselves as rigorously research-based, they also solicit donations by talking up how much influence they have the kind of talk that, in a country already suffering from high levels of distrust, can cause political troubles.

The bill states that they have huge influence, he says of the Grassley-Bergman measure. Wheres the evidence of that? These think tanks are creating problems for themselves by claiming to be so influential. Its as if Congress has no agency theyre saying we need to be protected from these influential organizations that were powerless against and that use foreign money.

Read the original:

Top Republicans Are Aiming at Brookings. Will It Backfire? - POLITICO

More than 100 days ahead of Marylands primary and facing an uphill battle against three rivals, Del. Dan Cox stood proudly on the floor of the House of Delegates to introduce his wife and 10 children, expressing confidence he would be the Republican Partys gubernatorial nominee.

I just wanted to real quickly let the body know my bride, Valerie, [and] the future first family of Maryland is here visiting me today in the gallery, a smiling Cox said. Some colleagues clapped. Others jeered.

But the Trump-endorsed, anti-abortion backbencher went on to defeat fellow Republican Gov. Larry Hogans hand-picked successor in the July 19 primary, widening a rift between Trump and Hogan supporters in Marylands GOP.

Hes got another mountain to scale in the Nov. 8 race against Wes Moore. Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 2-to-1 in Maryland and Moore is out-fundraising him at a rate of 10-to-1. But as the GOP nominee, Cox, 48, is closer to the governors office than early polls, the media and political scientists ever imagined.

By now, many voters have heard Cox is a Make America Great Again Republican, arranged for buses to the Jan. 6 Stop the Steal rally in Washington, wont say whether hell accept the results of his gubernatorial race or that Hogan dubbed him a QAnon whack job.

So, where did he come from? And what happens to him on Election Day and in the ballot-counting days that follow?

Republican Dan Cox speaking Wednesday during a gubernatorial debate with Democrat Wes Moore in Owings Mills. (Michael Ciesielski/AP)

Hes a father of 10, ranging from a baby to a 25-year-old, and is one of 10 children himself.

I named my son Daniel after the prophet Daniel in the Bible, Coxs father, Gary, said in an interview at his sons primary victory party. I was awe-struck that its possible for people of faith to live their faith and, in the process, to impact the culture around them for good.

Gary Cox is the founder and superintendent of Wellspring Christian Family Schools, an organization that offers support services to families who home-school their children. Dan Cox enrolled in the school as a child, and served as a high school instructor and registrar from 1995 to 2005. According to its website, Wellspring Christian Family Schools is a faith-based, home-school organization that requires meaningful church attendance for all enrolled families and emphasizes parents involvement.

Cox attended Mount St. Marys University, a Catholic college in Emmitsburg, from 1992 through 1995, then earned a bachelors degree in government and politics in 2002 from whats now University of Maryland Global Campus. In 2006, he received a law degree from Regent University in Virginia Beach, which was founded by televangelist and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox greets supporters July 19, 2022, with two thumbs up at his campaign party on primary night in Emmitsburg. (Kenneth K. Lam/Baltimore Sun)

Cox announced on July 4, 2021, that he would run for governor, but his interest in politics was evident 20 years earlier.

Cox and his wife, Valerie, were living in the Eastern Shore town of Secretary in 2001 when they wrote a letter to The Dorchester Star about a state bill to bar discrimination against people based on their sexual identity in employment, housing and other areas. They said it would violate the rights of business owners ... who firmly believe homosexuality is sin and those who practice it are in danger of temporal disease and eternal death.

I love civil rights, as many bigoted business owners have been stopped from persecution of people because of their skin color or ethnicity. But there is no bigotry in standing strong against an action, the letter said. Homosexuality is not the same thing as being African-American or Hispanic. The legislature passed the anti-discrimination bill.

In 2006, Cox ran an unsuccessful clerk of court campaign in Dorchester County. According to a 2006 report from The Star, Coxs platform included establishing a division to help fathers gain visitation and ensure mothers receive child support. It also included a plan to refuse to issue licenses for same-sex marriages, which were not legal in Maryland at the time.

Cox won office in 2008 in Secretary, which had around 500 residents at the time. He served a term on the Town Commission, and was its president.

Cox has described himself as both a constitutional and civil rights attorney. Cox founded a law firm in 2007; according to his most recent legislative ethics disclosure filing, it netted over $200,000 in 2021.

Hes litigated cases that included a challenge to public health restrictions Hogan established during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit was dismissed in November 2020. Also, Cox represented a father and son who sued the Harford County Board of Elections in 2020, alleging their civil rights were violated when they couldnt vote without masks. That case, too, was dismissed.

Del. Dan Cox, a Republican, speaks April 9, 2022, at the state House of Delegates against a measure to expand abortion access in Maryland. (Brian Witte/AP)

In 2016, Cox ran unsuccessfully against then-state Sen. Jamie Raskin in parts of Carroll, Frederick and Montgomery counties to represent Marylands 8th District in Congress. Raskin won with 61% of the vote to Coxs 34%, and went on to help lead the impeachment trial against Trump after the Jan. 6 riot.

During the attack on the Capitol, Cox tweeted Republican Vice President Mike Pence was a traitor. Cox has said he was not involved in the buildings takeover.

The nice thing Id like to say is that he has nice and very patient kids who were brought to every protracted, interminable debate and forum that we had, Raskin told The Baltimore Sun.

Raskin contrasted Coxs campaigning with his.

He has extremist politics and a conspiratorial cast of mind. Im devoted to grassroots, door-to-door campaigning, Raskin said. As far as I can tell, they werent doing any of that. He really was just trying to organize right-wing elements online.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox greets his family at his party on primary night July 19, 2022, in Emmitsburg. (Kenneth K. Lam/Baltimore Sun)

With a congressional seat not in the cards, Cox ran a successful campaign in 2018 for a term in the Maryland House of Delegates representing areas of Frederick and Carroll. In a field with three Republicans and three Democrats running for the districts three seats, he finished at the top with 21% of the vote.

Cox filed 84 bills in four years in the House, including a 2022 resolution to impeach Hogan. The Democrat-controlled legislature passed two Cox bills, both from his first session: one requiring a sign about National Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline in every state courthouse and another creating a task force to study crime classification and penalties.

He voted this year against a bill prohibiting schools from discriminating against LGBTQ students and their families. He supported an amendment similar to a Dont Say Gay policy in Florida that prohibits teachers from discussing sexuality and gender in public schools. The amendment failed and the Maryland bill became law this summer.

Cox opposes the expansion of LGBTQ rights in education, highlighting at several turns during his gubernatorial campaign his belief that addressing issues of gender, sex and sexual orientation in schools equates to indoctrination and propaganda, and that schools are participating in brainwashing and sexual grooming.

Cox is vocal about parental involvement in education. He introduced an unsuccessful bill in 2022 that would have allowed parents to object to instructional materials if they disagreed with the content on moral, philosophical and religious grounds. The bill also would have allowed parents to keep a child from studying some of their schools health curriculum.

The many unknowns swirling around the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in its early days, afforded Cox and other politicians a way to raise their profiles and connect with voters. Cox and Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano, now that states GOP gubernatorial nominee, used Facebook to urge their respective governors to roll back public health restrictions they deemed onerous.

Mastriano and Cox, both endorsed by Trump, have struck up a friendship. Trump gave Cox a shoutout last month at a rally for Mastriano.

Trump is hosting a fundraiser Monday for Cox at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. For $25,000, attendees can stand alongside Cox and the former president for a photo. Its not clear how much of that money Cox gets; the Maryland limit for a campaign contribution to a candidate is $6,000.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox gave two thumbs up to supporters after speaking with reporters June 30, 2022, in Annapolis. He had appeared at a news conference held by one of his primary opponents, Kelly Schulz. (Kenneth K. Lam / Baltimore Sun)

Cox, often a showman, is no stranger to controversy.

Ahead of the primary, Cox ambushed a June campaign event for Republican Kelly Schulz, Hogans pick to succeed him. Standing just feet away, Cox yelled, Defamation, sir! when the governor called him a QAnon conspiracy theorist.

During a House debate in 2021, Cox compared a bill to expand access for preteens to mental health care without parental consent to Nazi experimentation on Jews. And he did it on Holocaust Remembrance Day, while wearing a mask printed with a depiction of the Nuremberg trials at which the Allies sought to bring Nazi officials to justice after World War II.

In July, Cox defeated Schulz 52% to 43% to become the GOP nominee. But establishment Republicans notably Hogan; Barry Glassman, the Republican nominee for state comptroller; and GOP leaders in the Maryland House and Senate have not endorsed him.

Republican Del. Ric Metzgar of Baltimore County said he was the first House member to endorse Cox in his gubernatorial bid. He told The Sun that his constituents made it clear they were not interested in seeing Schulz provide the equivalent of a third term for Hogan.

People in my district said to me, Delegate, if theyre connected to Governor Hogan, Im not voting for them. And with that said, they saw how Governor Hogan alienated himself against Trump, he said.

Republican Dan Cox, candidate for governor, speaks with reporters after debating Democrat Wes Moore at Maryland Public Television. (Kim Hairston/Baltimore Sun )

Cox has run a shoestring campaign compared to Moore, who raised $1.7 million compared to Coxs $252,000 in the five weeks after the July 19 primary, according to the latest campaign finance reports, which were filed at the end of August. The next reports are due in two weeks.

His family has pitched in to work on the campaign, with one daughter serving as campaign manager during the primary. He only recently hired a veteran campaign spokesperson.

Weekly

Keep up to date with Maryland politics, elections and important decisions made by federal, state and local government officials.

The campaign provided a quick denunciation Oct. 10 after information started circulating about a planned Unite the Right event in Maryland. The gathering with Republican candidates had the same name as a white supremacist rally that turned deadly five years ago in Virginia.

We will not be associated with anything that is reminiscent, accidental or otherwise, of the unspeakable tragedy that took place in Charlottesville, VA on August 12, 2017, Cox said in a statement. Anything less is unacceptable. Dan Cox and his campaign remains committed to the empowerment, safety and freedom of all Marylanders.

It was a forceful rejection for a candidate who has, at times, embraced conspiracy theories, such as his continued support for false claims that Trump only lost his reelection bid in 2020 because of widespread election fraud.

Cox recently lost an appeal in the states highest court in which he tried to keep county election boards from scanning any mail-in ballots that arrived before of Election Day. Cox has yet to say whether he will accept the results of his own race, and is aligning his campaign with groups that plan to press for their own audit of the results.

So, can Cox pull off a win and give Republicans a third consecutive term in Marylands top executive office?

I wouldnt bet my house on it, said House Minority Leader Jason Buckel of Allegany County, who supported Schulz in the primary. If he wins, thats great for him. If he loses, thats something we all accept as the nature of politics and we move on to getting the work done.

Baltimore Sun reporters Jeff Barker, Emily Opilo and Sam Janesch contributed to this article.

Originally posted here:

Dan Cox upended the status quo in Maryland's Republican primary. Where will the election for governor take him? - Baltimore Sun

To the Editor

No issue is more important to the survival of our republic than voter access, fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

Sadly, the national Republic party is under the sway of a faction that promotes the falsehood that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and conveniently ignores the violence that took place on January 6, 2021 in our nations capitol. This faction and the GOP national leadership disregards the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, William Barr and a host of other Republicans on the events leading up to and surrounding January 6. It sanctions Republicans who take issue with their point of view. Case in point Liz Cheney.

Connecticut citizens may want to believe themselves to be aloof from the national political scene, a rational outpost, where we can have serious differences yet respectfully engage and accept electoral outcomes and representatives decisions. Yet, we are not an island. It behooves us to consider the larger reality. A local candidate may label themselves a different kind of Republican. Yet the fact remains that party loyalty and strict adherence to party leaderships directions is the expectation, reality and the norm of the controlling faction of the GOP.

CT Examiner would provide a great service to the electorate if it would directly ask each Republican candidate the following questions: Do you believe that Joe Biden was elected president in a free and fair election, yes or no? Do you agree with the legal findings by numerous courts that there was no meaningful evidence of voter fraud that would have altered the election outcome, yes or no? Do you consider the events of January 6, 2021 to have been a violent insurrection that illegally sought to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, yes or no. How a Republican candidate answers these questions is vital to our understanding of how they stand regarding our national identity and rule of law.

Daniel A. WelchOld Saybrook, C

See the article here:

Ask Every Republican Candidate About Jan. 6 and the 2020 Election - CT Examiner

Gov. Ned Lamont said Friday that Republican Bob Stefanowskis consulting for Neom, a company founded by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, calls into question his opponents fitness and independence.

Lamonts comments were the first since Stefanowski confirmed Wednesday that he had been concealing his employment by Neom, a client of a consulting practice that has allowed him to largely self-fund his campaign for governor.

I can see why somebody running for office wanted to hide that from the public, Lamont said. I think it raises some real questions about his judgment and his independence.

Responding to reporting by Hearst Connecticut, Stefanowski acknowledged approaching the Saudis in late 2018, not long after Saudi agents killed Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist critical of the regime.

I think signing the deal with the Saudis, right after the assassination of Khashoggi raises questions about judgment, Lamont said.

At the time, Stefanowski had just lost his first race for governor and was looking for consulting work. He began working for Neom in 2019 as the CIA concluded that Khashoggis death was most likely was ordered by the crown prince.

On Friday, interviewed after a late-afternoon campaign stop at at turkey farm in Sterling, Stefanowski declined to directly respond to Lamonts attacks on his judgment or independence.

Gov. Lamont is no one to question my judgment, Stefanowski said.

He repeated his criticisms of Lamont for the state contracting with Sema4, a company in which a venture capital firm co-founded by First Lady Annie Lamont had invested.

But the Saudi disclosure flipped the script on a Stefanowski line of attack in 2022 that Lamont and his wife were not fully transparent in their finances.

Stefanowski said only after being approached by Hearst Connecticut did he seek permission from Neom to confirm they were a client. He said he had been bound by a non-disclosure agreement.

The reason I disclosed it was because it was made public by another means, he said. I have to put my clients first. And I wasnt going to disclose. I wasnt going to break my NDA.

He offered no explanation of how the mere disclosure they were a client would have jeopardized any portion of Neom, a project that the crown prince announced in 2017 to global fanfare.

Its not my determination to make. I put my clients first, he said.

The Lamonts say they have disclosed all sources of their income in their annual Statements of Financial Interest, as required by the state ethics code. Their filings are public.

In addition, they have disclosed the identities of companies in which Annie Lamonts company, Oak HC/FT, is invested, whether or not those investments have produced income for the Lamonts.

On that list is Sema4, one of four companies that won fast-track, no-bid contracts to provide COVID-19 testing in the earliest months of the pandemic.

The Lamonts say they have derived no income from Sema4, whose value has tanked. From a peak of nearly $26 a share in February 2021, it closed Friday at 86 cents.

Stefanowski acknowledged he was still working for Neom and traveling to Saudi Arabia earlier this year. He says has reduced his work by 98%, without saying if his Neom income also has fallen by 98%.

It sounds like Bob is still on the payroll. At the same time, hes a candidate for public office, Lamont said. So Im not quite sure if hes really working it right now or not. I think hes campaigning pretty much full time. But it does lead to questions. The Saudis are trying to get involved in our political process far and wide. So thats why I think let things settle out. But those are the questions I have.

Lamont said Stefanowski was hiding his ties to the Saudis, who recently have cut oil production to force higher prices, while the Republican was faulting Democrats for higher gas prices.

Until Wednesday, Stefanowski had not disclosed any sources of the income he earned through his consulting firm, Lolo. Last month, Stefanowski released summary pages of the $36.8 million he and his wife reported earning in 2019, 2020 and 2021.

His consulting practice produced sharply higher income than the millions he reported earning in 2016 and 2017, the last years as chief executive officer of DFC Global, a payday loan company. His income then was $6.9 million and $9.7 million.

On Friday, Stefanowski suggested Lamont was somehow tainted by Neom due to the reported interest in investing in Neom by Ray Dalio, the founder of Bridgewater Associates.

If the governor is going to say anything negative about me to this, hes got to speak to the fact that he took $100 million from Ray Dalio, Stefanowski said.

Stefanowski was referring to $100 million that Dalios family charity had pledged to the state, not Lamont, in a partnership to serve disaffected youth. The partnership was dissolved before going forward, and the Dalio family is pursuing its goals through private philanthropy.

In April, Lamont released his summaries of his tax returns showing an adjusted gross income that averaged $8.65 million a year in 2018, 2019 and 2020. He did not release 2021 taxes, for which he had sought an extension.

Ive now disclosed everything, Stefanowski said. Ive disclosed my 2021 taxes. Ive started to disclose major disclosures on clients.

Lamont, whose deadline for filing was Oct. 15, is expected to release the 2021 summaries.

Both Lamont and Stefanowski are largely self-funding their campaigns.

Reports filed late Tuesday night for the three-month period ending Sept. 30 showedthe Democratic governor and Republican challenger spending at a record pace: $14.8 million by Lamonts campaign and $9.2 million by Stefanowskis.

While the governors tax returns showed ample investment income to pay for his campaign, Stefanowski said Lamont should say what assets, if any, he sold to finance his reelection.

View original post here:

Lamont, Stefanowski joust over the Republican's work for Saudis - The Connecticut Mirror

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat Colorado. More atchalkbeat.org.

A Republican State Board of Education member who believes socialism poses grave dangers at home and abroad has put his stamp on how Colorado students will learn about the Holocaust.

Over the last year and a half, Steve Durham has pushed for the states academic standards to connect the Holocaust and other genocides to socialism. Durham succeeded in omitting the word Nazi from an early version of the standards in favor of the partys full name, the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Durham agreed to include the word Nazi after Jewish community members lobbied the State Board of Education so long as the full name with the word socialist remained.

People dont know and have a right to know that this party was and is a socialist party, Durham said at an August State Board meeting. That is largely lost on the American people and on a number of history teachers as well. I oppose dumbing down the standards.

Historians say Durham is wrong about the Holocaust and wrong about the roots of genocide. The idea that Nazis were socialists is a lie, according to David Ciarlo, a University of Colorado history professor who studies German politics. Its completely wrong.

Still, Durham has exerted outsized influence over the standards related to genocide, which are meant to guide teaching across Colorado. A key section largely authored by Durhamoverrides recommendations from a committee of teachers and experts. The approved standards drop references to genocide in Rwanda, for example, while adding detailed references to the Communist Party of China.

The standards as written absolutely suggest to teachers that they should be making a connection between genocide and socialism, said John Gallup, a history teacher in Jeffco Public Schools who recently returned from Auschwitz as part of afellowship on teaching genocideand reviewed the standards at Chalkbeats request.

Read more at chalkbeat.org.

The measure would allow for the creation of natural medicine healing centers where people could use psychedelic mushrooms. Proposition 122

The U.S. Forest Service will institute an overnight permit and fee system next year as visits to the area near

Ossie wonders why some folks want to tear down everything, even what they mostly like, when collaboration could be more

You know those tiny green houses from Monopoly? Maybe thats where you should be looking for affordable homes in Colorado.

Colorados NHL champions raised the banner in Ball Arena this week, but that doesnt mean it wouldnt look good on

Visit link:

How one Colorado Republican shaped what students will learn about the Holocaust - The Colorado Sun