Category Archives: Republican

A super PAC linked to and funded by Democrats is taking the unusual step of running digital ads in favor of two Republican candidates for Washoe County Commission.

Open Democracy, a super PAC (allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money) founded in 2021, reporting spending several thousand dollars to promote Washoe County Commissioner Bob Lucey and county commission candidate Wendy Leonard, both of whom are running in Republican primaries against opponents who have embraced conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and supported efforts to substantially overhaul the countys election system. Both commission districts lean toward Republicans.

The ads are positive and relatively vague Leonard is described as a new type of leader and that Lucey has the right experience to stand up for common-sense solutions. Only one mentions elections.

More interesting than the content of the ads is who is behind them Open Democracy PAC, which has largely supported legislative candidates and election administrator candidates who will champion voting rights through policies such as automatic voter registration, expanding voting access through well-resourced election administration and eliminating rules disenfranchising voters because of race.

Its website as of Wednesday lists endorsements for five secretary of state candidates, including Nevada Democrat Cisco Aguilar.

The last-minute spending to boost Lucey and Leonard comes as the two face off against GOP primary rivals that are receiving a substantial boost from Robert Beadles, a far-right cryptocurrency millionaire with an active political presence in Washoe County.

Beadles is the listed officer for The Franklin Project, a state-level PAC that has sent out multiple mail pieces attacking Lucey (including one depicting him as Satan and another insinuating that he does illegal drugs). Lucey is facing off against Mike Clark, the Washoe County assessor.

Leonard is mounting a primary challenge against incumbent Commissioner Jeanne Herman, who fronted the effort in March (applauded and boosted by Beadles) to move Washoe County to greatly overhaul the countys election system, including moving to almost all-paper ballots and requiring counting be done by hand. The vote failed, with Lucey and Commissioner Vaughn Hartung joining two Democrats on the commission in opposition. Herman has appeared in videos produced by Beadles.

According to Federal Election Commission campaign finance records, Open Democracy is almost entirely funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which has contributed $900,000 of the super PACs $1.1 million in funds raised over the last 15 months.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that acts as a hub of undisclosed dark money for left-leaning political activities and advertising. In 2020, the group contributed more than $63 million in donations to various super PACs to hurt Republicans in the 2020 election.

In Nevada, the Sixteen Thirty Fund contributed nearly $6.3 million to the 2018 ballot question that enacted automatic voter registration in the state.

Open Democracy PAC registered as a state-level PAC with the secretary of states office on June 6, with the registered agent listed as Bradley Schrager, an attorney who often represents Democratic candidates and causes. Its sole listed officer is Samuel Nitz, a Washington D.C.-based Democratic operative who led EMILYs List all-digital independent expenditure campaign to boost the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Nitz is also the listed treasurer of Open Democracys federal super PAC account.

Open Democracys past political activity was last seen thousands of miles away, with the PAC spending more than $224,000 on digital ads supporting local candidates in Green Bay and other communities in Wisconsin.

Excerpt from:

Dem super PAC boosting two Republicans in Washoe Commission races The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Republican Gov. Mike DeWine received $2 million in campaign donations over the past three months, giving him $7 million to use in his re-election bid this November.

DeWine has a sizable campaign war chest despite spending $3.1 million as he fought through the May primary election, defeating three Republican challengers. The $2 million he raised, while the most by far of any statewide candidate, still was roughly $1 million lower than what he raised during the equivalent period in 2018, when he first ran for governor.

Meanwhile, DeWines Democratic opponent, former Dayton mayor Nan Whaley, reported raising $1 million. She spent $528,000 in a her own primary election, which she easily won against former Cincinnati mayor John Cranley. That left her with $728,000 in her campaign account. But that number is partially offset by $341,800 she owes to campaign vendors.

DeWine and Whaley reported the totals on Friday, ahead of the campaign-finance deadline for candidates for state office in this years elections. All figures refer to campaign financial activity since mid-April. State legislative candidates didnt report anything, since their primary election got postponed until August over redistricting delays.

Donors who gave DeWine the maximum $13,704 include Realtors PAC, which represents real-estate agents, former Republican congressman Pat Tiberi, who has money left over in his congressional campaign account but now runs a major business trade association and Ohio Contractors PAC.

Whaleys big donors included U.S. Savings Bank CEO Louis Beck, who gave $13,900, America Works State & Local PAC, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Browns leadership PAC, which gave $13,704 and Emilys List, which supports abortion rights and gave Whaley $13,704.

Including DeWine, Republican candidates for statewide office generally will have a huge cash advantage heading into the general election in November. For example, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, reported having $1.9 million in his campaign bank account after raising $321,500. His Democratic opponent, Chelsea Clark, a city councilwoman from suburban Cincinnati, reported raising just $26,100 with a cash balance of $34,800.

And in the race for state attorney general, Republican incumbent Dave Yost reported raising $152,000 but has $2.3 million in the bank, compared to his Democratic opponent, Parma State Rep. Jeff Crossman, who raised $54,200 and has $129,7000 in cash.

Republicans also have financial advantages in races for three seats up for grabs on the Ohio Supreme Court, including the race to replace retiring Republican Chief Justice Maureen OConnor, although the GOP edge there is not nearly as stark.

In the race for chief justice, Republican Justice Sharon Kennedy reported raising $186,6000 and has $812,200 in cash on hand, compared to Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner, who raised $147,000 and has $400,200.

Republican Justice Pat DeWine, whos running for re-election, reported raising $174,400 and has $600,000 in cash. Meanwhile, his Democratic challenger, Cincinnati state appellate Judge Marilyn Zayas, raised $102,300 and has $264,900 in cash.

And another Republican running for re-election, Justice Pat Fischer reported raising $106,000 with $353,400 in cash, compared to his Democratic challenger, state appellate Judge Terri Jamison, who raised $126,000 and has $208,800 in cash.

Millions of dollars in outside money also is expected to eventually be spent in the Supreme Court races, so candidate fundraising may not offer a total picture.

Major donors to the Republican justices include the Ohio State Medical Association, a trade association for doctors which gave $7,500 each to Kennedy, DeWine and Fischer, and the Westfield Employee Federal PAC, which is associated with Farmers Insurance and gave $6,000 each to all three Republican Supreme Court candidates.

Major donors to the Democratic judicial candidates, meanwhile, included the United Food and Commercial Workers International, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, which gave Jamison, Zayas and Justice Jennifer Brunner $7,500 each. Matriots PAC, a Columbus organization that backs women candidates who support abortion rights, gave Brunner, Jamison and Zayas each $6,500.

Some of the reports posted Friday come from candidates who were vanquished in the May primary.

That includes Jim Renacci, the former Wadsworth congressman who finished second in the Republican primary for governor, losing to DeWine by 20 percentage points.

Renacci reported spending almost $4 million -- with his largest expenses including advertisement and marketing -- leaving him with just $11,600 left over following the election. Renacci loaned his campaign $4.5 million, showing he followed through on his pledge to actually spend his personal wealth on his campaign after he largely avoided doing so when he ran and lost for U.S. Senate in 2018.

Joe Blystone, a Central Ohio farmer who finished third in the governors race after running an unconventional, far-right campaign, reported still having $175,700 in the bank after spending $51,500. His biggest expenses included $13,000 on legal services -- he faces a thicket of alleged campaign-finance violations -- and $10,000 he paid to rent an RV owned by his company, Blystone Farms, LLC.

Cranley, the former Cincinnati mayor whom Whaley defeated in the May primary, reported having $26,000 left over in his campaign fund after he spent about $452,000 on his race.

Original post:

Gov. Mike DeWine and other Ohio Republicans flush with campaign cash headed into general election - cleveland.com

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., was confronted by one of her Republican colleagues for live-tweeting the locations of various House lawmakers as the Capitol riot unfolded, according to audio tapes obtained by CNN.

The tape was part of a trove of audio clips released by New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns as part of research compiled for their forthcoming book "This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America's Future."

The exchange reportedly played out during an internal conversation on January 11 between Boebert and Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., who asked the freshman firebrand point blank, "Is it true that you were live-tweeting from the floor our location the people on the outside as we were being attacked, Lauren?"

"Umm, yes," Boebert responded. "Those tweets did go out and that was something that was live and public information. It was broadcast live."

"So don't ask us about security if you're telling the attackers where we're at," Beutler shot back.

"So, that was something being broadcast live from C-SPAN, and once we were on move, there was absolutely nothing else that was broadcast," Boebert insisted.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

RELATED: Why did Lauren Boebert lead a late-night Capitol tour three weeks before Jan. 6?

According to Rolling Stone, Boebert was in contact with several organizers of the "Stop the Steal" protests days prior to the insurrection. Boebert also led a late-night Capitol tour three weeks ahead of the event in apparent violation of Capitol procedures, as Salon reported last August.

Boebert's tiff with Beutler wasn't the only exchange archived by Martin and Burns from January 11. That day, GOP lawmakers also heard from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who sang a startlingly different tune from recent months about the need for a federal inquiry into the insurrection.

"We cannot just sweep this under the rug. We need to know why it happened, who did it and people need to be held accountable for it," he said. "And I'm committed to make sure that happens."

Since then, the top Republican repeatedly attempted to discredit the January 6 committee and torpedoed plans to ensure that its composition was bipartisan.

RELATED: Kevin McCarthy caught on tape: Trump won't forgive him this time

Meanwhile, Martin and Burns obtained audio footage of Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., warning lawmakers of the need to shore up security ahead of January 6.

"I also ask leadership to come up with a safety plan for members, I'm actually very concerned about this, because we have who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people coming here," Lesko said the day before the attack, according to CNN. "We have Antifa. We also have, quite honestly Trump supporters, who actually believe that we are going to overturn the election. And when that doesn't happen most likely, will not happen they are going to go nuts."

Lesko reportedly attended a White House meeting with several pro-Trump lawmakers months earlier to strategize how the 2020 election could be overturned in Donald Trump's favor.

Read more:

Audio: Republican confronted Lauren Boebert for "telling the attackers where we're at" on Jan. 6 - Salon

Political observers reaction to Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.) abruptly abandoning his reelection bid over backlash to his support for gun control measures could be summarized in one word: Wow.

As the dust settles on Jacobss abrupt bowing out, questions are circulating about what his being pushed out of Congress could mean for gun control efforts and negotiations in the wake of recent massacres and whether hardening in the Republican Party around the issue leaves any room for compromise.

Jacobs, who represents a district that surrounds Buffalo, N.Y., where a self-proclaimed white supremacist gunned down 10 Black people, said that shooting as well as the massacre that killed 19 elementary school children and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, made him want to be transparent with his position.

If an assault weapons ban bill came to the floor that would ban something like an AR-15, I would vote for it, Jacobs said in a May 27 press conference. He also mentioned limiting access to body armor and raising the legal age for buying high-capacity semi-automatic weapons to 21.

Backlash was swift.

Donald Trump Jr. dressed Jacobs down on Twitter, accusing him of chasing glowing headlines from the mainstream media. Conservatives started looking for a primary challenger. Gun rights activists circulated petitions asking Jacobs to reverse his position. Every GOP elected official that had endorsed him withdrew their support, Jacobs said, and someone posted his cellphone number online.

A week later, Jacobs announced that he would not seek reelection to New Yorks newly drawn 23rd Congressional District, which covers some of the same territory as his current 27th District but includes much new terrain. He did not want to divide the GOP, he said, and make the election entirely about the gun issue.

Now advocates on both sides are seeking to parse what his decision means for the gun control debate and attempts at reforms.

The best chance at any successful legislation in Congress rests in the Senate, where Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) hopes to lead a bipartisan group of senators to compromise on small steps to address gun violence. Areas of potential agreement concern reforms to background checks and promoting red flag laws to keep those deemed a danger to themselves or others from possessing firearms.

But Jacobs, who assumed office in mid-2020 after winning a special election, indicated the fallout around his own position could be a sign that any Republican who steps out of line could face the same political fate. He expected pushback, he said, but not to that extent.

We have a problem in our country, in terms of both our major parties. If you stray from a party position, you are annihilated, Jacobs said. For the Republicans, it became pretty apparent to me over the last week that that issue is gun control any gun control.

Advocates for gun control and safety measures, though, hope that Jacobs is a unique case and not indicative of what happens to any Republican who entertains gun reform.

It seems like Congressman Jacobs sort of mishandled this politically in various ways. But obviously, his heart was in the right place, said Peter Ambler, executive director of the gun reform group Giffords.

GOP officials appeared to be caught off-guard by Jacobss announcement. New York State Republican Committee Chairman Nick Langworthy told local news station WIVB 4 that Jacobs did not talk about his position with political allies before making the announcement. Conservative Party of New York State Chairman Gerard Kassar said he was perplexed at Jacobss announcement.

Theres ample evidence to show that, you know, to show that Republicans can and have successfully supported safer gun laws in Congress and elsewhere, Ambler said.

An assault weapons ban is not on the table in the bipartisan Senate negotiations, other gun control activists note. They point to strong bipartisan support among Americans for requiring background checks on all gun sales.

The vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe that the time is now for action to prevent further gun violence, said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. Its deeply disappointing that the extremists in his party have pushed Congressman Jacobs out, but this doesnt change the fact that we have a real opportunity to make real changes that can save lives. Im encouraged by reports of progress on red flags, background checks, secure storage and more mental health support because inaction cannot be an option.

Gun rights groups, though, see Jacobss political demise as predictable and justified.

Federal bans on semi-automatic rifles are wildly unpopular with law-abiding gun owners a group of Americans who regularly vote and are deeply involved in the political process. When Rep. Jacobs came out in support of an assault weapons ban, he signed onto the end of his political career in Congress, said Chris Stone, director of communications with the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that boasts a no-compromise stance.

The group circulated a petition to its members asking Jacobs to reverse his stance.

Gun rights groups have also pledged to run aggressive campaigns against some of the compromise positions being considered in Congress. Red flag laws like those on the table in Senate negotiations, they argue, violate due process rights.

Well expose any and all Republicans (and Democrats) who vote in favor of compromise gun control deals, including Red Flag and universal background checks which funnel gun owners into the NICS [background check] database, Stone said.

GOP leadership on the House side has also expressed opposition to red flag laws.

Under the guise of [a] red flag, they take away due process where they literally can come into your house and take away your gun without you even knowing that there was some kind of proceeding where somebody said, Oh, I think that guy might be a threat, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said on Fox News Sunday. So, now somebody can go and take away your constitutional right. I dont think people would agree with that. Thats not how we deal with rights in America.

Read more:

What a NY Republican abandoning his reelection says about gun reform - The Hill

The Republican party is building a grassroots army to target and potentially overturn election results in Democratic precincts, the Politico website reported on Wednesday, citing video evidence.

The alleged scheme includes installing party-trained volunteers prepared to challenge voters at Democratic-majority polling places, creating a website to put these workers in touch with local lawyers and establishing a network of district attorneys who could intervene to block vote counts.

Many Republicans still believe Donald Trumps lie that he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden because of widespread voter fraud. At state level the party has passed laws that make it harder to vote while pro-Trump candidates are running for positions that would give them control over future elections.

Politico obtained a series of recordings of Republican meetings between the summer of 2021 and May this year.

It said one from November shows Matthew Seifried, the Republican National Committees (RNC) election integrity director for Michigan, urging party activists in Wayne county to obtain official designations as poll workers.

Seifried says: Being a poll worker, you just have so many more rights and things you can do to stop something than [as] a poll challenger.

Some of the would-be poll workers complain that fraud was committed in 2020 and that the election was corrupt.

At another training session last October, Seifried promises support for such workers: Its going to be an army. Were going to have more lawyers than weve ever recruited, because lets be honest, thats where its going to be fought, right?

Politico also obtained Zoom tapings of Tim Griffin, legal counsel to the Amistad Project, a self-described election integrity group that Trumps former lawyer Rudy Giuliani once portrayed as a partner in the Trump campaigns legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Griffin is seen meeting with activists from multiple states and discussing plans for identifying friendly district attorneys who could stage interventions in local election disputes.

He says during one meeting in September: Remember, guys, were trying to build out a nationwide district attorney network. Your local district attorney, as we always say, is more powerful than your congressman.

Theyre the ones that can seat a grand jury. Theyre the ones that can start an investigation, issue subpoenas, make sure that records are retained, etc.

Politico added that installing party loyalists on the board of canvassers, which is responsible for certifying election results, also appears to be part of the Republican strategy.

The revelations are sure to intensify concerns about fresh assaults on American democracy in 2022 and 2024.

Nick Penniman, founder and chief executive of Issue One, an election watchdog group, told Politico: This is completely unprecedented in the history of American elections that a political party would be working at this granular level to put a network together. It looks like now the Trump forces are going directly after the legal system itself, and that should concern everyone.

The RNC insisted that it is simply trying to restore balance to election oversight in heavily Democratic cities such as Detroit. Gates McGavick, an RNC spokesperson, was quoted as saying: Democrats have had a monopoly on poll watching for 40 years, and it speaks volumes that theyre terrified of an even playing field.

The RNC is focused on training volunteers to take part in the election process because polling shows that American voters want bipartisan poll-watching to ensure transparency and security at the ballot box.

Read more:

Republican party building an army to overturn election results report - The Guardian US

Last months vote in the U.S. Congress to appropriate $40 billion in additional military and budgetary assistance for Ukraine laid bare fissures in the Republican congressional caucus: 11 of 50 Senate Republicans voted against the bill, as did 57 of 208 House Republicans.

Was the Ukraine vote a harbinger of Republican national security squabbles to come? Was it a partisan vote against anything associated with President Joe Biden? Or was it a one-off reflecting a poorly drafted bill with too much extraneous baggage? More importantly, who will hold the foreign-policy reins in the likely Republican House (and possibly Senate) majority to come in 2023the isolationists or the internationalists?

Political pundits agree Republicans are likely to win back the House of Representatives and have a good shot at the Senate in the November 2022 midterm elections. That couldcaucus permittingpropel House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to the speakership and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to the post of majority leader. Of the two, McConnell is the known quantityan experienced legislator and parliamentarian and an old-school internationalist whose foreign-policy views were forged in the crucible of the Cold War. McCarthy, not so much. Indeed, its probably most accurate to say his foreign policy was forged in the crucible of former President Donald Trump.

As previous Republican speakers have learned to their displeasure, the Republican Party in todays House is less a caucus and more a raucous battle for primacy. Former Speaker John Boehner struggled against rebellious Tea Party upstarts, his successor Paul Ryan struggled against the self-named Freedom Caucus, and McCarthy is unlikely to have much fun either. In the minority, the Republican Party tendsemphasis intendedto stand together because the Democratic speaker and the executive in the White House are deemed public enemies No. 1 and No. 2. But with the majority comes the battle to control the agenda.

Domestic policy will likely dominate the politicking in Congress: inflation, crime, education, the border. But Russias invasion of Ukraine, like so many conflicts before it, has proved that as much as politicians wish to focus on nation building here at home, global realities intrude. Ukraine is the tip of the iceberg, but Republicans have their eye on plenty of other issues as well, including relations with China, the question of defending Taiwan, the continued isolation of Russia, the Middle East (think energy, Iran, and Israel), and, more broadly, defense spending. But before the substance of the foreign-policy challenge hits the House and Senate floors, the ideological question merits examination.

American Enterprise Institute scholar Colin Dueck divides the Republican Partys foreign policy into three schools: foreign-policy activists, foreign-policy hard-liners, and foreign-policy noninterventionists.

Looking back, its clear that so-called foreign-policy activists dominated Republican national security policymaking for much of the post-World War II era. These were the leaders who believed, as both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush regularly underscored, that the United States is not simply one nation among many but that it is a beacon of freedom to the world, a shining city on a hill.

Foreign-policy activists underwrote the Reagan Doctrine, the principle that the United States should lend a hand to all those hoping to halt the advance of communism wherever they were, including in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, El Salvador, and Grenada. Bush faced different challenges, but his underlying faith in U.S. power and values was similar. Rather than fighting communism, what Bush dubbed his Freedom Agenda took on the tyrannies that he believed fueled Salafi-jihadis. Yet his efforts were neither clearly thought through nor appropriately resourced. Worse yet, Bush could not convincingly argue that he was advancing U.S. national interests in every case. For the activist school, Bushs Iraq War proved to be their swan song.

Though the Iraq War offered an I told you so moment for the Republican Partys isolationist wing, its immediate beneficiaries were President Barack Obama and the Democratic Partys own End the endless wars crowdor so it seemed at first. But the intervening years offered the Republican Partys noninterventionists ample fodder: the disastrous war in Libya and the horrifying killing of a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, the withdrawal from Iraq and the resulting rise of the Islamic State, the civil war in Syria and the ensuing cataclysmic refugee crisis. These crises were not the primary reason for Trumps election, but they didnt hurt his campaign. Rather, theytogether with Obamas self-labeled signature foreign-policy achievement, the Iran nuclear dealoffered an opportunity for Trump.

Donald Trumps political achievement in 2016 was to sense the possibility for a new [Republican] coalition unseen since before World War II, Dueck writes. He did this not by reiterating libertarian foreign-policy preferences. Rather, he combined non-interventionist criticism of endless wars with hardline stands on China, jihadist terrorism, anti-American dictatorships in Latin America, and US defense spending.

This is a sweet spot for Republican foreign policy, and understanding the reluctant internationalism of most of the partys votersa repudiation of the embarrassed anti-Americanism of the Democratic Partys far left and the activist internationalism that has heretofore characterized the Republican Party leadershipwill be key to geolocating a new Republican Congresss preferred national security policy.

A unifying theme for the Republican Party will be the challenge presented by China. It sells well with the base, and with trade liberalization off the table for the moment (for both parties), the question of China will likely come down to economic disengagement and Beijings threat to Taiwan.

A case in point is a recent letter co-written by Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito (respectively the Democratic and Republican senators from West Virginia) urging Biden to include Taiwan in his newly proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Republican signatories to the letter included James Risch, who is likely to be the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a new Republican-held Senate; Roger Wicker, the likely chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Marco Rubio, the likely chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and most of the Republican members of the current Senate Appropriations Committee. Notably, several of the Senates more ardent Trump supporters, including Marsha Blackburn and Kevin Cramer, also joined the letter. (A similar House effort was also joined by likely future national security heavyweights, including probable House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul.)

Defense spending will be another key theme for the Republican Party. House and Senate Republicans have repeatedly slammed Bidens defense spending as inadequate to address the countrys many national security challenges and have only escalated those charges since Russias invasion of Ukraine. McConnell has called for a 5 percent increase in defense spending above inflation, and McCarthy has been equally energetic. Both understandas Trump didthat investing in the military can be cast as a deterrent as well as a down payment on victory in any eventual conflict. And here again, the base is with them.

Ditto for energy security: While there is a bipartisan constituency for pivoting away from the Middle Eastand a growing bipartisan opposition to renewing the Iran nuclear dealRepublicans are less focused on climate change issues and more on basic pocketbook challenges. That will mean more enthusiasm for restoring American energy independence, avoiding unnecessary bickering with Saudi Arabia (still a major swing producer of oil), and easing regulations on U.S. oil and gas production.

But what about Ukraine and cases like it? What about those 11 in the Senate and the 57 in the House? What about the conservative powerhouse think tank the Heritage Foundation and its political action committee drawing a line in the sand against the $40 billion Ukraine aid package? Like Heritage, Sen. Mike Braun finessed his opposition based not on the policy of aiding Ukraine but on the cost of doing so and the spiraling U.S. debt. Sen. Rand Paul, a perennial opponent of U.S. overseas engagement, pinned his no vote on the lack of an inspector general in the bill to oversee how the funds are spent.

Thats fair enough, but its hard to picture every one of those no votes switching tack if presented with a better or cleaner billnot when the Republican Partys rising stars include the likes of Senate candidate J.D. Vance, who during his campaign said, I gotta be honest with you, I dont really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.

Its relatively easy to predict that a Republican majority will continue to support arming and aiding Ukraine, because the vote has already happened. And though a significant minority of the Republican caucus voted no, it was a minority. But there are harder cases (though not just for the Republicans): the looming Chinese threat to Taiwan, for one.

Sure, theres a majority in both houses for including Taiwan in trading arrangements, and there are vocal advocates in both chambers for ending the U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taipei. But where will the Republican Party be on defending Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack? Will isolationists on both left and right actually have the power to steer a course? On its face, the answer appears to be no, but the devil is, proverbially, in the details. Sanctions on China would hit the Republican base hard, raising costs for basic goods even higher.

As with all such crystal ball gazing, sorting the powerful from the merely loud will be a chore. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is ever-so-vocal and enjoys a substantial Twitter following, but she has little clout in the House of Representatives. Paul is consistently isolationist, but few ask how he will vote as they decide their stance on major issues.

More importantly, the majority of the Republican Party is not actually with them. Case in point: The TV host Tucker Carlson, pocket deity of Trump nostalgics, initially came out swinging against NATOs condemnations of Russian President Vladimir Putins attack on Ukraine, but he soon tempered his position once it became clear that ranging himself on the side of the Russian dictator was a losing cause.

Similarly, while all eyes focus on the Vances and Greenes, there actually remains a strong hawkish contingent in the Republican Party that is well represented on Capitol Hill, including by Sens. Tom Cotton, Rubio, and Ted Cruz, as well as Reps. Mike Gallagher, Elise Stefanik, and likely incoming House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Turner, among others. Although these members may not be interventionists in the style of George W. Bush, there should be no question that they are national security hawks keen on defending both U.S. interests and U.S. allies. That will almost certainly mean efforts to increase the defense budget; pressure to increase the quality, consistency, and speed of arms deliveries to Ukraine; and an even harder line on China, potentially including additional sanctions on Beijing (notwithstanding grumbling from certain quarters).

Finally, it pays to recall Trumps term in officenot the tweets, the bickering, the preening, or even the man himself, but rather the actual national security policy of the Trump administration, largely backed by the congressional Republican Party and its base. Trumps administration was tough on China, tough on Russia, tough on failed allied burden sharing, tough on Iran, pro-defense investment, pro-Israel, and, at the end of the day, actually pro-human rights (think troops in Syria to fight the Islamic State and counter the Russians, limitations on support for Saudi operations in Yemen, Magnitsky sanctions over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, sanctions over the Uyghurs, a hard line on hostage taking). That, perhaps, is a better guide to the future than the huffing and puffing of the Charles Lindbergh wing of the Republican Party.

View original post here:

How US Foreign Policy Could Change If the Republican Party Wins the 2022 Midterm Elections - Foreign Policy

Cornyns in a unique position to get the votes on guns, not just because of the latest tragedy that struck his home state. Hes previously teamed up with Democrats on narrow background checks legislation the most substantive gun bill to clear Congress in the last decade. Not to mention that the former whip wields major influence in a GOP conference where hes widely viewed as a potential successor to McConnell.

A successful gun vote could boost Cornyn in any future race for Senate GOP leader. Yet the risks of failure are even clearer and whatever bipartisan agreement that wont go too far for Cornyn may not be enough for Democratic negotiators. Cornyn, who assured one home-state radio host this week that Second Amendment restrictions are not gonna happen, voted against expanding background checks in 2013.

Even if Democrats and Cornyn can meet in the middle on trying to stop the American scourge of mass shootings, he will then have to sell the plan to a GOP conference historically disinterested in gun policy reforms. Despite that skepticism, especially given the closeness of the midterm elections, senators on both sides of the aisle see Cornyn as a gun-talks linchpin.

Hes critical, said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a frequent negotiating partner of Cornyns. His credibility as a conservative, as a Republican caucus leader, as a law enforcement leader from Texas gives him the credibility to negotiate a balance between robust investment in mental health and some progress around gun safety.

Cornyn and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), another leading participant in the current talks, tried to reach a deal last year to expand the definition of a commercial gun dealer to no avail. The Texan suggested this moment could be different, given the urgency of these repeated incidents and concerns from law enforcement about copycat shootings.

But as somewhat optimistic as he is, Cornyn is aware of the long odds and not sounding like a centrist.

When Sen. McConnell asked me to be sort of the point person on this, I thought to myself well, this is like Joe Biden appointing Kamala Harris border czar, I accepted the responsibility with a little trepidation, he recalled.

Alongside Cornyn and Murphy in one set of talks are Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). Those are happening in tandem with bipartisan discussions on a gun package that include Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Murphy and Sinema.

Negotiators are aiming to craft proposals soon and senators involved in the talks suggested their ideas could eventually merge. On both fronts, though, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has given deal-makers a relatively short deadline to reach an agreement.

Cornyn brings a record of modest wins to the discussions. He and Murphy worked together on narrow legislation to improve reporting by agencies and states to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That bill, a response to a 2017 Texas church shooting and a blueprint for Cornyn for the current gun talks, passed the following year as part of a broader government funding package.

And earlier this year, Cornyn and Coons passed legislation in the Violence Against Women Act that requires federal authorities to tell state and local law enforcement within 24 hours if a person barred from purchasing a firearm attempts to do so and fails a background check.

Hes earnestly at the table, Murphy said in an interview. Hes made clear theres only so far that hes willing to go. But so far, the things on the table are incremental but significant changes.

Among the proposals under consideration in this summers gun safety talks are changing the background check system, providing additional investments in mental health and school security, and giving grants for states to establish so-called red flag laws.

Cornyn declined to say what his red lines would be, but in the interview he expressed concern about mental health and the isolation of young people during the pandemic.

Im not talking about restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment, Cornyn said. Im talking about identifying people with criminal and mental health problems that are a threat to themselves and others.

Any package that comes together will be narrow, and wont satisfy long-running calls from anti-gun violence advocates for the Senate to move on House-passed legislation establishing universal background checks. But Democrats like Murphy say at this point, Congress needs to break the logjam.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who worked with Cornyn on criminal justice reform, said hes hopeful a deal will come to fruition but predicted that any agreement wont be to the level of what we are going to need to end the daily carnage.

Cornyns leading role in the gun talks comes amid speculation about a future race between him, current Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to eventually succeed McConnell as Senate GOP leader, whenever the Kentuckian steps down. Clinching a deal with Democrats on an issue as elusive as guns could boost Cornyns national profile and his standing within the conference.

But it could also lead to pushback from fellow conservatives who dont want to see any guns legislation pass the Senate.

Asked whether becoming GOP leader factors into his thinking, Cornyn replied: Thats a long way off, and who knows whether its ever going to happen. But he added that if youre not in the Senate in order to make a difference and make tough, politically challenging decisions which you know are the right thing to do, then you need to find another job.

Cornyn said hes aiming to see an equal number of Republicans and Democrats back any guns agreement he reaches and that hed like the amount of support to be within the ballpark of the 70-plus co-sponsors who backed his 2018 legislation with Murphy. But getting 20 Republicans, let alone 10, wont be easy.

And time is not on his side.

Ten is a pretty tough number to get to, and theres a window for senators who have engaged in this kind of work before to do so, Coons said of Republican colleagues. But we need them to step forward and to do so fairly soon.

Just Wednesday, a gunman killed four people in Tulsa, Okla., prompting President Joe Biden to address the nation pushing again for Congress to act. The president, in fact, also sees Cornyn as critical; the senators staff is in touch with the White House on guns and Biden recently described the Texan as a rational Republican.

People are going to say what theyre going to say, Cornyn said. But Im happy to be part of the coalition of the rational.

Sarah Ferris and Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

More:

The Texas conservative turned Biden-approved 'rational Republican' on guns - POLITICO

Enough!

Joe Biden repeated that word 11 times during a televised address to the American people on Thursday night as he lamented how schools and other public places in the US have been turned into killing fields by gun violence.

After Columbine, after Sandy Hook, after Charleston, after Orlando, after Las Vegas, after Parkland, nothing has been done, the US president said against a backdrop of 56 candles representing gun violence in all 50 states and six territories. This time, that cant be true. This time, we must actually do something.

But just before Bidens impassioned speech there were reminders of exactly how hard that will be.

During a congressional hearing on gun safety, Republican Greg Steube of Florida, taking part remotely, brandished various pistols and declared: Im in my house, I can do whatever I want with my guns. In Iowa, a man shot dead two women outside a church before apparently killing himself.

Americas political checks and balances ensure that presidents are far from omnipotent. Biden, like fellow Democrat Barack Obama before him, has run into a wall of obstruction from Republicans in Congress. It is a wall that can feel almost impossible to breach with meaningful new laws. It is not a big mystery why.

In the decade since the massacre of 20 children at Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has spent more than $100m to help elect Republicans who support its agenda. That included $30m to help Donald Trump get elected president in 2016.

Gun culture in America though often baffling to much of the rest of the world has become entrenched as an identity symbol for conservatives and the Trump base. Four in 10 Americans live in a household with a gun, while 30% say they personally own one, according to a 2021 survey by Pew Research Center.

No Republican has ever been punished for promoting firearms too hard in primary elections, which tend to reward he or she who shouts loudest. In a hyper-partisan era, there is little political incentive for them to strike a deal with Biden.

But after last months fatal shooting of 19 students and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and data showing that guns are now the number one killer of children in the US, some Democrats and grassroots activists have expressed hope that this time will be different.

Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator for Connecticut, scene of the Sandy Hook shooting, has vowed not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, pointing to a new willingness among at least some Republicans to talk and compromise.

If that is true and it is a big if there is little chance that the evenly divided Senate will meet the specific demands that Biden made on Thursday night. These included a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that allow a gun to fire dozens of rounds in seconds. The president also pushed for stronger background checks on gun buyers and a repeal of legal immunity for gun manufacturers, drawing comparison with the tobacco industry.

The House of Representatives, where Democrats have a slender majority, has already passed some measures such as expanding background checks, which have broad public support in opinion polls. But these are likely to stall in the evenly divided Senate, where Democrats need at least 10 Republicans to join them to override a procedure known as the filibuster.

The hostile reaction to Bidens intervention gave an insight into how unlikely that is. The NRA said his proposals would infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. This isnt a real solution, it isnt true leadership, and it isnt what America needs, it argued.

The Fox News contributor Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of the Federalist online magazine, described the remarks as an impeachable offence, adding: Do something is not a serious policy. Some Republicans have instead argued for arming teachers and fortifying schools.

The proposed assault weapons ban is an example of how reform is becoming harder, not easier. As Biden noted, there was such a law in 1994, passed with bipartisan support in Congress and endorsed by law enforcement organisations. But Republicans allowed it to expire a decade later during the presidency of George W Bush. Since the weapons went back on sale, Biden said, mass shootings have tripled.

The US has a higher rate of gun deaths than any other wealthy nation. Since Uvalde, there have been more than 20 other mass shootings. Even Bidens plan is relatively modest and would only tinker around the edges. Dont expect Republican senators, beholden to the gun lobby and with an eye on midterm elections, to accept his plea that enough is enough.

Continue reading here:

Grim body count unlikely to be enough for Republicans to act on gun reform - The Guardian US

In a sane country that actually valued human lives, last weeks mass shooting in Texasor, the one before that in Buffalo, or thousands before that in the years priorwould have marked the moment the elected officials whove refused to pass gun control legislation looked in the mirror and decided to stop being part of the problem.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is not a sane country, and instead of actually doing something to prevent these atrocities from occurring all the timein case you missed it, there have been 17 mass shootingssince Uvalde, TexasRepublicans have launched a competition in which they duke it out to see who can come up with the most ridiculous thing to blame mass shootings on besides guns. So far, thats included too many doors; not enough God; pot; single moms; unarmed teachers; and schools being designed without trip wires and man traps.

Obviously, the competition is fierce. But that didnt scare Missouri representative and Senate candidate Billy Long, who rolled up to Wednesdays interview with a local radio station withand excuse the phrase though we assume hell appreciate itthe big guns. Asked by host Branden Rathert if Is there any appetite in D.C. amongst Republicans to look at doing some things differently as it relates to guns, Long responded that No one has been able to come up with any kind of suggestion that would have helped in any of these situations fact-check: false! and that passing gun control measures is not the solution to the epidemic of gun violence. Unfortunately, theyre trying to blame inanimate objects for all of these tragedies,he said. Then he added: When I was growing up in Springfield, you had one or two murders a year. Now we have two, three, four a week in Springfield, Missouri, so something has happened to our society and I go back to abortion. When we decided it was okay to murder kids in their mothers wombs, life has no value to a lot of these folks.

As Jezebels Laura Bassett noted, thats a pretty rich explanation given that you dont typically hear about mass shootings being carried out by women whove undergone abortions, probably because mass shootings are almost exclusively the domain of men, a not insignificant number of which are violent misogynists (and racists and antisemites, etc). The U.K. legalized abortion five years before the U.S., yet strangely, it doesnt seem to have the same problem with mass shootings. If Long and his ilk were actually serious about preventing thousands of Americans being killed by guns every year, they might wonder why. Hint: It doesnt have to do with clotted cream or corgis. (Just so its clear: The actual reason that more mass shootings occur in the U.S. than any other wealthy country the answerthe only answeris the astronomical number of guns in this country.)

Elsewhere in conservative bullshit re: guns, on Wednesday, Doug Mastriano, the Pennsylvania GOP nominee for governor, shared and doubled down on a 2018 video of him likening gun control to the policies of Adolf Hitler. Its appalling to me any time theres a shooting, the left will jump on that as a way to advance an agenda to remove our right to bear arms, Mastriano says in the clip. We saw Lenin do the same thing in Russia. We saw Hitler do the same thing in Germany in the 30s. Where does it stop? Where do the tyrants stop infringing upon our rights?

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, clickheretosubscribe.

Read this article:

Republican Congressman Blames Mass Shootings on Women Having Rights - Vanity Fair

Jun. 4The South Carolina Republican Party will be asking voters in its June 14 primary how they feel about registration by political party, partisan school board elections, and comparative fault legislation.

The first of three advisory questions on the ballot asks whether people should have the right to register with a political party when they register to vote.

Currently, a person registering to vote in South Carolina does not register by party.

The second question asks whether school board elections should be partisan.

Currently, school boards in South Carolina are mostly non-partisan. There are a couple of districts that have their board members appointed by members of the county's legislative delegation.

The last advisory question on Republican ballots asks voters if they support switching to a pure comparative fault type of damages in negligence lawsuits.

Currently, South Carolina law allows for recovery only if the person is determined to be less than 50% at fault in the matter that led to a lawsuit.

The questions are advisory and will not result in a change to state law. They could, however, influence the party's position on issues in the future.

Link:

Election Guide: Republican ballots in S.C. to include three advisory questions - Yahoo News