Katie Britt leads legislation to limit federal oversight into state-regulated insurance industry
On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama) led 16 of her Senate colleagues in introducing the Insurance Data Protection Act. This legislation would overrule a recent effort by the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) to step into the state-regulated insurance industry, including its proposed “Climate-Related Financial Risk Data Collection.” Britt said that the bill would eliminate the FIO Director’s subpoena authority. For over a century, the insurance industry was regulated by the states. That changed somewhat when the FIO was created in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That Obama-era legislation does include an explicit provision stating that the Office does not have general supervisory or regulatory authority over the insurance business, which is supervised and regulated on a state-by-state basis across the United States. Senator Britt’s legislation clarifies that FIO does not need subpoena power since it is intended to function as an informational body. The bill would also require that the FIO coordinate any data collection efforts with state insurance regulators and assess all publicly available data and sources regarding the data being sought. These provisions would limit unnecessary data inquiries and prevent duplicative efforts across the state and federal landscapes. The bill would also set forth confidentiality procedures and requirements governing how data can be used by financial regulators if collected from insurers. This would ensure consumers’ information remains secure. “Our state insurance regulators have more than proven their ability to effectively and responsibly supervise the American insurance industry for over a century,” said Senator Britt. “FIO should work with, not around, state insurance officials. Not only is FIO overstepping its lawful authority and trampling on Congressional intent, but the office is also utilizing private insurance data to advance the Biden Administration’s leftwing Green New Deal agenda. This commonsense legislation would ensure the state-regulated insurance market remains strong, prevent redundant and unnecessary data reporting that would needlessly cost millions of dollars, and protect consumers’ sensitive information.” This legislation has been cosponsored by Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Tim Scott (R-South Carolina). “As a former insurance agent, I know firsthand the importance of our state-based insurance regulation regime that has resulted in highly competitive and fair markets across the country – addressing local issues with local solutions,” said Sen. Scott. “That’s why I’ve been alarmed by the Federal Insurance Office’s (FIO) efforts to overstep its authority and push the Biden administration’s radical climate agenda. This important bill will reign in the administration’s climate activists, ensure greater coordination between FIO and state insurance regulators, and protect both consumers’ and insurers’ data.” Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Steve Daines (R-Montana), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Pete Ricketts (R-Nebraska), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), John Thune (R-South Dakota), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), and J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) have all signed on to cosponsor the legislation. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), Association for Independent Agents (Big I), and Professional Insurance Agents (PIA) have endorsed this legislation. FIO is an office within the Treasury Department created by Dodd-Frank to monitor the insurance sector and help provide information to policymakers and state regulators, as needed, without regulatory authority. The climate risk assessments the FIO is collecting were requested in the President’s climate executive order and would require over 200 private insurance companies (over 70% of the homeowners’ insurance market) to provide to FIO highly-detailed data (broken down by zip code) regarding the effect of climate-related catastrophes on insurance availability and affordability for Americans. On November 1st, the Treasury announced its intention to move ahead with this data call. “Americans are facing growing challenges from extreme weather events caused by climate change,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement about the FIO collection project. “The resulting data and analyses will help policymakers inform potential approaches to improving insurance availability and affordability for consumers.” While federal officials continue pushing for more detailed climate data from insurers, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) emphasizes climate concerns during its annual fall meeting. The Climate and Resiliency Task Force is expected to adopt a National Climate Resilience Strategy for Insurance to stabilize the insurance market. “It’s part of our overarching mission to manage risks, ensure the availability and reliability of insurance products, promote insurer solvency, and close protection gaps,” the strategy reads. “Our work to identify, assess, and communicate risk and risk reduction solutions, as well as to improve oversight of the insurance sector, has positioned state insurance regulators to implement a climate resilience strategy.” Katie Britt is a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville joins legislation to give aid to Israel
On Thursday, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) joined U.S. Senators Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to introduce the Israel Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2023. This GOP legislation would ensure that funding for Israel is not exploited to send billions of more dollars in aid to Ukraine. This legislation would provide $14.3 billion to Israel, including $10.6 billion for assistance through the Department of Defense (DOD), $3.5 billion for foreign military financing, and $200 million in diplomatic funding to help protect U.S. embassies and personnel. “I have voted against additional funding for Ukraine and will continue to do so,” said Sen. Tuberville. “The contrast with Israel could not be clearer. Israel is our Number One ally in the Middle East. Israel is killing terrorists who want us dead. I stand with Israel 100 percent, but I do not support sending another dime to Ukraine.” The Israel Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2023 would: · Block the Biden administration from leveraging aid to Israel for more Ukraine funding and clarify that none of the amounts made available by the bill can be used in connection with the Ukraine war. · Funds Israel’s defense, including the Iron Dome and Iron Beam systems, and replaces weapons the DOD sends Israel. · Authorizes the Pentagon to send Israel equipment and services already in U.S. stocks. · Authorizes stockpiling weapons in Israel. · Funds more protection for U.S. embassies and personnel in Israel and to help repatriate American citizens from the region. · Strips all aid to Gaza that could be funneled to Hamas terrorists. President Joe Biden has made aid to Israel conditional on Congress also approving his $61 billion aid package for Ukraine. Biden also wants to tie Israeli aid to a $6 billion humanitarian aid package for Hamas-controlled Gaza. The White House has said that Biden will veto a stand-alone aid package for Israel that passed out of the House of Representatives on Thursday night. Sen. Tuberville has also cosponsored the Revoke Iranian Funding Act to freeze the $6 billion in funding the Biden administration released to Iran at the bank in Qatar, where it is currently being held. This would ensure these dollars are not used by Iran to promote terrorism against Israel or any other nation. Tuberville has also sponsored the Emergency Resupply for IRON DOME Act of 2023, which would require the Executive Branch to transfer the U.S. foreign assistance that the U.S. Department of State plans to send to Hamas-controlled Gaza and redirect it to resupply Israel’s missile defense interceptors. Tuberville has cosponsored the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Accountability and Transparency Act to cut U.S. funds to the antisemitic United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Tuberville has sent a letter to President Biden asking him to prioritize rescuing American hostages that were taken by Hamas during its attacks on Israel and to support Israel’s efforts to wipe out Hamas. Tuberville is calling on President Biden to enforce existing law and revoke the visas of foreign nationals who endorse or espouse activity in support of Hamas or other Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). He also voted for the bipartisan resolution of support for Israel that passed the Senate on Thursday. Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and HELP Committees. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville demands State Department rescind pronouns mandate
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), Sen. Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), and nine of their colleagues sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanding that he rescind the State Department’s latest guidance which threatens termination if an employee refuses to use another employee’s chosen gender pronoun instead of the one that biology correctly assigned to them at birth. In the letter, the Senators highlight that the State Department guidance is potentially illegal because it “infringes upon the First Amendment rights of State Department employees, as recognized by the Supreme Court, to speak openly on matters of public concern.” The letter details how the guidance violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) “by forcing employees to choose between facing disciplinary action and complying.” The letter was also signed by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), JD Vance (R-Ohio), and Roger Marshall (R-Kansas). Budd, Tuberville, and the other Senators wrote, “We write to demand that you rescind the recent State Department guidance for employees titled “Updated Department Guidance Regarding Transgender Employees in the Workplace” (“Guidance”). We understand that you personally approved and signed the Guidance and authorized its electronic transmission via the attached, unclassified cable on your behalf to all State Department employees.” “The Guidance forces every State Department employee—without exception—to comply with any demand by another employee to use that employee’s choice of name, pronouns, or honorific. According to the Guidance, failure to comply may “contribute to a hostile work environment allegation, and constitute misconduct subject to disciplinary action, up to and including separation or removal.” This is potentially illegal for multiple reasons.” The letter continues, “First, Congress never authorized the State Department to impose such restrictions on employee speech. But even if Congress did so, this Guidance would be arguably unconstitutional. Specifically, this Guidance infringes upon the First Amendment rights of State Department employees, as recognized by the Supreme Court, to speak openly on matters of public concern and to be free from government-compelled speech, including government-compelled affirmation of contested political, social, and religious ideas. Accordingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently recognized that “the use of gender-specific titles and pronouns” constitutes such a matter of public concern; thus, government employees have the right to speak openly on this subject, or not to speak at all.“ “Moreover, this Guidance creates a hostile work environment for dissenting employees, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for failing to provide a religious accommodation for dissenters. Several State Department employees have voiced their concerns with this Guidance to Senators, stating that they cannot comply with this Guidance without violating their religious beliefs. Indeed, by forcing employees to choose between facing disciplinary action and complying with this Guidance, the Guidance violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was enacted “to provide very broad protection for religious liberty.” It may even constitute a violation of the “No Religious Test Clause” of the Constitution by discriminating against those with certain religious views from holding a position within the State Department. Lastly, we understand that the State Department adopted this major policy change behind closed doors, thus preventing it from receiving any scrutiny by the press or the broader public. Such a major policy change, which threatens severe consequences against State Department employees for noncompliance, deserves rigorous, public scrutiny.” “Secretary Blinken, you have declared that “[dissent] should be and it will be welcomed” at the State Department. You have also warned that “[w]hen religious liberty is at risk” then “other freedoms are jeopardized as well.” Therefore, we call on you to adhere to your oath to uphold the Constitution and federal law, and to live up to your own public commitments, by formally and publicly rescinding this Guidance immediately.” The Senators ask for Blinken to answer a number of questions about this policy, including identifying the specific legal authority relied upon to issue this guidance. Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and HELP Committees. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville opposes more military aid for Ukraine
On Friday, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) joined Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Congressman Chip Roy (R-Texas), and dozens of colleagues in sending a bicameral letter to the White House rejecting further U.S. funding for the war in Ukraine. “Your request cites President [Joe] Biden’s pledge that ‘we will stand with Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty for as long as it takes’…” Vance, Roy, Tuberville, etc. wrote. “These statements imply an open-ended commitment to supporting the war in Ukraine of an indeterminate nature, based on a strategy that is unclear, to achieve a goal yet to be articulated to the public or the Congress.” “The American people deserve to know what their money has gone to,” Vance, Roy, and the other members of Congress wrote. “How is the counteroffensive going? Are the Ukrainians any closer to victory than they were 6 months ago? What is our strategy, and what is the president’s exit plan? What does the administration define as victory in Ukraine? What assistance has the United States provided Ukraine under Title 10? It would be an absurd abdication of congressional responsibility to grant this request without knowing the answers to these questions. For these reasons—and certainly until we receive answers to the questions above and others forthcoming—we oppose the additional expenditure for war in Ukraine included in your request.” Tuberville has long criticized the amount of support the United States has sent to Ukraine. “The war in Ukraine is a disaster for the United States,” Tuberville told Alabama Today in April. “We jumped in all four feet, knowing that we didn’t have enough munitions to help Ukraine. We don’t want to put boots on the ground. I am all for Ukraine, but you have got to have an opportunity to win, and we don’t have one person that has any insight in terms of diplomacy from this White House or this administration. Secretary [Antony] Blinken has done zero. You know, the Chinese laugh at the guy. President Biden needs to be on the phone every day to stop this. We have gotten hundreds of thousands of people killed. There is all kinds of rumors about money that has been stolen from the American taxpayer that is going over there. We don’t know.” “Five years from now, we’re going to find out that between the Clintons and a number of American private equity firms and other hyper-global corporations that, you’re going to find a lot of people have gotten rich from this, and it’s really sad and it is really despicable because of course, the Ukrainians didn’t invite the war on themselves,” Sen. Vance told Jesse Waters on Fox News. I have disagreements with their leadership but not with the people. But you can almost see the elites of Washington and New York City salivating over acquiring more power and more money for themselves on the backs of the Ukrainian war effort. Anybody who doesn’t see this for what it is, I think, is blind to the reality. It’s one of the reasons why, Jesse, we have to start asking tough questions about how long is this going to go on?” President Biden reiterated his support for Ukraine’s war effort in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week. “If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure? I respectfully suggest the answer is no. We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow,” Biden said. “That’s why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom.” Tuberville was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2020. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville praised by Republicans for standing up to Chuck Schumer
It has been seven months, and U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) is still refusing to give unanimous consent on almost 300 military promotions. On Wednesday, Sen. Tuberville personally tackled the growing logjam of military leaders holding positions they have been nominated to as interims by attempting to bring up the nomination for Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) responded to Tuberville’s maneuver by bringing Smith and two other generals to the floor for Senate confirmation. In February, Sen. Tuberville imposed a hold on all senior military promotions after the Pentagon implemented a taxpayer-funded abortion-related travel policy that is ostensibly illegal. Coach Tuberville’s position has not changed: either the Pentagon can reverse its controversial and likely illegal policy, or Chuck Schumer can bring these nominations to the floor individually. For the past seven months, Schumer has refused to bring the nominations to the floor despite constantly complaining about “military readiness.” Former President Donald Trump said on Truth Social, “BIG WIN FOR TOMMY. Unlike McConnell and his group of automatic Democrat YES VOTES, Tommy T is willing to take on the Radical Left Fascists & Thugs that are destroying our Country. What a difference!!” Republican Presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott said, “Listen, he was right to do what he said. The Hyde Amendment is clear. You cannot use a penny of federal dollars in support of abortion. Period. Transportation, any other way. I think it was seven or eight years ago, Hugh, I held promotions as well, because there was a move to take the Guantanamo Bay prisoners and bring them into Charleston, South Carolina. You have to be willing to take a stand. The Senate can, at some point, override you, and that’s what’s happened recently, but the truth is you only have certain weapons in your arsenal, and I must concede. Under President Biden, holding up promotions is not necessarily a bad thing. What we’ve seen in the top brass in today’s military is too much focus on ESG and DEI and gender issues, vaccine mandates as opposed to war fighting, lethality, and making sure that the resources and the equipment and the training that we need, that’s where the focus of this military should be.” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said, “Senator Schumer just proved he could have moved these military promotions months ago. He held our servicemembers hostage for purely political reasons.” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Alabama) said on X, “As I’ve said previously, Senator Schumer has the power to schedule votes on each of these nominees. Today’s move only confirms this has been true all along.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, “Senator Schumer could have broken this logjam months ago by filing cloture like he did today on the nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) said, “The military cannot be an arm of either admin’s social policy. There’s a law that says abortions will not be publicly funded and the Biden administration is circumventing that in a way that destroys credibility in the military.” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida) said, “Senator Tuberville did the right thing and showed today that this was all politics by the Democrats. And they don’t care that they’re violating the law.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on social media, “@SecDef brought this on himself and @DeptofDefense by adopting a policy designed only to flout 10 USC 1093. […] If confirmation delays really are imperiling national security, then @SecDef should immediately suspend his abortion-travel policy, which is what it will take to get the confirmation process expedited. He can’t blame @SecDefwithout implicating himself. […] Since when is funding for abortion travel—which @DeptofDefense never funded until six months ago—essential to American national security?” Congressman Barry Moore (R-AL02) said, “Schumer could have approved every military nominee by scheduling votes over the last several months, but he cared more about funding abortion travel than military readiness. Major win for Sen Tuberville!” Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) said, “Senator Tuberville has bravely and steadfastly held the line in the Senate by placing a hold on all DoD senior leader nominations until the DoD complies with federal law and ceases its abortion policies. DoD has complained this will harm national security, but DoD has the ability to stop this immediately. All they have to do is rescind this illegal policy.” Tuberville said he might bring future nominees to the floor through regular order in the Senate. Critics of Tuberville’s actions say this process is too time-consuming to be used repeatedly. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville and colleagues introduce the Secure the Border Act of 2023
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) on Friday joined U.S. Senators Katie Britt (R-Alabama), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and fifteen other U.S. Senate colleagues in introducing the Secure the Border Act of 2023 to combat the border crisis. This bill is the Senate companion to legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year, commonly known as H.R. 2, which would resume construction on the wall at our southern border, tighten asylum standards, criminalize visa overstays, increase the number of Border Patrol Agents, defund non-government organizations receiving tax dollars to help traffic illegal immigrants throughout the country and prohibit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from using its app to assist illegal immigrants. “The crisis at our southern border gets worse with each passing day under Joe Biden’s watch,” said Sen. Tuberville. “Americans are tired of sending taxpayer dollars to help other countries secure their borders while leaving the floodgates open at ours. We are losing people every day to fentanyl and other deadly drugs that are pouring across the border. This madness must stop. I’m proud to join my Senate colleagues to introduce this legislation, and hope those on the other side of the aisle will help us address this severe national security issue.” “We have to acknowledge the problem before we can solve it, but President Biden hasn’t even been willing to do that,” Sen. Britt said. “With a record number of Americans dying from fentanyl poisoning, record deaths among migrants attempting to cross the border, record profits by the cartels, and a record amount of people on the terrorism watchlist apprehended at the border, there is no doubt that this is a crisis unlike which we have ever seen.” “Under Joe Biden, we have a wide-open southern border,” Sen. Cruz said. “The Biden Border Crisis has created the largest illegal immigration crisis in our nation’s history. Biden’s open borders are an invitation for the cartels to brutalize children, to assault women, to overrun our communities with illegal aliens, and to flood this country with narcotics and fentanyl that kill over 100,000 people per year. This bill would stop the Biden Border Crisis dead in its tracks by building the wall, ratcheting up asylum standards, increasing the number of Border Patrol Agents, and implementing effective border security policies.” Joining Senators Tuberville, Britt, and Cruz in the legislation are Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky), Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), and U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), JD Vance (R-Ohio), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), John Hoeven, (R-North Dakota), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), Steve Daines (R-Montana), and Presidential candidate Tim Scott (R-South Carolina). The Secure the Border Act enacts effective border security solutions, including: · Requiring the Department of Homeland Security to resume border wall construction. · Increasing the number of Border Patrol Agents. · Tightening asylum standards by restricting asylum to only aliens who present at ports of entry and by requiring aliens to prove they are “more likely than not” to qualify for their asylum claim. · Narrowing DHS’s power to unilaterally grant parole to illegal aliens. · Criminalizing visa overstays by making the first offense a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and the second offense a felony punishable by up to a $2,000 fine and up to two years imprisonment. · Stopping NGOs from using tax dollars to transport or lodge illegal aliens and provide illegal aliens with lawyers. · Restricting DHS from using its CBP One app to welcome illegal aliens into the country. · Requiring employers to use E-Verify. · Ensuring CBP has access to the criminal history databases of all countries of origin and transit so that CBP is aware of the criminal history of illegal aliens encountered at the southern border. Sen. Tuberville supports common-sense policies that strengthen our border and national security, like building the wall and reinstating the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the Remain in Mexico policy. With Democrats controlling the Senate, it is unlikely that they will allow this legislation to go to the floor, and if it did pass Congress, it is unlikely that President Biden will sign it. Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and HELP Committees. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
John Hendrickson: Is former Vice President Mike Pence’s view on conservatism correct?
Former Vice President Mike Pence, in a speech before the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College and in an article in The Wall Street Journal, warned Republicans and conservatives about the danger of populism. The former Vice President argues, in echoing Ronald Reagan’s 1964 address, that it is “a time for choosing” for Republicans whether to continue to follow the “siren song” of populism or return to true conservatism. It is clear that Pence is not only drawing a line in the sand and forcing a debate over conservatism, but also distancing himself from former President Donald Trump and those who support his policies. Nevertheless, Pence fails to understand that the conservative populism he is denouncing is actually rooted within the American conservative tradition. Debates within and amongst conservatives is nothing new. The conservative movement contains various “schools of intellectual thought” over what conservatism means and how conservatives should shape public policy. Vice President Pence argues that the Republican Party must return to traditional conservatism. “If we are to defeat Joe Biden and turn America around, the GOP must be the party of limited government, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility and traditional values,” wrote Pence. Pence is defining traditional conservatism based upon the principles of limited government, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility, and traditional values. Further, he correctly notes that individual “rights come from God and nature, not from the state.” In addition, Pence argues that just “like our founders, we know the imperfect nature of men and women and that granting them unlimited power imperils liberty.” This is an important pillar of conservatism, that is, that human nature is flawed because of original sin. Pence is also correct in referencing the need for conservatives to uphold and defend constitutional principles such as federalism. Conservatives would largely agree with Pence’s definition of conservatism, but he only offers a surface view of conservatism. Pence warns about the danger of populism, and he argues that this is a political tool of progressives and he references William Jennings Bryan and the “Kingfish” Huey Long as examples. Further, Pence argues that populists within the Republican Party are a threat to limited government, traditional values, and even the Constitution. Further, these Republican populists favor abandoning “American leadership on the world stage” and “embracing a posture of appeasement in the face of rising threats to freedom.” Pence’s other indictment is that Republican populists are abandoning free enterprise. Is Pence correct that populism is not only wrong, but also rooted in liberalism and progressivism and that these Republican populists are not conservative? First, Pence needs to define what policies of the Trump administration were not conservative. Pence acknowledges that the Trump administration governed as conservatives, but now Trump has abandoned conservatism. Does this mean that the Trump America First agenda was conservative according to Pence? In 2016, President Trump campaigned on what was considered to be a new approach to conservatism. He called for restrictions on immigration, building a border wall to secure the border, a restrained foreign policy, and he was highly critical of free trade and openly called for tariffs to protect manufacturing. This agenda has been referred to as America First, conservative nationalism, and conservative populism. It also fits within the framework of the paleoconservative tradition. Nevertheless, the ideas that shaped President Trump were not new, nor were they a departure from conservatism as former Vice President Pence would suggest. In fact, President Trump was rediscovering an older conservative Republican tradition. As an example, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote that “in leading Republicans away from globalism to economic nationalism, Trump is not writing a new gospel. He is leading a lost party away from a modernist heresy – back to the Old-Time Religion.” Buchanan, during the 1990s, campaigned for the Republican nomination championing similar ideas as Trump. The conservative nationalist tradition can be traced back to the American founding. Specifically, Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. President Calvin Coolidge even credited Hamilton and the Federalists and later the Whigs as the source of the Republican Party’s heritage. Former Vice President Pence should consider the conservatism of the 1920s. Conservatives such as Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge not only challenged progressives, but their policy agenda was based on conservative nationalism. Harding and Coolidge not only supported a restrained foreign policy, but also protective tariffs and restricting immigration. They also placed an emphasis on limiting government by reducing spending, paying down the national debt, and reducing tax rates. Harding and Coolidge actually reduced government. Vice President Pence appears to be fighting against conservative nationalism and embracing the neoconservative agenda that was embraced by President George W. Bush’s administration. Neoconservatism and the Pence-style of conservatism dominated the Republican Party before Trump. What were the results: a full retreat on the cultural war and traditional values, engaging in costly wars to promote democracy, free trade agreements which led to the devastation of manufacturing, middle-class jobs, and massive trade deficits which led to the rise of China, and uncontrolled immigration. Plus, the federal government, along with the national debt, continued to grow. It was this “traditional” conservatism that idolized and worshiped at the golden alter of democracy and free trade. Is this the conservatism that we want to return to as a nation or a movement? In fact, during the first Republican presidential candidate debate Vice President Pence resembled former President George W. Bush more than President Ronald Reagan, especially in his advocacy of sending more dollars and support to Ukraine. This foreign policy approach, along with free trade, has more in common with progressives such as Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pence’s approach to Ukraine is Wilsonian. Pence is attempting to proclaim himself as the true heir to Reagan. When examining the legacy of President Reagan too many conservatives forget that Reagan, even with all of the free market and liberty rhetoric, often practiced a restrained foreign policy and implemented trade policies that were considered protectionist. Some even argued that Reagan was the most
Katie Britt, Rick Scott and colleagues urge Biden Administration to address passport delays
On Monday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama) announced that she has joined Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) and 12 of their colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken urging him to take immediate action to resolve the backlog of passport applications. “Given the sheer number of Alabamians who have recently requested help with a passport issue, I’m concerned that action has not been taken sooner to address this concern, which clearly affects a great number of Alabamians,” said Sen. Britt. “As record levels of Americans continue to book flights across the globe, we request this matter be dealt with immediately and transparently to prevent further backlog.” More Americans are seeking passports, and there are growing delays in obtaining or renewing a passport. According to a recent report, it can take 17 weeks to get a passport renewed. This turnaround time has grown several weeks just since February. In the letter, the Senators note countless reports from Americans in their respective states regarding issues and concerns with delayed wait times, lack of available in-person appointments, and an inability to communicate with passport agencies. The Senators charge that this is an unacceptable failure from a federal government that should be focused on serving American taxpayers and their needs. Joining Senators Britt and Scott were U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), JD Vance (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), and Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska). “As summer begins and families across the nation are finalizing their travel plans, we have heard countless reports from constituents in our states about the massive backlogs in processing passport applications,” the Senators wrote to Sec. Blinken. “While we appreciate the hard work of Passport Agency employees across the nation, this backlog and the unresponsiveness to many passport inquiries is unacceptable.” “Since January 2023, our offices have observed a massive increase in passport-related inquiries from our constituents,” the Senators continued. “We understand that the Department of State is experiencing an unprecedented number of passport applications and renewals, but the strategies put in place to address this unprecedented demand appear to need additional attention.” “These backlogs have resulted in many American families being forced to cancel their travel plans because of increased wait times, a lack of available in-person appointments, and an inability to communicate with passport agencies,” wrote the Sens. “Furthermore, the delay many Americans are experiencing in receiving their passport could potentially be detrimental to their livelihood. The Department of State must address these issues promptly to remedy the situation. As our offices continue to work each and every day to assist constituents with their passport needs.” Many countries require a passport to be valid six months after your trip ends. These include India, Kenya, Morocco, Peru, Singapore, Thailand, Turks and Caicos, and Zimbabwe. All 27 European Union member countries require passports to be valid for at least three months beyond the date of departure. Some countries are more visitor-friendly and only require your passport to be valid. These include Argentina, Australia, Dominican Republic, Japan, and the United Kingdom. For travel to Hong Kong, the requirement is one month beyond the trip. Since renewing a passport can take four months, plan accordingly if you have plans to travel or work in a field where foreign travel may be required at some point. Katie Britt was elected to the Senate in 2022 after a career as a lobbyist, attorney, and Sen. Richard Shelby’s chief of staff. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
GOP’s lackluster fundraising spurs post-election infighting
Trailing badly in his Arizona Senate race as votes poured in, Republican Blake Masters went on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program and assigned blame to one person: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “You know what else is incompetent, Tucker? The establishment. The people who control the purse strings,” Masters said before accusing the long-serving GOP leader and the super PAC aligned with him of not spending enough on TV advertising. “Had he chosen to spend money in Arizona, this race would be over. We’d be celebrating a Senate majority right now.” Masters not only lost his race against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, but he also trailed every other Republican running for statewide office in Arizona. There’s another problem Masters didn’t acknowledge: He failed to raise significant money on his own. He was hardly alone. As both parties sift through the results of Democrats’ stronger-than-expected showing in the midterm elections, Republicans are engaged in a round of finger-pointing, including a failed attempt by Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who led the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, to challenge McConnell for his leadership post. But the recriminations obscure a much deeper dilemma for the party. Many of their nominees — a significant number of whom were first-time candidates who adopted far-right positions — failed to raise the money needed to mount competitive campaigns. That forced party leaders, particularly in the Senate, to make hard choices and triage resources to races where they thought they had the best chance at winning, often paying exorbitant rates to TV stations that, by law, would have been required to sell the same advertising time to candidates for far less. The lackluster fundraising allowed Democrats to get their message out to voters early and unchallenged, while GOP contenders lacked the resources to do the same. “This has become an existential and systemic problem for our party, and it’s something that needs to get addressed if we hope to be competitive,” said Steven Law, a former McConnell chief of staff who now leads Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC that spent at least $232 million on advertising to elect Republicans to the Senate this year. “Our (donors) have grown increasingly alarmed that they are being put in the position of subsidizing weak fundraising performances by candidates in critical races. And something has got to give. It’s just not sustainable,” Law said. In key Senate and House battlegrounds, Democratic candidates outraised their Republican counterparts by a factor of nearly 2-to-1, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance data. Consider the handful of races that helped Democrats retain their Senate majority. In Arizona, Masters was outraised nearly 8-to-1 by Kelly, who poured at least $32 million into TV advertising from August until Election Day, records show. Masters spent a little over $3 million on advertising during the same period after Senate Leadership Fund pulled out of the race. Meanwhile, in Nevada, Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto raised $52.8 million compared to Republican Adam Laxalt’s $15.5 million. And in Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen.-elect John Fetterman took in $16 million more than his GOP opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz. That’s despite the celebrity TV doctor lending $22 million to his campaign, records show. Similar disparities emerged in crucial House races, including in Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, helping limit House Republicans to a surprisingly narrow majority. When it came to purchasing TV ad time, Democrats’ fundraising advantage yielded considerable upside. Ad sellers are required by law to offer candidates the cheapest rate. That same advantage doesn’t apply to super PACs, which Republican candidates relied on to close their fundraising gap — often at a premium. In Las Vegas, for example, a candidate could buy a unit of TV advertising for $598, according to advertising figures provided to the AP. That same segment cost a super PAC $4,500. In North Carolina’s Raleigh-Durham media market, a $342 spot cost a super PAC $1,270. And a $580 candidate segment in the Philadelphia area cost a super PAC nearly $2,000, the advertising figures show. Republicans also found themselves playing defense in states that weren’t ultimately competitive. JD Vance, who won his Ohio Senate race by more than 6 percentage points, was outraised nearly 4-to-1 by Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan. To shore him up, Senate Leadership Fund poured $28 million into the state. The group’s advertising ultimately accounted for about 70% of all Republican media spending from August until Election Day. A similar situation played out in North Carolina, where the McConnell-aligned super PAC was responsible for 82% of the Republican advertising spending during the same period. GOP Rep. Ted Budd won his Senate race by over 3% of the vote. But money woes weren’t the only complicating factor. Donald Trump elevated a series of untested, first-time candidates. They included Masters, Vance, and former NFL star Herschel Walker, whose complicated backstory includes threats of violence against his ex-wife, false claims of business success, and allegations that he pressured two girlfriends to get abortions, which Walker denies. Then there was Oz, who moved to Pennsylvania to seek the seat and also secured Trump’s endorsement but was pilloried by Democrats as an out-of-touch carpetbagger. The former president gave them his endorsement, but he was parsimonious when it came to sharing some of the more than $100 million he’s amassed in a committee designed to help other candidates. He ended up spending about $15 million on ads across five Senate races, records show. Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by Scott, often worked at cross-purposes with McConnell’s political operation. Early on, Scott ruled out getting involved in primaries, which he saw as inappropriate meddling. McConnell’s allies, meanwhile, moved to fend off candidates they saw as poor general-election contenders, like Don Bolduc, a far-right conservative who lost his New Hampshire Senate race by nearly 10 percentage points. McConnell forces also defended Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a GOP moderate, against a conservative challenger. “Senate races are just different,” McConnell said in August. “Candidate quality has a lot to do with the outcome.” In response, Scott took a shot at McConnell without mentioning him by name, suggesting in an opinion article published in the Washington Examiner that any “trash-talking”
GOP nudges closer to House win; Senate could hinge on runoff
Republicans inched closer to a narrow House majority Wednesday, while control of the Senate hinged on a few tight races in a midterm election that defied expectations of sweeping conservative victories driven by frustration over inflation and President Joe Biden’s leadership. Either party could secure a Senate majority with wins in both Nevada and Arizona — where the races were too early to call. But there was a strong possibility that, for the second time in two years, the Senate majority could come down to a runoff in Georgia next month, with Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker failing to earn enough votes to win outright. In the House, Republicans on Wednesday night were within a dozen seats of the 218 needed to take control, while Democrats kept seats in districts from Virginia to Pennsylvania to Kansas, and many West Coast contests were still too early to call. In a particularly symbolic victory for the GOP, Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, the House Democratic campaign chief, lost his bid for a sixth term. Control of Congress will decide how the next two years of Biden’s term play out and whether he is able to achieve more of his agenda or will see it blocked by a new GOP majority. Republicans are likely to launch a spate of investigations into Biden, his family, and his administration if they take power, while a GOP takeover of the Senate would hobble the president’s ability to appoint judges. “Regardless of what the final tally of these elections show, and there’s still some counting going on, I’m prepared to work with my Republican colleagues,” Biden said Wednesday in his first public remarks since the polls closed. “The American people have made clear, I think, that they expect Republicans to be prepared to work with me as well.” Democrats did better than history suggested they would. The party in power almost always suffers losses in the president’s first midterm elections, though even if the GOP ultimately wins the House, it won’t be by a margin as large as during other midterm cycles. Democrats gained a net of 41 House seats under then-President Donald Trump in 2018, President Barack Obama saw the GOP gain 63 in 2010, and Republicans gained 54 seats during President Bill Clinton’s first midterm. A small majority in the House would pose a great challenge for the GOP and especially California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who is in line to be House speaker and would have little room for error in navigating a chamber of members eager to leverage their votes to advance their own agenda. In the fight for Senate control, Pennsylvania was a bright spot for Democrats. Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke five months ago, flipped a Republican-controlled Senate seat, topping Trump-endorsed Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz. Georgia, meanwhile, was set for yet another runoff on December 6. In 2021, Warnock used a runoff to win his seat, as did Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff — which gave Democrats control of the Senate. Both Warnock and Walker were already fundraising off the race, stretching into a second round. Both Republican and Democratic incumbents maintained key Senate seats. In Wisconsin, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson prevailed over Democratic Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, while in New Hampshire, Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan beat Don Bolduc, a retired Army general who had initially promoted Trump’s lies about the 2020 election but tried to shift away those views closer to Election Day. AP VoteCast, a broad survey of the national electorate, showed that high inflation and concerns about the fragility of democracy were heavily influencing voters. Half of voters said inflation factored significantly, with groceries, gasoline, housing, and other costs that have shot up in the past year. Slightly fewer — 44% — said the future of democracy was their primary consideration. Biden didn’t entirely shoulder the blame for inflation, with close to half of voters saying the higher-than-usual prices were more because of factors outside of his control. And despite the president bearing criticism from a pessimistic electorate, some of those voters backed Democratic candidates. Democrats counted on a midterm boost from the Supreme Court’s decision to gut abortion rights, which they thought might energize their voters, and the bet paid off. In four states where the issue was on the ballot, voters backed abortion rights. VoteCast showed that 7 in 10 national voters said overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was an important factor in their midterm decisions. It also showed the reversal was broadly unpopular. And roughly 6 in 10 said they favor a law guaranteeing access to legal abortion nationwide. In the first national election since the January 6 insurrection, some who participated in or were in the vicinity of the attack on the U.S. Capitol were poised to win elected office. One of those Republican candidates, Derrick Van Orden in Wisconsin — who was outside the Capitol during the deadly riot — won a House seat. Another, J.R. Majewski, lost to Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Republicans had sought to make inroads in liberal New England but were shut out of House contests, with one Maine race still set to be determined by ranked-choice voting. Governors’ races took on outsized significance this year, particularly in battleground states that could help decide the results of the 2024 presidential election. Democrats held on to governors’ mansions in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, defeating Republicans who promoted Trump’s lies about a stolen 2020 election. Republicans held on to governors’ mansions in Florida, Texas, and Georgia, another battleground state Biden narrowly won two years ago. Trump found some success as well. He lifted Republican Senate candidates to victory in Ohio and North Carolina. JD Vance, the bestselling author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” defeated 10-term congressman Tim Ryan, while Rep. Ted Budd beat Cheri Beasley, the former chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Trump had endorsed more than 300 candidates across the country, hoping the night would end in a red wave he could ride to the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. After summoning reporters
Donald Trump endorses Katie Britt in Alabama Senate race
Donald Trump endorsed Katie Britt on Friday in an Alabama U.S. Senate race, doubling down on the former president’s decision to spurn his previous choice in the Republican primary. Trump called Britt “an incredible fighter for the people of Alabama.” The former president had originally backed U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks in the race but rescinded that endorsement in March after their relationship soured. Britt was chief of staff to retiring U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby before stepping down to lead a state business group and is now running to fill Shelby’s vacant seat. Britt and Brooks face off in the June 21 runoff that will decide the Republican nominee. “Above all, Katie Britt will never let you down,” Trump wrote, adding, “she has my complete and total endorsement!” The decision was another blow to Brooks, who had sought to regain Trump’s support. “Mo has been wanting it back ever since,” Trump said Friday of his endorsement, “but I cannot give it to him! Katie Britt, on the other hand, is a fearless America First Warrior.” Trump endorsed Brooks last year, rewarding the conservative firebrand who had been an ardent supporter of Trump’s false 2020 election fraud claims. Brooks had whipped up a crowd of Trump supporters at the Jan. 6, 2021, rally that preceded the U.S. Capitol insurrection. But Trump pulled that endorsement, citing Brooks’ languishing performance in the race. He also accused Brooks of going “woke” for saying at a Cullman rally that it was time to move on from litigating the 2020 presidential election and focus that energy on upcoming elections instead. Britt led the primary field in the May primary and has been seeking Trump’s support since he backed away from Brooks. Trump’s glowing endorsement of Britt is a stark contrast to statements he made a year ago about her when he called her “not in any way qualified” and describing her as an “assistant” to a “RINO Senator,” referring to Shelby as a “Republican in name only.” Britt said Friday that she was thankful to have Trump’s support. “President Trump knows that Alabamians are sick and tired of failed, do-nothing career politicians,” she said in a statement. “It’s time for the next generation of conservatives to step up and shake things up in Washington to save the country we know and love for our children and our children’s children.” Despite losing Trump’s endorsement in March, Brooks had continued to campaign under the label of “MAGA Mo,” a reference to the Make America Great Again slogan, and had challenged Britt to a debate on the singular topic of whether the 2020 election was “stolen.” Brooks tweeted Friday that the voters of Alabama will decide the race. “Let’s just admit it: Trump endorses the wrong people sometimes,” Brooks wrote, noting that a Trump-endorsed candidate lost the 2017 Senate race in Alabama. Trump has a mixed record in this year’s midterm elections. He burnished his kingmaker status last month by lifting a trailing Senate candidate in Ohio, JD Vance, to the Republican nomination. And in Pennsylvania, Republican voters narrowly chose Trump’s Senate pick, celebrity heart surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz, as well as his preferred gubernatorial candidate, Doug Mastriano, who said he wouldn’t have certified President Joe Biden’s 2020 win of the state. However, voters in Georgia rejected Trump’s efforts to unseat the state’s Republican governor and secretary of state, both of whom rebuffed his extraordinary pressure to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. That has raised questions about whether Republican voters are beginning to move on from Trump, ahead of another possible White House run. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Mounting losses show limits of Donald Trump’s power
Donald Trump opened May by lifting a trailing Senate candidate in Ohio to the Republican nomination, seemingly cementing the former president’s kingmaker status before another possible White House run. He’s ending the month, however, stinging from a string of defeats that suggests a diminishing stature. Trump faced a series of setbacks in Tuesday’s primary elections as voters rejected his efforts to unseat two top targets for retribution: Georgia’s Republican governor and secretary of state, both of whom had rebuffed Trump’s extraordinary pressure to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. But the magnitude of defeat in the governor’s race — more than 50 percentage points — was especially stunning and raised questions about whether Republican voters are beginning to move on from Trump. Nearly six years after the one-time reality television star launched what seemed to be an improbable campaign for the White House, the “Make America Great Again” movement Trump helmed isn’t going anywhere. But voters are increasingly vocal in saying that the party’s future is about more than Trump. “I like Trump a lot, but Trump is in the past,” said David Butler of Woodstock, Georgia, who voted for Gov. Brian Kemp on Tuesday and said Trump’s endorsements had “no” impact “whatsoever” on his thinking. It was the same for Will Parbhoo, a 22-year-old dental assistant who also voted for Kemp. “I’m not really a Trumper,” he said after voting. “I didn’t like him to begin with. With all the election stuff, I was like, ‘Dude, move on.’” One thing Parbhoo liked about the current governor? “Kemp is focused on Georgia,” he said. Trump sought to play down the losses by his favored candidates, saying on his social media platform Wednesday that he had a “very big and successful evening of political Endorsements” and insisting some races “were not possible to win.” Still, the pattern of high-profile defeats is hard to ignore. After JD Vance vaulted from third to first place following Trump’s late-stage endorsement in the Ohio Senate primary, the dynamics took a turn. Trump’s pick in Nebraska’s primary for governor, Charles Herbster, lost his race after allegations surfaced that he had groped women. In Idaho a week later, the governor beat a Trump-backed challenger. In North Carolina, voters rebuffed Trump’s plea to give a scandal-plagued congressman a second chance. And in Pennsylvania, a marquee Senate primary featuring Trump-endorsed celebrity heart surgeon Mehmet Oz remains too close to call. But his biggest upset was in Georgia, a crucial swing state, where former Sen. David Perdue, whom Trump had lobbied to run and helped clear the field for, lost to Kemp. The governor was among Trump’s top targets after he refused to overturn the results of the 2020 White House election in his state. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who defied Trump’s call to “find” the votes to change the outcome two years ago — a call that is now under investigation — also won his party’s nomination. Attorney General Chris Carr and Insurance Commissioner John King — all opposed by Trump — were also successful in their primaires. In Alabama, Rep. Mo Brooks, whose Senate endorsement Trump rescinded as he struggled to gain traction, made it to a runoff, having gained support after Trump dropped him. Trump has endorsed in nearly 200 races, from governor to county commissioner, often inserting himself into contests that aren’t particularly competitive and helping bolster his compilation of wins. Some of his work, even in races with multiple candidates, has paid off. His early support helped football great Herschel Walker and Rep. Ted Budd sail to their respective Senate primary nominations in Georgia and North Carolina. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s former press secretary, easily won the GOP nomination for governor in Arkansas. And even in Georgia, all of the candidates Trump endorsed in open races won or will head to runoffs. Some allies say Trump’s endorsement tally is a poor measure of his influence, even if Trump constantly promotes that record. They argue that voters may support the former president and be eager for him to run again but may not be persuaded by his selections, especially in races with governors such as Kemp, who have long histories with voters. And even without Trump on the ballot, the party has been transformed in Trump’s image, with candidates adopting his “America First” platform, mimicking his tactics, and parroting his lies about a stolen election. But with Trump out of office and relegated to posting on his own social media platform, other voices are beginning to fill the void. Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the most-watched personality on cable television, has become a driving ideological force in the party. Republicans such as the conspiracy-embracing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who won her party’s nomination for reelection Tuesday, have taken up his mantle in Washington. Meanwhile, potential presidential rivals to Trump are waiting in the wings for 2024. Former Vice President Mike Pence, who has been distancing himself from Trump, rallied with Kemp in suburban Atlanta on Monday evening and told the crowd that “elections are about the future” — an implicit knock on his former boss. Trump has also spawned a new generation of candidates who have channeled his “MAGA” brand but who have done so independent of his support and see themselves as its next iteration. “MAGA doesn’t belong to him,” Kathy Barnette, the Pennsylvania Senate candidate whose late-stage surge stunned party insiders, said in an interview. “Trump coined the word. He does not own it.” While the left, she said, may see the “MAGA movement” as a “cult of Trump voters,” she said it goes far beyond one man. She argued that Trump had succeeded in 2016 because he aligned himself with voters’ concerns and said out loud what people were already thinking, particularly on immigration. She said she tried in her race to do the same. “I do believe Trump has an important voice still,” she added, but “he needs to get better advisers, and in addition to that, he needs to do better himself in remembering why we aligned with him. And it wasn’t because we were aligning with his
