Donald Trump rakes in cash while some Senate Republicans lag
President Donald Trump is raising record amounts of cash for his 2020 reelection. But that fundraising might isn’t spilling over to the most vulnerable Republicans fighting to hold onto their seats in a narrowly divided Senate. During the third quarter, former astronaut Mark Kelly took in $2.5 million more than Republican Sen. Martha McSally in Arizona. In Maine, state House Speaker Sara Gideon bested longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins by over $1 million. And in Colorado, Cory Gardner, who led Senate Republicans’ campaign arm in 2018, barely outraised former Gov. John Hickenlooper, who had been in the race just five weeks before the quarter ended. The trouble for Republicans extends to states where they’re supposed to be on firmer ground. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst didn’t crack $1 million and was outraised by the leading Democrat. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis narrowly outraised Democrat Cal Cunningham but is also facing a primary challenge from the right that has forced him to spend millions in early TV and radio ads. The lagging numbers suggest that much of the enthusiasm among the GOP base is focused on Trump and doesn’t necessarily translate to Republicans running for other offices. Democrats, meanwhile, are paying close attention to races across the board, including the House, Senate and presidency, fueling them with small-dollar donations that Republicans have struggled to counter. Fundraising prowess isn’t always an indicator of who will actually win on Election Day. But the dynamic could complicate the GOP’s effort to maintain their 53-47 grip on the Senate. This should serve as a “real wakeup call,” said Scott Reed, a senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a group that has long been allied with Senate Republicans. The “ongoing Trump drama” over impeachment and other issues “drowns out all the political news back home every single night,” making it difficult for GOP candidates to get their message out, Reed said. But the challenges facing Republicans have mounted in recent weeks as the Democratic-controlled House pursues an impeachment inquiry. Instead of focusing on their own records, Republicans seeking reelection have often been barraged with uncomfortable questions about Trump’s conduct. The pressure will only grow if the Senate holds an impeachment trial, forcing these Republicans to decide whether Trump should be removed from office. “Republicans are going to struggle with fundraising and messaging if the only thing they can talk about is President Trump,” said Jonathan Kott, who was a senior adviser to Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, during his successful 2018 reelection bid. “What we found is no matter how popular the president is, you have to stand up to him when it’s good for your state. Democratic senators are finding a way to do that. Republican senators aren’t.” Democrats also have a small-dollar cash advantage. Despite an organized push, Republicans have yet to develop an online fundraising behemoth rivaling ActBlue, the Democrats’ donation platform, which enables donors across the country to direct a contribution of $1, $5 or any amount up to $2,800 with a few taps on a smartphone. “Democrats over the last several years have formulated a culture among the activist class where every time they are motivated by content or a candidate they contribute five bucks,” said Josh Holmes, an adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is running for reelection in Kentucky and was outraised almost 5-to-1 last quarter even though the state isn’t considered a battleground. “Republicans have made strides, but we still have a long way to go.” Still, there are bright spots for the GOP. In order to regain control of the Senate, Democrats might have to win in states that have traditionally sided with Republicans over the past two decades, such as Arizona and Georgia. And some GOP candidates are successfully putting Democrats on defense. Michigan candidate John James, who came up short in his bid last year to oust Sen. Debbie Stabenow, is now beating Democratic incumbent Gary Peters in the money game. The African American, pro-Trump candidate raised $3 million, while Peters took in $2.4 million over the past three months, records show. In Georgia, where there will be two Senate seats on the ballot because of the retirement of Sen. Johnny Isakson, Democrats are still sorting out who all will run. Jon Ossoff was the top-raising Democrat in the contest to take on Republican incumbent David Perdue. But of the $1.3 million he took in, more than $500,000 was left over from his failed 2017 bid for a suburban Atlanta House seat. Perdue, meanwhile, raised about $2.5 million. While Republicans acknowledge they face an unfavorable political environment, it’s also early in the cycle. In 2018, Democrats appeared to be making strides in Senate contests as the election neared, but the party’s handling of a sexual misconduct allegation leveled against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh galvanized the Republican base and helped them turn the tide. Kavanaugh denies the allegation. If Democrats were to mishandle the impeachment inquiry of Trump, it could deliver a similar jolt. “Democrats have found fundraising success pretty regularly during the last several years,” said Jesse Hunt, spokesman for the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. “In many cases, that’s not manifested itself into electoral victories.” By Brian Slodyski Associated Press Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Donald Trump exaggerates scope of cease-fire deal
As President Donald Trump describes it, the U.S. swooped into an intractable situation in the Middle East, achieved an agreement within hours that had eluded the world for years and delivered a “great day for civilization.” It was a mission-accomplished moment that other Republican leaders, Democrats and much of the world found unconvincing. Trump spent much of the past week trying to justify his decision to pull U.S. troops away from America’s Kurdish allies in Syria, leaving those Kurdish fighters vulnerable on several fronts and already reeling from attacks by Turkish forces. In the process, Trump exaggerated the scope of a deal bringing a temporary cease-fire to Turkish-Kurdish hostilities, falsely suggested that U.S. troops in Syria will come home and mischaracterized the history of the conflict and even the geography of it. A look at his rhetoric on that topic and other subjects over the past week as well as a sampling of statements from the latest Democratic presidential debate: SYRIA TRUMP: “It’s time to bring our soldiers back home.” — news conference Wednesday. THE FACTS: That’s not what he’s doing. While the U.S. has begun what the Pentagon calls a deliberate withdrawal of troops from Syria, Trump himself has said that the 200 to 300 U.S. service members deployed to a southern Syria outpost in Al-Tanf will remain there. And on Saturday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the current plan calls for all U.S. troops who are leaving Syria to go to western Iraq, not home. They number more than 700. Asked Sunday why troops weren’t coming home as Trump said they would, his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, said: “Well, they will eventually.” TRUMP: “This is a great day for civilization. I am proud of the United States for sticking by me in following a necessary, but somewhat unconventional, path. People have been trying to make this ‘Deal” for many years. Millions of lives will be saved. Congratulations to ALL!” — tweet Thursday. TRUMP: “A lot of things are in that agreement that nobody ever thought possible.” — remarks at Dallas rally Thursday. THE FACTS: The agreement he is hailing is not nearly as consequential to the prospects for peace as he claims. It provides for s five-day cease-fire in the Turks’ deadly attacks on Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, which began after Trump announced he would withdraw U.S. troops. The agreement requires the Kurds to vacate a swath of territory in Syria along the Turkish border in an arrangement that codifies nearly all of Turkey’s stated goals in the conflict and relieves it of U.S. sanctions. It imposes no apparent long-term consequences for Turkey’s move against the Kurds, important U.S. partners in the fight against the Islamic State group. Trump calls that fight a mission accomplished despite the U.S. officials’ fears of an IS resurgence. TRUMP, on the Syrian areas of Turkish-Kurdish conflict: “It’s a lot of sand. They’ve got a lot of sand over there. So there’s a lot of sand that they can play with.” — remarks Wednesday. THE FACTS: The area of conflict is not known for being particularly sandy. In contrast to Trump’s imagery of arid, worthless land that other countries — not the U.S. — should fight over, it’s actually the breadbasket of Syria. The area is part of what was historically known as the Fertile Crescent, where settled farming and early civilizations first began. TRUMP: “We were supposed to be in Syria for one month. That was 10 years ago.” — news conference Wednesday. THE FACTS: Previous administrations never set a one-month timeline for U.S. involvement in Syria. The U.S.-led coalition began airstrikes on Islamic State militants in Syria in September 2014. About a year later, the Pentagon said teams of special operations forces began going into Syria to conduct raids and start efforts to partner with the Kurdish forces. Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter made it clear to Congress at that time that the Pentagon was ready to expand operations with the Kurds and would continue to do so as needed to battle IS, without setting a specific deadline. TRUMP: “Our soldiers are mostly gone from the area.” — news conference Wednesday. THE FACTS: They’re mostly still there. Close to 30 U.S. troops moved out of two outposts near the border area where the Turkish attack was initially centered. But the bulk of the roughly 1,000 U.S. troops deployed to Syria are still in the country. According to officials, most of the U.S. troops have largely been consolidated into a few locations in the north, including an airfield facility in the western part of the country known as the Kobani landing zone. A couple hundred have left in recent days with military equipment, and officials say the withdrawal will take weeks. JOE BIDEN: “I would not have withdrawn the troops, and I would not have withdrawn the additional 1,000 troops that are in Iraq, which are in retreat now, being fired on by Assad’s people.” — Democratic debate on Tuesday. THE FACTS: The former vice president is wrong. There is no evidence that any of the approximately 1,000 American troops preparing to evacuate from Syria have been fired on by Syrian government forces led by President Bashar Assad. A small group of U.S. troops came under Turkish artillery fire near the town of Kobani last week, without anyone being injured, but there is no indication that Syrian troops have shot at withdrawing Americans. Also, Biden was addressing the situation in Syria, not Iraq. WOMEN IN SPACE TRUMP: “This is the first time for a woman outside of the Space Station. … They’re conducting the first-ever female spacewalk to replace an exterior part of the Space Station.” — speaking to flight engineers Jessica Meir and Christina Koch outside the International Space Station in a teleconference Friday. THE FACTS: Meir corrected the record, telling Trump: “First of all, we don’t want to take too much credit, because there have been many other female spacewalkers before us. This is just the first
Freshmen house democrats raise more money than gop opponents
The Republican pathway for recapturing House control in next year’s election charges straight through the districts of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, especially freshmen. Judging from early but formidable cash advantages those lawmakers have amassed, ousting them won’t be easy. Each of the 62 freshmen House Democrats has raised more money than their top opponent. The same is true for all 31 Democrats from districts President Donald Trump had won in 2016 and for all 39 Democrats who snatched Republican-held seats last November. In nearly all cases it’s not even close. While there’s overlap among the categories, most of these Democrats’ war chests are multiples of what their leading challengers have garnered. That’s testament to the historic ability of both parties’ incumbents to attract contributions and Democrats’ strategy of aggressively collecting money quickly to seize on the anti-Trump enthusiasm that fueled their House takeover last year . “The more you can raise early on, the more you’re going to be able to solidify your seat and show that it’s not worth investments on behalf of Republicans” by GOP donors, said freshman Rep. Katie Hill, Democrat-California. Hill has raised $1.3 million so far this year, more than triple the combined contributions reported by her four would-be Republican challengers. She was elected last year in a Southern California district Republicans had held since 1993. Democrats control the House 235-197, with one independent and two vacancies. Republicans will need 218 seats for a majority. Democrats’ money advantages reflect reports filed with the Federal Election Commission covering the first half of 2019, so plenty can change by Election Day. Many serious challengers haven’t commenced their campaigns yet or have only recently started raising money, and many Republicans will eventually overtake their Democratic rivals. In addition, by November 2020 many GOP candidates will be bolstered by the Republican Party’s allied super PACs, political action committees that can spend unlimited funds. The Congressional Leadership Fund, the GOP super PAC that helps House candidates, unleashed $159 million in 2018 races, well above the $96 million by Democrats’ House Majority Fund. “We haven’t seen anything yet. Wait till the super PACs start dropping their bombs later in the cycle,” warned former New York Rep. Steve Israel, who once led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, House Democrats’ election organization. Republicans downplay the early money discrepancies but concede the numbers merit attention. “It’s a wake-up call to every Republican that you’ve got to be out there doing the work, making sure we beat the trend of money coming in” to Democrats, said Rep. Rodney Davis, Republican-Illonios. Davis is a top Democratic target who was re-elected by less than 1 percentage point last November and faces a 2020 rematch against the well-financed Betsy Londrigan. Even so, warning signs for the GOP are scattered around the country. Democratic freshman Rep. Joe Cunningham, who squeaked into office in South Carolina’s Trump-leaning Lowcountry coastal district, has raised nearly $1.3 million. That’s more than quadruple his best-funded GOP opponent and double the top three Republicans’ contributions combined. Also outstripping their top money-raising GOP challengers are five freshmen from districts Trump carried by a comfortable 10 percentage points or more: Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Xochitl Torres Small of New Mexico and Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose of New York. Freshman Rep. Tom Malinowski, Democrat-New Jersey, who defeated a GOP incumbent in November, has doubled the fundraising of Tom Kean Jr., a prized GOP recruit and son of a popular former governor by the same name. Sixteen freshmen Democrats ousted Republicans last year by a narrow 4 percentage points or less, and all but two of them have raised at least twice as much as their nearest GOP rival: Reps. Gil Cisneros of Southern California and Oklahoma’s Horn. Underscoring Democrats’ efforts to shore up vulnerable incumbents, 26 of the 62 Democratic freshmen have already raised $1 million or more. They’re led by the nearly $2 million accumulated by the party’s highest-profile newcomer, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who has a safe New York City seat but seems likely to use some money to help others. Also exceeding $1 million in receipts are 13 of the 31 Democrats who captured Trump-won districts, and 23 of the 39 Democrats who grabbed GOP seats. One of those flush Democrats is freshman Rep. Josh Harder of California’s Central Valley. He’s raised more than $1.6 million, tripling his best-financed GOP challenger, Ted Howze, a large-animal veterinarian who ran unsuccessfully last year. “We don’t have to raise as much as him, but just enough to get our message out,” said Howze. He said he could need up to $6 million for his campaign. Harder spent more than $8 million to win in 2018. The DCCC should further shore up Democrats. It disbursed $297 million helping candidates for 2018, exceeding the $201 million spent by its counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee. It’s ahead in this year’s money race as well. In some areas, Republicans are already exhibiting fundraising chops. Don Sedgwick, mayor of Laguna Hills, California, has raised an impressive $621,000, but that’s a fraction of the $1.4 million collected by his intended target, freshman Democratic Rep. Katie Porter. Republican Young Kim, whom Cisneros narrowly defeated in 2018, is not far behind the $579,000 Cisneros has raised. And while freshman Rep. Lucy McBath, Democrat-Georgia, has raised nearly $1.2 million, the top four GOP contenders have raised $1.5 million combined. That suggests plenty of money may be available for the eventual Republican nominee. By Alan Fram Associated Press. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
What they’re saying: Alabama politicians react to Brett Kavanaugh confirmation
Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday night as the 114th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, after weeks of debate over sexual misconduct and judicial temperament that divided the nation. He was ultimately confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 50 – 48. Here’s what Alabama politicians are saying about his confirmation: U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby: I voted today to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who has devoted 26 years of public service to our nation as a jurist, lawyer, and professor. During the hearings, I found Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony to be credible. I also found the subsequent FBI report to be thorough. As a senator, my job is to carefully consider and review all available information. After doing so, it is evident that the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh are uncorroborated, and there is no confirmation of any of the alleged misconduct. During his time as a federal judge, Judge Kavanaugh has been a principled, intelligent, and steadfast supporter of the rule of law. In accordance with my constitutional right to ‘advice and consent,’ I advise that Judge Kavanaugh be the next associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.” Alabama 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne: Our nation is better off with Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, and I am glad the circus is over. I applaud the senators who supported Judge Kavanaugh, including Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. This process and the shameful tactics used have been an embarrassment to our nation, but I hope we can now move forward as a country and not return to these pathetic political games again. Terry Lathan | Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party The Alabama Republican Party congratulates Judge Brett Kavanaugh on his confirmation. Judge Kavanaugh has our full support as he begins his honorable journey serving the American people on our nation’s highest court. In celebrating this confirmation, we thank Senator Shelby and his Republican colleagues for their yes votes. Unlike Senator Jones, Senator Shelby exemplified what it means to be a true public servant by representing the majority of Alabamians when he cast his final vote. Without meeting with Judge Kavanaugh, Doug Jones even went so far as to insinuate his opinion mattered more than those of the people he was elected to serve… It is clear that Senator Doug Jones’ allegiance lies not to his Alabama constituents, but strongly to the Democrat Party. Voters will remember this when they head to the polls in 2020. Alabama 2nd District U.S. Rep. Martha Roby: Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a conservative, experienced jurist who I believe will be a strict constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. I am pleased that the United States Senate voted to confirm him, and I am confident he will serve the Court and the American people admirably. Alabama 7th District U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell: When we appoint a Supreme Court justice for life, their honesty, their temperament, and their credibility should not be in question. But Judge Kavanaugh fails on all of those counts. This man should not be on the Supreme Court.
Poll: Support for school choice growing among Republicans
Support for charter schools and private school voucher programs has gone up over the past year, with Republicans accounting for much of the increase, according to a survey published Tuesday. The findings by Education Next, a journal published by Harvard’s Kennedy School and Stanford University, come as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos promotes alternatives to traditional public schools. Forty-four percent of respondents in the poll conducted in May said they support the expansion of charter schools, compared to 39 percent in 2017. The gain of 5 percentage points, however, did not fully offset the drop in support from 51 percent in 2016. When broken down according to party affiliation, 57 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of Democrats voiced support for charter schools, compared to 47 percent of Republicans and 34 percent of Democrats in 2017. “Support is up among Republicans for various strategies to expand school choice, and the Trump administration’s embrace of those policies is a likely explanation,” said Martin West, associate professor of education at Harvard University and a co-author of the report. Nina Rees, president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools said the findings “demonstrate through the educational choices they make for their children – families want high-quality charter school options for their kids. “Above all else, parents care that their child has access to an excellent school, and as education advocates it is our job to ensure that wish becomes a reality,” Rees added. Robin Lake, director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, noted that support for charters has risen mostly among Republicans. “I hate to see an issue turn into a partisan question,” Lake said. “I don’t think that an education policy that’s designed to get better outcomes for kids should ever be a partisan issue.” Support for publicly funded vouchers given to low-income families to help them pay tuition at private school rose from 37 percent to 42 percent over the past year. The Education Department welcomed the results of the poll. “The data consistently show that parents want more education options for their kids and when they are empowered with options, they like it and their kids benefit,” said press secretary Elizabeth Hill. “Education freedom is the future.” Meanwhile, Americans seem to be more satisfied with their local police and the post office than with their neighborhood school. While 51 percent of respondents said they would give their local schools a grade of A or B, 68 percent gave the local post office a similar grade and 69 percent the local police. “It makes sense that only 50 percent of Americans are giving their public school a good grade of an A or a B that they would express support for alternatives to those public schools,” said Patrick McGuinn, a professor of political science and education at Drew University. In the Black Lives Matter era, African-American respondents gave their local police much lower marks than other respondents, but their views of their local schools were even worse. Thirty-nine percent gave their local schools an A or a B, while the local police force received such marks from 43 percent of African-American respondents. The study also found that many Americans favor raising teacher salaries and increasing school funding in the aftermath of teachers walking out of schools in six states earlier this spring to protest pay and other issues. Informed about average teacher earnings in their state, nearly half said they support raising teacher pay. That number was 67 percent when respondents were not told explicitly how much their local teachers were making. Nationally, the average teacher’s salary was $58,950 in 2017, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. “The sense of economic insecurity for teachers is very strong and there is growing support for higher pay, not just from teachers but from the broader community,” said Evan Stone, CEO of Educators For Excellence, a teachers’ advocacy organization. West said that while many believe teachers should be making more, there is disagreement over whether they should be compensated based on how much their students learn or using some other metric. “To the extent that the debate moves from how much are teachers are paid to how they are paid, there is potential for continued conflict,” West said. The Education Next survey was based on interviews with 4,601 adults across the country. The margin of error was 1.4 percentage points. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Donald Trump, GOP to huddle as outrage builds over border policy
Calls are mounting on Capitol Hill for the Trump administration to end the separation of families at the southern border ahead of a visit from President Donald Trump to discuss legislation. Trump’s meeting late Tuesday afternoon with House Republicans comes as lawmakers in both parties are up in arms over the administration’s “zero tolerance” approach to illegal border crossings. Under the policy, all unlawful crossings are referred for prosecution — a process that moves adults to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service and sends many children to facilities run by the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the previous administration, such families were usually referred for civil deportation proceedings, not requiring separation. Nearly 2,000 children were separated from their families over a six-week period in April and May. The fight is erupting as the House is already embroiled in an election-year struggle over immigration legislation that threatens to hurt Republicans in November. Democrats have seized on the family separation issue, swarming detention centers in Texas to highlight the policy. They are demanding that the administration act to keep migrant families together. Republicans are increasingly joining Democrats in that call. Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton called for an immediate end to the “ugly and inhumane practice,” adding, “It’s never acceptable to use kids as bargaining chips in political process.” Kansas GOP Sen. Pat Roberts said he is “against using parental separation as a deterrent to illegal immigration.” “The time is now for the White House to end the cruel, tragic separations of families,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said in a statement. The Trump administration insists the family separations are required under the law. But after signaling Monday that it would oppose any fix aimed solely at addressing the plight of children separated from their parents under the crackdown, the White House said Tuesday that it is reviewing emergency legislation being introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to keep migrant families together. Asked if the White House supports the Cruz measure, Mercedes Schlapp, director of strategic communications, told reporters “we’re looking into the legislative text on the Cruz bill.” The senator’s bill would add more federal immigration judges, authorize new temporary shelters to house migrant families, speed the processing of asylum cases and require that families that cross the border illegally be kept together, absent criminal conduct or threats to the welfare of any children. At a White House briefing Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen declared, “Congress alone can fix it.” That line has been echoed by others in the administration, including Trump, who has falsely blamed a law passed by Democrats for the “zero tolerance” approach to prosecutions of families crossing the border. Two immigration bills under consideration in the House could address the separations, but the outlook for passage is dim. Conservatives say the compromise legislation that GOP leaders helped negotiate with moderates is inadequate. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the Freedom Caucus, said he’s skeptical that even a full-throated endorsement from Trump will be enough to get the compromise bill through the House. The compromise bill shifts away from the nation’s longtime preference for family immigration to a new system that prioritizes entry based on merits and skills. It beefs up border security, clamps down on illegal entries and reinforces other immigration laws. To address the rise of families being separated at the border, the measure proposes keeping children in detention with their parents, undoing 2-decade-old rules that limit the time minors can be held in custody. Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., another Freedom Caucus member, said he expects the GOP compromise bill to be defeated if it reaches the floor. “There’s not enough votes because it doesn’t solve the problem,” he said. Faced with the prospect of gridlock in the House, senators appear willing to take matters into their own hands. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican leader, said Senate Republicans are working on language to address the family separations that could receive a floor vote, potentially as part of a spending bill package. “I don’t think the answer to family separation is to not enforce the law. I think the answer to family separation is: Don’t separate families while you’re enforcing the law,” Cornyn told reporters. “It’s all within our power, and people have to overcome their desire to preserve an issue to campaign on.” Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he wants to do away with a legal settlement that requires the government to release children from custody and to their parents, adult relatives or other caretakers, in order of preference. GOP senators including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine also said they’ve been discussing family separation legislation. Graham told reporters the measure would keep migrant families together, provide additional judges so detained families would face shorter waiting periods, and supply facilities for the families to stay. He said he did not know how much the proposal would cost. The administration, meanwhile, is hoping to force Democrats to vote for the bills or bear some of the political cost in November’s midterm elections. Democrats brushed aside that pressure. “As everyone who has looked at this agrees, this was done by the president, not Democrats. He can fix it tomorrow if he wants to, and if he doesn’t want to, he should own up to the fact that he’s doing it,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. Senate Democrats have rallied behind an immigration bill from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Her bill would prohibit the separation of migrant children from their parents, with exceptions for findings of child abuse or trafficking. If separations occur, Homeland Security would have to provide clear guidelines for how parents can contact their kids. One House Republican in a swing district, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado, said he’s willing to endorse the Feinstein bill if that’s what it takes. “I reached out to Sen. Feinstein’s office
Steve Flowers: Are we now a two party state?
As we enter the 2018 campaign season, many of you have asked me to look back and analyze the 2017 Special Election Senate race and explain in depth what happened and why. The most asked question is how could a Democrat win a U.S. Senate seat in Alabama and does this mean that we are now possibly a two party state? I will give you numerous answers, however, the simple answer to why a Democrat won is that Roy Moore was the Republican nominee. Are we a state that can go either way in an open U.S. Senate seat? As we have just seen, it is possible but not probable. The Democrat, Doug Jones, won in the perfect storm. We will probably never have this same scenario again. There are two maxims in politics that over my years of following politics never fail and become truer and truer. The more things change, the more they stay the same. One is money is the mother’s milk of politics. The second is that more people vote against someone or something than vote for someone or something. To the first adage, money is the mother’s milk of politics, nine times out of ten when one candidate out spends the other the one who spends the most usually wins. When one outspends the other 3-to-1, they always win. In this race, the National Democratic Party saw an opening and they seized on it. The people in blue America are mad as hell that Donald Trump upset Hillary Clinton. Our senate race was the only race in town or should we say the country. Not only do Democrats despise Trump, but when they heard that Alabama had a Republican candidate that is a pro-God, pro-gun, gun toting, antiabortion, horse riding, religious zealot that said that he was not only against gay marriage but said that gays were legally committing bestiality, the nation saw Roy Moore as a little extreme in today’s America. In addition, a good many people around the country believe he is a pedophile. The liberal and gay money flowed into here by the barrel. It came from New York and San Francisco and all liberal pockets in America. The bottom line is the Democrat, Doug Jones, outspent the Republican, Roy Moore, 6-to-1; 18 million to 3 million and that does not count the soft money spent by the National Democratic Party that was spent on getting out the vote. The book was written on Moore from the get go. The first poll and the last poll revealed that 30 percent of Alabamians would vote for Roy Moore come hell or high water. However, he is so polarizing that a whopping 70 percent said that they would not vote for him under any circumstance. The reason that he won the Republican nomination was that his 30 percent became accentuated due to turnout. His voters are more ardent, fervent and frankly older. Moore’s 30 percent did indeed vote on December 12. The problem for Moore was that the 70 percent that detest him voted more than was expected. The biggest part of that 70 percent was African American voters who voted in epic, unparalleled proportions. It was statewide. It was not only in the urban counties of Jefferson, Montgomery, and Mobile and the Black Belt. This tidal wave occurred in all 67 counties. African American voters came together in a crescendo and sent Roy Moore to a watery grave. Doug Jones owes his election to the Black voters and he knows it. A significant number of urbane, upscale, more educated business establishment Republicans voted against Moore, pragmatically. The image that Moore portrayed to the nation was bad for business and economic development. The best example of this was the results in Madison County. Huntsville is Alabama’s crown jewel and economic engine. They generally vote Republican. Moore lost Madison County by 20,000 votes. Senator Richard Shelby contributed to Moore’s defeat. His refusing to vote for Moore and his open acknowledgement that he cast a write-in vote for an unknown Republican gave credence and impetus for other Republicans to follow suit. There were about 22,000 write-in votes. Moore lost by 21,000. How does this play into 2018. It gives Walt Maddox and Sue Bell Cobb hope and credence that under the right and perfect circumstances a Democrat can win. However, it probably does not change the fact that a Republican gubernatorial or senatorial candidate will be favored to win 60/40. Luther Strange or Mo Brooks would have won the Senate race 60/40. See you next week. ••• Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Daniel Sutter: Republicans and college
Republicans’ and Democrats’ attitudes toward higher education are seemingly diverging. Increasingly critical Republican attitudes will likely, in time, have policy consequences. An annual Pew Center survey found in 2015 that 54 percent of Republicans thought that higher education’s impact on the country was positive, versus 37 percent negative. This year these numbers flipped to 58 negative – 36 positive, with 65 percent negative among conservative Republicans. Democrats this year were at 72 percent positive, 19 percent negative. Republicans and Democrats further disagree on the value of college degrees. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that Democrats agreed, 52 to 43 percent, that a four-year degree is worth the cost. By contrast, Republicans disagreed, 53 to 43 percent. Republican attitudes may already be affecting policy. The U.S. House recently proposed taxing the largest university endowments, treating graduate student tuition waivers as taxable income, and denying tax deductions for athletics seat licenses. The final tax bill is more favorable to universities, but the proposals represent a warning shot. Republicans’ antagonism toward my industry makes sense: they are mad at the preponderance of liberals among college professors, and at the liberal policy initiatives from universities. The domination of faculty positions by liberals and Democrats has been documented by numerous methods. The causes and consequences of this imbalance, however, are less clear. It is unclear, for example, if conservatives are simply less likely to want to be professors or face discrimination because of their views. We know from testimonials that conservatives sometimes face verbal abuse, and yet many liberal professors respect (although they might challenge) conservative students’ views. Whether biased readings or attempts at indoctrination change students’ views is uncertain. A liberal world view inevitably affects professors’ research. This is not an indictment, or excuse to ignore research you don’t agree with, but rather an observation on the research process. Social science research requires premises about the nature of human society. Here’s one concrete example. Economists typically judge economic performance against the satisfaction of market demand – do consumers get what they want? Yet other social scientists believe that continual advertising and our consumer culture manufacture these demands. Whether demand should be treated seriously affects our research. Can anything be done about the liberal dominance of college faculties, if it is indeed a problem? Donors and alumni can always attempt to place conditions on gifts, which administrators may or may not accept. As a matter of policy, the University of Colorado brings a conservative professor to campus each year to organize lectures and other activities to provide balance. The Iowa legislature considered a bill mandating using voter registration in faculty hiring. If the sociology department, for instance, had too many registered Democrats, they could only hire registered Republicans. I doubt that this would accomplish much, as some liberal sociologists would surely register as Republicans to secure set-aside positions. Instead of “affirmative action for conservatives,” perhaps we should embrace of a range of intentionally ideological curricula. Economist John Merrifield argues that the primary goal of K-12 education reform should be a diverse menu of options for parents and students. I agree, but why not extend this diversity to programs or even universities embodying conservative and liberal values and approaches? For example, scholars bitterly debate whether the core curriculum should cover the Great Books or “Western Canon.” Regardless of who is correct, many conservatives regard the Canon as fundamental. Some schools, mostly private colleges, still teach the Great Books. Alabama’s fourteen public four-year universities already offer a wide range of programs; the University of Montevallo, for example, is a public liberal arts college. Why not have one university dedicated to a conservative educational experience, and another dedicated to a liberal curriculum? While neither might provide balance within their programs, they would increase the range of options available at in-state tuition rates, while truthful disclosure should prevent enrollment by unsuspecting students. President Trump has attacked the liberal media bias and fake news. The recent House tax proposals, I think, provide warning that higher education may soon face similar attacks. Perhaps embracing and ensuring a range of ideological options will more effectively defuse the growing discontent. ••• Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Jeb Bush, Mark Cuban: Donald Trump dragging down GOP, billionaires
President Donald Trump‘s performance in the White House will make it harder for Republicans — and billionaires — in the coming elections, two of his most prominent critics said Saturday. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush lashed out at the Republican president during separate remarks at a summer festival in New York City’s Central Park. Cuban, who owns the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, said he may challenge Trump in 2020. “If he lasts four years, I’ll be there to kick his (butt),” Cuban declared as the young New York crowd roared. “We’ll see. I’m not making any proclamations yet.” Cuban also warned that Trump “might ruin the path” for another billionaire outsider to run for president in the future. “He’s not setting the best example,” Cuban said. After six months in office, Trump and his party have failed to enact any major legislation. His poll numbers are near historic lows and an investigation into Russian interference in the last election is focusing on his closest aides and family members. Energized Democrats hope they can capitalize on the GOP’s political struggles in next year’s midterm elections when the House majority is at stake. Bush, a regular target of Trump’s personal attacks during the 2016 Republican primary election, said he would not run for president again. He also tried to distance his party from the new president, noting that Trump was registered as a Democrat in recent years. “He’s not really affiliated with the party, just to be clear. He’s Trump,” Bush said, speaking less than a mile from Trump Tower. Bush also lamented the rise of celebrity politicians — Cuban, among them — as he pondered the future of the GOP. “We may have really talented people that are really good on TV being our leaders for a while until we sort things out,” Bush said, noting that Cuban was on Saturday’s speaking program. “Ideas and policy really matter. It’s not just about personality.” He said Republicans have “a huge opportunity” with control of the White House and both chambers in Congress. Should the GOP squander that, he said, Republicans may struggle in 2018 and 2020. Despite the criticism, Bush said he’s rooting for Trump to succeed. “I find him deeply troubling in a lot of ways. But I pray for him every night. And I pray for our country every night,” Bush said. “I care about my grandkids.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Martin Dyckman: It’s always about the money
The Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts wrote a powerful case for Donald Trump‘s impeachment, in the style of an open letter to the “Dear Republicans in Congress,” that I was reading to my wife as she prepared breakfast the other morning. At the part where Pitts asked, “Have you no loyalties deeper than party?” Ivy broke in. “The money,” she exclaimed. That nailed it. It is always about the money. It’s about the campaign money they expect to continue bagging from the Kochs and other oligarchs who embrace the Trump agenda even as they despise the man. It’s about the money, the great gobs of money that would befall the wealthier classes, the true constituency for most of them, from the sort of tax “reform” they are counting on Trump to sign. It’s about the money they would gain for themselves from the Trump tax scheme. While the outlines he proposed are strikingly thin, they are enough to show that Congress members themselves would make out better than bank robbers. The middle class and poor would get essentially nothing. The foregone revenue would take America back to where the oligarchs want it — a sociopolitical stone age, with the new robber barons doing what they want and getting what they want, with only minimal interference, if any, from taxes, regulations or labor unions. The Congress does not simply represent the Republican Party’s true constituency. It is part of it. The most recent available figures estimated the average Congressional net worth at around $1 million. To be one of the richest 50 members required a minimum of $7.28 million in net worth. Of those 50, 32 were Republicans. There are Democrats, no doubt, who would vote for the outrageous Trump tax scheme if they thought their voters would forgive them. Most of the Republicans act as if they don’t have that particular worry. For the Democrats and the few Republicans who do care to put their country first, the question may well be whether it would be best to be rid of the guttersnipe in the White House sooner or later. From an exclusively partisan standpoint, it would suit the Democrats to have him still twisting in the ill winds of own making as the 2018 midterm elections approach. This would be better for policy as well, since every Republican Congress member who isn’t totally insulated by gerrymandering would have to worry about casting his or her vote with the extremely unpopular president. And the fact that Trump still refuses to release his tax returns, despite all the promises, raises profound suspicions about any tax legislation bearing his label. If Trump were dethroned now, whether by his Cabinet or by a late-awakening congressional conscience, the Democrats would be confronting in President Mike Pence someone who has a long-standing and genuine commitment to all the hideously anti-social policies that Trump never shared until he saw them as keys to the Republican nomination. Lacking Trump’s offensive personality, Pence could take America backward even faster and farther than Trump. The more important issues, though, are the clear and present danger of keeping an uneducated, uneducable and wildly impetuous man-child in proximity to the nuclear codes, the forfeiting of American influence and prestige for which he is responsible, and the disgust that sickens most of us with every new disclosure of his abuses of power and of the foreign influences in his campaign. Whatever happens in the short term, both political parties should be planning how to never again nominate someone so singularly unfit and dangerous as Trump. The electoral system was supposed to prevent that — “a moral certainty,” as Alexander Hamilton put it, “that the office of President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” When Hamilton wrote “seldom,” he was not thinking “forever.” But the Founders provided for a day when their precautions would fail. At the outset, the party factions in Congress caucused to nominate their candidates for president. There was never a doubt as to their qualifications. No outsider cracked the system until Andrew Jackson came along, and he was much like Trump, who admires him, in being ill-informed, reckless and ruthless. Congress, for all its enormous faults, could be an inherently better judge of presidential timber than the present primary election system. But to try to give Congress control of who runs would be a fool’s errand, not to mention unwise. What Congress should do — what it must do — is to accept the constitutional responsibility the Founders assigned to it in the event of a rogue presidency. It is the fail-safe they wrote into the Constitution. As Pitts described it to the Republicans, “Your course of action, if you have even a molecule of courage, integrity or country love, should be obvious. Impeach him now.” ___ Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the Tampa Bay Times. He lives in Asheville, North Carolina.
Darryl Paulson: The Era of Bad Feelings
The Era of Good Feelings is the term used to describe the aftermath of the War of 1812 where the American nation sought to establish national unity during a period of one-party dominance. The Federalist Party, representing the urban and aristocratic citizens, disappeared after the disastrous Hartford Convention in 1814, leaving only the Jeffersonian Republicans as the sole political party. The Jeffersonian Republicans so dominated the political landscape that President James Monroe ran unopposed in 1820 and would have won a unanimous vote in the electoral college except for the vote of a few rouge electors. With the death of the Federalist Party, Monroe went on a national goodwill tour in 1817. While in Boston, the former Federalist stronghold, the term Era of Good Feeling was first used in a local paper. I am coining a new term to describe the current state of affairs of American politics: the Era of Bad Feelings. We have two political parties and each one hates the other. While political parties, by nature, are competitive, they have had a history of working together until the 1980s. After about a half-century of Democratic Party dominance in Congress from the 1930s to the 1980s, the Republican Party decided to stop working with the Democrats and, instead, oppose them on virtually every issue. Compromise was replaced by conflict. The end of compromise led to the collapse of ideological diversity in both political parties. Entering the 1980s, both the Republican and Democratic Parties had a mix of moderates, liberals and conservatives. Today, the Republicans have a few moderates among the mostly conservative ranks, and the Democrats have a few moderates among its liberal base. The political center is gone and the political extremes dominate both parties. Political hatred of the other party has grown so strong, that it affects what we read, what we watch, where we live and even who we marry. A Pew Research study of 10,000 Americans found that partisans prefer living in communities of like-minded individuals. Fifty percent of conservatives and 35 percent of liberals think it is “important to live in a place where people share my political views.” Liberals watch MSNBC and read American Prospect, the Progressive and the Daily Kos. Conservatives have Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to listen to, and they read the Drudge Report, Weekly Standard, National Review and Breitbart. As Americans increasingly live in communities of like-minded individuals and limit their viewing and reading only to sources that support their political views, it has led to a hardening of the political arteries. They constantly have their own political views reinforced instead of challenged. Political hatred is becoming so ingrained in Americans that parents increasingly object to their children marrying outside their faith. I’m not talking about religious faith, but their political faith. A half-century ago, only 5 percent of Americans objected if their child married a member of the opposite party. Today, that number has increased to 40 percent. As part of the growing intolerance of those who hold opposing political views, we increasingly engage in stereotyping to justify our hatred. Instead of dealing with individuals, it is easier to ascribe negative traits to everyone who belongs to the “wrong party.” Republicans stereotype Democrats as socialists intent on destroying the free enterprise system and encouraging individuals to go on welfare rather than work. Remember Mitt Romney‘s statement to Republican donors that he could not win the vote of 47 percent of the American voters because they were dependent on government handouts? Democrats attack Republicans as homophobic Neanderthals who hate women and minorities, and they have no compassion for the less fortunate in society. Stereotyping is the lazy person’s way to stop dealing with people as individuals and instead lump everyone together as a bad person. It is so much easier to dismiss the ideas of an entire group, than it is to sit down and talk about an issue and how to resolve it. The most recent manifestation of the Era of Bad Feelings is the 2016 presidential election. Many Republicans hated Hillary Clinton. They would argue that they disliked her because of her policies, but most could not envision any circumstance under which they could support her. Democrats hated Donald Trump because they viewed him as a racist and a womanizer, and they also believed he was unprepared to be president. To many Democrats, the billionaire Trump could never understand the burdens of poor Americans. Sixty-three million Americans voted for Trump and, yet, somehow Democrats are convinced all of them were crazy. Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump, but Republicans saw this as a sign of Democratic insanity. If we spent a fraction of the time trying to understand and empathize with members of the other party, we may actually find that most of them are decent, honest people who have the same concerns that we have. We might even discover that they may have a better idea than we have. We cannot expect more of politicians than we expect of ourselves. It is time to end the irrational hatred that is counter to our real values and is impeding our ability to solve the problems that desperately need to be solved. ___ Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at USF St. Petersburg specializing in Florida politics, political parties and elections.
Donald Trump budget plan draws strong opposition from Republicans
President Donald Trump‘s plan to impose sharp cuts to foreign aid and domestic programs is a non-starter in the Republican-led Congress — and that’s according to top GOP lawmakers. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who once headed the panel responsible for the foreign assistance budget, told reporters that Trump’s cuts to foreign aid probably couldn’t pass muster on Capitol Hill. “The diplomatic portion of the federal budget is very important and you get results a lot cheaper frequently than you do on the defense side,” McConnell told reporters. “So speaking for myself, I’m not in favor of reducing the (foreign aid) account to that extent.” Trump’s draft budget plan would add $54 billion to the Pentagon’s projected budget, financed by taking an equal amount from domestic agencies and departments. Diplomacy and foreign aid would face a 37 percent cut that would be felt across the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Trump said in his Tuesday night joint address to Congress that his budget “calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history …. (and) will also increase funding for our veterans.” Trump’s budget was panned by the Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer of New York. “The same time he’s talking about medical research he’s going to slash it,” Schumer said on Wednesday. “Education. He talked about the great issue of education. Same thing. His budget is going to slash education to smithereens.” The initial reaction among Republicans signaled that Trump faces a fight with his party over the $1 trillion-plus portion of the federal budget that is passed each year by Congress. That discretionary part of the budget has been squeezed over the past few years, while Republicans controlling Congress have largely ignored the ever-growing tide of automatic-pilot spending on benefit programs like food stamps, student loans, and Medicare. The proposed cut to the State Department’s diplomatic corps and the foreign aid budget are particularly striking, and likely to include security contractors at diplomatic missions abroad after the GOP criticized Democrats for security at the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans died in a 2012 attack. “What the president wants is to move spending from, say, overseas back in this country,” said Trump’s budget director, former tea party Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., on “Good Morning America” on ABC. “That’s why you’ll see fairly significant reductions in his proposals regarding foreign aid.” Such a cut fits into Trump’s “America first” worldview, but is alarming to lawmakers who see diplomacy and foreign aid as a small but crucial component of the federal budget, just more than 1 percent. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a primary rival of Trump, delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in defense of foreign aid. Rubio argued that spending on foreign aid is critical to the U.S. economy and national security. “I promise you it’s going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti-American and anti-American terrorism if the United States of America was the reason why they are even alive today,” said the senator, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Other Trump targets include the Environmental Protection Agency, the IRS, and many grant programs for state and local government. Public housing vouchers for the poor are targeted as well, much to the consternation of the pragmatic-minded lawmakers on the House and Senate Appropriations committees, whose programs were significantly curbed by a hard-fought 2011 budget and debt agreement. “We’ve reduced our discretionary spending over the last seven or eight years an incredible amount,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J. “Maybe some people don’t like those agencies, but it’s been pretty difficult for them to meet their mandate.” Top congressional priorities include aid to disadvantaged schools, Pell Grants for low-income college students, medical research, Amtrak subsidies, and water and sewer projects. “There are important priorities within the domestic side, on the discretionary side of domestic spending,” added Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. McConnell noted that it requires Democratic votes in the Senate to pass appropriations bills. That works to the advantage of more pragmatic Republicans. Many GOP lawmakers would prefer cuts to entitlement programs rather than already-strapped agency operating budgets — and that’s fine with party conservatives. “We can no longer expand federal spending without finding savings somewhere,” said Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md. “And so, the people who want to protect nondefense discretionary, they’re going to have to realize at some point we may have to look at the entitlement programs.” Trump has said he wants to leave Social Security and Medicare alone, though Mulvaney says other entitlement programs are likely to be addressed in Trump’s full budget submission in May. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
