Florida New College students plan alternative graduation against Trump pandemic adviser

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — New College of Florida students, with help from alumni, this week are hosting a private graduation ceremony separate from the school’s official commencement in the face of a campus takeover at the hands of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The students, who have fundraised $100,000 for the event, want to hold a ceremony “on our terms” after school officials tapped Scott Atlas, a top adviser to former President Donald Trump during the Covid-19 pandemic, to speak at their commencement. On Tuesday, they announced that Maya Wiley, an attorney and former MSNBC commentator who is president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, will be the keynote speaker during the alternative graduation.

“We're now guaranteed a graduation surrounded by the New College community members that truly want to celebrate who we are, rather than those attempting to change our culture,” Madison Markham, a graduating senior and one of the students planning the event, said in a statement.

The official New College commencement featuring Atlas, who also advised DeSantis, is set to unfold on Friday and cap off a whirlwind semester at the Sarasota university that is currently being reshaped by a slate of trustees appointed by the Republican governor.

But on Thursday night, students will host their own ceremony featuring “fun bonding activities,” bands and speakers including Wiley. The group that orchestrated the ceremony, aided by alumni groups Save New College and the Novo Collegian Alliance, said it came together because the “new administration that has spent the past four months attacking our students and community cannot, in good faith, celebrate our graduating students and their accomplishments.”

New College students and many alumni have opposed the DeSantis appointed board at every turn but have been unable to slow down the significant changes taking shape on campus.

One of board’s initial moves was ousting the school’s president and replacing her with former Republican House Speaker Richard Corcoran, who is earning a $699,000 annual salary. Since then, the DeSantis trustees have dismantled diversity, equity and inclusion programs at New College, denied tenure to five faculty members, a move that spurred one trustee — the faculty representative — to quit the board on the spot and later resign as a professor, and fired the school librarian, who said the termination seemed like a “deliberate and targeted attack on our students."

“The students at the New College of Florida have achieved amazing academic success in the face of abhorrent challenges,” Wiley said in a statement. “They endured COVID and the politicization of their education. They have advocated tirelessly for the freedom to learn free of politics, for the freedom to be who they are, and for the freedom to fight for a campus community that embraces all who work and learn in it.”

Republican leaders in Florida, though, have swatted down concerns from New College students, including on Monday when they joked about protestors gathered on campus in opposition of DeSantis signing sweeping higher education reforms into law. GOP lawmakers have backed DeSantis’ goal to overhaul the school into a “classical” more conservative-leaning institution and dedicated $34 million to the cause in the budget, hoping the cash infusion will help turn around a state university that has historically struggled with enrollment and lagged behind other schools in meeting the state’s performance standards.

In choosing Atlas, a senior health policy fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, as its guest speaker, Corcoran noted that he is a first-generation college student who “knows the value of hard work and what a path to higher education can lead to in one’s future.”

Trump’s hand-picked coronavirus adviser Atlas resigned in November 2020 after promoting herd immunity as a response to the pandemic, and has appeared at roundtable events and news briefings alongside DeSantis. He notably backed the DeSantis administration’s plan to reopen schools amid the pandemic — a saga that unfolded as Corcoran was the state education commissioner.

“Dr. Atlas’ perspective and resume are impressive; he is a champion and fighter for free speech and a renowned national leader,” Corcoran said in a statement. “We are happy to welcome him here at New College, where we place a high value on personal freedom and individual autonomy, as Dr. Atlas does.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/LZgVxaA
via IFTTT

Read More

‘We can do better’: Space Force chief says mission statement’s a dud

What does the Space Force actually do?

The service’s top general just asked all of his members that very same question.

In a note to all guardians on Monday, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman noted that the three-year-old service’s current mission statement falls well short of explaining the mission of the Space Force.

“I have some concerns with our current mission statement,” Saltzman wrote. “My biggest concern is that the mission statement does not reflect why the Nation has a Space Force and the vital functions Guardians perform.”

The current mission statement reads as follows:

“The USSF is responsible for organizing, training, and equipping Guardians to conduct global space operations that enhance the way our joint and coalition forces fight, while also offering decision makers military options to achieve national objectives.”

The current mission statement was formed directly after the service was established in December 2019, according to a Space Force spokesperson.

In his note, Saltzman said that organizing, training and equipping is actually a small sample of what the service does.

“Guardians deliver capability,” he wrote. “Guardians operate some of the most technologically advanced systems in the world. In doing so, they deter aggression and, should deterrence fail, protect U.S. interests with military force. Additionally, our current mission statement is long and cumbersome. We can do better.”

Space Force members are responsible for buying new space equipment and tracking missiles, while monitoring satellites, launches and orbital debris.

The other problem, he notes, is that the mission statement isn’t catchy.

“How many Guardians can recite the current mission statement of the Space Force?” he asked. “My guess is very few.”

The Space Force’s identity problem is not new. Since its inception, the service has struggled to be taken seriously as it tried to separate itself from the (now canceled) Netflix show with the same name. It’s tried to shake off its association with former President Donald Trump, while also attempting to make clear it’s not about hunting UFOs.

To fix the problem, Saltzman is asking guardians to send in their own submissions for a new mission statement.

By crowd-sourcing the change, Saltzman is taking a page from the service’s early efforts to come up with a name for its members and dreaming up a service song.

Saltzman will consider four attributes when crafting the new mission statement. The new mantra must be informative, memorable, inclusive and receive buy-in.

He says guardians should share their thoughts with Space Force staff at the Pentagon by emailing ocso.feedback@spaceforce.mil.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/1W7zrfH
via IFTTT

Read More

Brandon Johnson sworn in as Chicago mayor

CHICAGO — Brandon Johnson’s journey from long-shot candidate to Chicago’s 57th mayor culminated in his swearing-in on Monday in a celebratory ceremony on the city’s West Side.

Johnson, 47, paid tribute to all of Chicago’s rich history, from its Native American and Haitian founders to the leaders who have been instrumental in making Chicago the labor town it is today.

He also addressed the “traumatization of violence,” the need for affordable housing and improved public transportation, and the growing migrant situation that Chicago and other big cities are facing.

“There’s enough room for everyone in the city, whether you are seeking asylum” or are unhoused, he told the applauding crowd at the University of Illinois at Chicago Credit 1 Arena. “We don’t want the story of Chicago to be that we didn’t invest in all of our people.”

The real refrain of his speech, though, was “soul of Chicago,” which he used to address the importance of investing in underserved communities.

“The soul of Chicago tells us we will never close our doors to those who come here searching for a better life,” Johnson, the son of a pastor, said in a rousing 40-minute speech. “That has always been the soul of Chicago. And it will always be the soul of Chicago.”

The new mayor continued: “No one should be too poor to live in one of the richest cities in one of the richest countries in the world. … We can bring Chicago home, Chicago.”

“We don’t want our story to be that we are traumatized by violence … and that residents had no other choice than to leave,” he said. “That won’t be our story. Not on my watch.”

Johnson drew the wildest applause when he repeated his support for “treatment, not trauma,” a reference to his support for reopening public mental health facilities to work with the nonprofit facilities that the outgoing mayor, Lori Lightfoot, has backed. Her immediate predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, had closed the public health facilities, and the debate about reopening them or not fueled much of the political campaign.

Johnson took the oath after exchanging a handshake from Lightfoot, who drew wild applause when she welcomed the crowd “to a peaceful transfer of power.”

It was a reminder that even though Lightfoot lost her reelection bid, she and Johnson are united as Democrats.

Johnson wove humor into a speech that was an ode to Chicago, reminding people that he was one of 10 children and learned how to negotiate.

Along with picking up where Lightfoot left off in trying to tackle an escalating migrant crisis and persistent violence, Johnson will also have to figure out how to address the city’s steep pension problems.

Johnson was county board commissioner and a paid organizer for the Chicago Teachers Union before he ran for mayor. He and former public schools executive Paul Vallas edged out Lightfoot in the Feb. 28 election, and then Johnson beat Vallas in the April 4 runoff.

Johnson was backed by the CTU, which for a decade had tried to elevate a candidate who supported social justice issues to the mayor’s office. Members of the CTU and SEIU, which also lifted Johnson’s campaign, were in full force at Johnson’s swearing-in, even chanting unions’ names back and forth before the ceremony began.

Johnson also paid tribute to the 50 newly elected members of the Chicago City Council, which he must work with in order to promote his efforts to “invest in people.”

The Council’s Progressive Caucus has grown, giving Johnson a strong voting bloc in his administration. But its 20 members aren’t enough to make decisions outright, so he’ll have to work with all of the aldermen to get things done.

Johnson started the day with an “inauguration tour,” making stops on the city’s West Side before arriving at the UIC arena for the ceremony.

Later Monday afternoon, he will take part in a long-standing tradition of new Chicago mayors by greeting residents who will line up to congratulate him in City Hall.

Later Monday, Johnson will be feted at an invitation-only event for supporters, elected officials and community leaders called “The People’s Ball.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/LlsSij5
via IFTTT

Read More

The Religious Landscape is Undergoing Massive Change. It Could Decide the 2024 Election.

One of the most significant shifts in American politics and religion just took place over the past decade and it barely got any notice: the share of Americans who associate with religion dropped by 11 points.

It’s a development of tremendous impact, one that will ripple across the political landscape at every level — and especially in presidential politics. Why? Because of what it means for the God Gap — the idea that the Republican Party is the one that fights for the rights of religious individuals (primarily Christians), while Democrats have become increasingly secular over time.

People are not fleeing organized religion at equal rates across the United States. Instead, there are regions of the country where religious adherence is still relatively robust, while other areas have seen a wholesale abandoning of organized religion. We know this because of the tireless work of the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. Every 10 years, they contact as many religious denominations as they can and ask to see their official membership records. This data provides an unprecedented look at where religion is growing and declining in the United States.

The 2020 U.S. Religion Census, which was released late last year, reveals that religion is taking a beating across the middle part of the country. When comparing the rate of religious adherents in 2020 versus 2010, a fascinating pattern emerges, illuminating the political relevance of the shifting religious landscape: Democrats are making gains in areas where religion is fading (the census defines non-religious as the percentage of a county’s population that does not show up on the rolls of any religious organization in that county) and Republicans are increasing their vote share in places where houses of worship are gaining new members.

When people think about where religion is declining, it’s likely they point to regions like the Pacific Northwest or New England. But the drops in adherents in those parts of the country are fairly modest compared to other regions of the United States.

Across the industrial Midwest, in former Rust Belt states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that are absolutely essential to the Democrats’ firewall in 2024, there is good news for the party — each of those states is much less religious today than it was just 10 years ago.

For instance, of Michigan’s 83 counties, 65 experienced a drop in religious adherents between 2010 and 2020. In populous Oakland County, which encompasses the far northern suburbs of Detroit, the share of people affiliated with a religious congregation dropped two percent in the prior decade. That drop in share coincided with a rise in Democratic fortunes: President Joe Biden won the county by 108,000 votes, more than double Barack Obama’s margin eight years earlier. Oakland County points to a future where Democrats have an easier pathway to victory as churches, synagogues and mosques continue to empty out.

Another example is suburban Philadelphia’s Bucks County. Pennsylvania’s fourth most populous county, it’s often seen as a bellwether for the national political trends. In 2012, Obama took Bucks County by the slimmest of margins, just one percentage point. In 2020, Biden won by 5 points. The share of the county aligned with a religious congregation dropped by nearly 18 percentage points between 2010 and 2020 — easily the largest drop by a populous county in the state.

But that’s not to say that the Republicans don’t have reasons for hope in the Religion Census.

There are 67 counties in Florida — and religious adherents grew in forty-nine of them. One of the true shocks on election night 2020 was just how poorly Biden did in Miami-Dade, which Clinton won in a landslide in 2016. Just four years after Clinton beat Trump by nearly 30 percentage points, Biden ran only seven points better than Trump. The Religion Census offers an insight into why that happened. In 2010, about 40 percent of residents of Miami-Dade County were connected to a religious group. In 2020, that was 52 percent.

Miami-Dade is something of an outlier. There are 16 counties in the United States with populations of at least two million residents. Eleven of them were less religious in 2020 than they were a decade earlier. Only one saw religion grow by at least 10 percent — Miami-Dade. The possibility of the Democrats gaining ground in Florida in the 2024 election seems like a pipe dream when considering how full houses of worship are around Miami now, compared to just a decade ago.

The other shift in American religion that may be working against the Democrats is in the state of Texas. While pundits have long believed that Texas would turn blue in the next decade — the Religion Census throws cold water on such a conjecture.

In many counties that are close to the border with Mexico, religion saw big gains between 2010 and 2020. The one that grabbed national headlines in 2020 was heavily Hispanic Zapata County. Clinton took it by 44 points in 2016, while Biden only bested Trump by 11 points in 2020. The Religion Census indicates that the share of Zapata County that was part of a congregation was 31 percent in 2010. Just 10 years later, it had risen to 65 percent — the rate of religious adherents doubled in less than a decade. Other border counties like Maverick and Starr saw religiosity more than double by 2020, as well. Nearly 90 percent of residents of Starr County voted for Obama in 2012. Biden only managed 52 percent in 2020.

It goes without saying that the dramatic rise in religion in many counties in Florida and Texas is deeply intertwined with the increasing number of Hispanic immigrants in these parts of the country. The Democrats showed real weakness with the Hispanic vote in the last several election cycles, especially in areas where religion has tremendous influence. Survey data indicates that recent immigrants to the United States report very high levels of religious attendance and prayer frequency, which predisposes this group to cultural conservatism.

Messages about the rights of transgender individuals and expanded abortion access do not resonate with these types of voters. The passage of a six-week abortion ban and the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida may be a strategic move by the GOP to not only make Florida and Texas even redder states, but it might also make inroads in Arizona — a state which was crucial in Biden’s 2020 victory. Religious adherents rose in four of the five most populous counties in the state, including in Phoenix’s Maricopa County, which gained over 300,000 new religious adherents between 2010 and 2020.

The overall sense that arises from the Religion Census is that the Democrats will continue to gain ground in suburban counties that are predominantly white and where religion is fading in size and importance. In so-called Blue Wall states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, Republicans will have a harder time winning over voters in suburban Milwaukee, Detroit, or Philadelphia with messaging about six-week abortion bans. On the other hand, the shifts in the religious landscape make it more likely that the GOP can hold off Democratic advances in important states like Texas and Florida. As more Hispanic immigrants come to those areas who are deeply religious and culturally conservative, Democratic messaging on social issues will not appeal to these types of votes.

It’s hard to overstate this point. In 1990, just seven percent of Americans were non-religious — 30 years later, the “nones” had quadrupled. And new data indicates that nearly half of Generation Z has no religious affiliation. In 2020, 46 percent of the votes cast for Biden came from non-religious voters. That could easily be half of his base in a bid for reelection. Both parties have been slow to react to this changing religious landscape. Where the remaining religious Americans live and vote is a crucial question for the electoral map in 2024 and beyond. Both parties are ignoring these changing dynamics at their own peril.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/4fGHYwr
via IFTTT

Read More

Republicans Are Targeting Kamala Harris. Will It Work?

Nikki Haley is not going to win any awards for subtlety when it comes to raising doubts about the president’s reelection bid.

In speaking about Joe Biden’s age last month, Haley said: “I think that we can all be very clear and say with a matter of fact that if you vote for Joe Biden you really are counting on a President Harris, because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not something that I think is likely.”

She’s not the only Republican to go after Vice President Kamala Harris. After calling Biden “142 years old,” Sen. Ted Cruz ridiculed the notion of Harris confronting Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Vladimir Putin in the event that she is elevated to the presidency.

It’s the specter of Biden’s age — the actuarial data that looms over his candidacy — that throws the “Harris” question onto center stage. There’s no question the vice president will face serious scrutiny in 2024, and fairly or not, she’s struggled to win over Washington and much of the public. Particularly if the GOP sees Harris as a weaker figure than Biden, the attacks on her as a potential president will only increase.

There are reasons to doubt the Biden campaign will be able to fend off such an assault, but it can look to at least one comforting fact: Throughout American history, attempts to make a running mate the target of a presidential election have usually been ineffective.

You can find an example — one that shows how dramatically the question of age has shifted — by going back to 1956. President Dwight Eisenhower had suffered a serious heart attack in 1955, and for months it was unclear if he’d seek a second term the following year. After he announced his reelection bid, the New York Times noted: “Because of his age — he will be 66 in October during the campaign — Mr. Eisenhower had pointed out, even before his heart attack, that no president ever had lived to be 70 while still in the White House.” (That’s right, the idea of a 66-year-old president was a bit unsettling back then.)

For Democrats, that meant the polarizing vice president, Richard Nixon, was a more tempting target than the grandfatherly general who won World War II. It’s why Democratic National Committee Chair Paul Butler said the campaign would “focus our guns” on Nixon because “the American people have a sense of sportsmanship and decency that does not seem to fit in with Mr. Nixon’s record.” (Four years earlier, allegations he had a “slush fund” of donor money had threatened Nixon’s place on the ticket until a nationally televised speech saved his career and made “Checkers” the most famous political dog since FDR’s Fala.)

The Democrats’ anti-Nixon focus was so effective in 1956 that the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket was held to a mere 457 electoral votes and 15-point popular vote win.

It was hardly the last time a campaign sought to make an issue of a vice presidential candidate’s fitness for office. In 1968, when Nixon running mate Spiro Agnew began inserting his foot in his mouth on repeated occasions, Hubert Humphrey’s campaign aired a TV ad where the words “Agnew for Vice President?” were shown accompanied by hysterical laughter. “It would be funny if it weren’t so serious,” the ad concluded. Nixon and Agnew won, albeit narrowly.

Dan Quayle’s stumbling entrance on the national stage in 1988, and his deer-in-the-headlights performance during the vice-presidential debate — “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy,” opponent Lloyd Bentsen jabbed — are vividly remembered by the political class. But the George Bush-Dan Quayle ticket won an 8-point popular vote plurality and 426 electoral votes.

So, does this mean that running mates have no impact on the presidential vote? It’s a question that armies of political scientists have tried to answer, with conflicting results.

A 2010 Stanford study concluded that Sarah Palin, whose initially impressive debut as John McCain’s running mate collapsed in a fog of confusion and historical ignorance, cost the ticket more than two million votes. The study cited a Newsweek column noting her performance “sent wavering Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans scurrying to Sen. Barack Obama.” However, two years later, a study from the University of California, Irvine, found almost no impact on the vote.

Even where the vice-presidential choice proved disastrous — when Sen. Tom Eagleton was forced off the 1972 Democratic ticket after reports of his past mental health issues emerged — it’s hard to measure its impact when George McGovern ended up losing 49 states.

Still, Democrats have reason to worry that 2024 might be different.

The answer lies in a single number: 8. It’s the first digit of Biden’s age, and one that carries outsized significance. Biden may be only four years older than Donald Trump, but as much as any verbal glitch on Biden’s part, it defines him as an unequivocal member of the Really Old. It’s one reason why that new Washington Post-ABC poll found that: “Today, 63 percent say he does not have the mental sharpness to serve effectively as president, up from 43 percent in 2020 and 54 percent a year ago. A similar 62 percent say Biden is not in good enough physical health to be effective.” Numbers for the soon-to-be 77-year-old Trump are materially better.

With Biden’s political foes — in the GOP and on Fox News — ready to highlight any sign of physical or mental decline, the focus on Harris as a president-in-waiting will be intense.

Harris’ supporters assign her low approval ratings to the politically thankless areas she’s been assigned like border policy; to the misogyny and racism she faces as the first Black woman to be vice president; and to insufficient cover from the White House. Her critics argue that she is simply not ready for prime time.

But unlike past running mates, Harris is burdened not just by doubts about her, but the doubts about her senior partner. It’s a burden heavier than any of her predecessors had to carry.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/XjyTFDo
via IFTTT

Read More

Ukraine aid is drying up. And the White House is under pressure to send more.

Move over, Treasury. You’re not the only one with an X-date.

The $48 billion Ukraine aid package that Congress approved in December has about $6 billion left, meaning U.S. funding for weapons and supplies could dry up by midsummer.

That’s raising fresh concerns among lawmakers about what the White House is planning next, including when the administration will ask for another major package and whether it will be enough.

The funding, many members say, needs to continue to flow without interruption, especially as Kyiv prepares to launch what’s expected to be a sweeping counteroffensive and retake ground in the east from the Russians.

"It is critical that the administration provide Ukraine with what it needs in time to defend and take back its sovereign territory," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told Pentagon leaders during a hearing on Thursday. "We expect the administration not to wait until the eleventh hour if the Ukrainians need more before the end of the fiscal year."

The White House is discussing a new package, and it will be timed to keep support for Ukraine flowing, said a senior administration official who was granted anonymity to speak ahead of an official announcement.

The official added that it’s unclear how Ukraine’s needs might change during or after the counteroffensive, but that the administration is “fully committed” to supporting Kyiv during and after the fight “for the long haul.”

But this isn’t the same Congress that approved the last big batch of money, nor is it the same set of circumstances.

This time around, any late-summer proposal by the White House could run up against the raging debate over the debt ceiling, and will almost certainly face opposition from a small but vocal group of Republicans that wants to slash spending on Ukraine.

Keeping the money flowing

The original $48 billion package approved in December included about $36 billion for the Pentagon to craft a wide range of military aid to Kyiv. The U.S. sent millions of artillery shells, funded tanks, and shipped armored vehicles and advanced air defense systems into the Ukrainian military’s hands. The aid allowed them to beat back Russian attacks while preparing for the coming offensive meant to break the grinding stalemate across hundreds of miles of front lines.

Outside the hearing on Thursday, Collins said she is concerned about giving Ukraine what it needs for the coming counteroffensive and the pace of U.S. aid deliveries.

“It’s clear that it will” happen, Collins said. “I expect there will need to be a supplemental at some point. It's also clear that it's taken far too long to get munitions and tanks delivered to the Ukrainians.”

Frustration is also becoming evident on the Ukrainian side about the pace of those shipments.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said new armored vehicles promised by the U.S. are only "arriving in batches," contradicting European Command’s Gen. Christopher Cavoli, who told Congress last month that Ukraine had received “over 98 percent” of the combat vehicles it had requested.

“I am very confident that we have delivered the matériel that they need, and we’ll continue a pipeline to sustain their operations as well,” Cavoli told the House Armed Services Committee.

When Collins on Thursday pressed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin about why Abrams tanks pledged by Washington weren’t arriving sooner, he noted that some had already arrived in Germany for Ukrainians to train on. Kyiv’s troops would be ready when the rest “certainly” arrive in early autumn, he added.

Figuring out the X-date

Collins and a host of other lawmakers POLITICO interviewed were unclear about when exactly the Ukraine military aid would run out, and how large the next package might be.

The massive U.S. supplemental has been used to steadily supply Ukraine with everything from Patriot air defense systems to spare parts for Humvees. The Biden administration has settled into a mostly regular pace of doling out several hundred million dollars every week to 10 days.

This month, the U.S. announced a $1.2 billion package of drones, artillery, air defense systems, and software and technical help to network Ukraine’s air defenses. All of those items will be placed on contract with U.S. defense companies, and are meant to help support Ukraine in the long term. That package leaves $4 billion in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, further draining the money available.

One congressional aide who closely tracks the issue estimated that, based on the rate of announcements, the money to draw down existing U.S. stockpiles will expire in July. That would mean the flow of equipment could be disrupted if Kyiv has to wait an extended period for a new tranche of funding.

The Pentagon is assessing how to spend the remaining money and continues to look at options "as the situation evolves to support battlefield successes during new offensives in the spring,” spokesperson Lt. Col. Garron Garn said in a statement.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said he’d been told recently during a briefing with administration officials they would have sufficient funds for Ukraine for the next several months, therefore that the appropriations process — or an emergency supplemental funding bill around then — would likely be the next time Congress doled out more funds.

“We're OK for the next several months,” he said in an interview.

“If I had to guess, probably September,” House Foreign Affairs Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said. “The counteroffensive that's gonna be waged in the next several days will have a major impact.”

Back to the budget

Timing for the next round is a major issue, especially as lawmakers continue to grapple with a host of other issues.

Congress will spend the next several months debating the fiscal 2024 defense budget, a wrinkle that could complicate Ukraine funding, even as lawmakers from both parties say they fully support keeping the aid spigot turned on.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior appropriator, indicated the appropriations process would likely be the next time Congress would provide funding unless the situation changed substantially on the ground.

“I think you'll see it in appropriations,” Murkowski said in an interview. “It's not making the front page or the second page. It kind of continues to be out there — we know it's there — but not at a level that is going to get people really focused.”

Alluding to those in her party skeptical of providing additional resources to Ukraine, Murkowski said that “it's hard to say that the way that people are talking now is going to be the way that they will talk [in the future]. I just think there are so many uncertainties.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the biggest backers of Ukraine in Congress, agreed lawmakers would eventually have to pony up more funding and predicted the annual government funding process would likely be the next best shot.

“Although there are dissenting voices, the large majority of certainly Republicans — for sure in the Senate and arguably in the House as well — believe strongly that we need Ukraine to win and that the outcome there is something that matters not only to that region, but to the United States and our national security interests,” he said.

Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he expects several smaller Ukraine packages to be proposed by the White House to get through the rest of the year.

The first would likely be enough to last through the current fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, followed by another package that would bridge the lag in getting the defense funding bill passed, which in recent years has been pushed to the end of the year or early the following year.

Once the budget passes, another funding package could be nestled within that annual bill since “at that point, they're going to want to buy some time to see where the war is going and how the counteroffensive is going,” Cancian said By then, Ukraine will be planning its war strategy for 2024.

But more money isn’t guaranteed, especially in this environment in Washington.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it would be a “mistake” for the Biden administration to bank on an additional Ukrainian supplemental funding measure.

“It looks like they're expecting some sort of a supplemental at some point — they're going to come back and ask for more money,” Rubio said. “I think that’s a mistake. I think it should be in their baseline” budget.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/LCsIEX2
via IFTTT

Read More

Dems’ great hope to hold the Senate: GOP primary implosions

Most Democrats stay quiet about GOP primaries for one big reason: They’re wary of giving their rivals any general election edge by hinting at who they’d rather face.

It’s different in Nevada.

Though the state’s 2022 Senate race was one of the closest in the country, Democrats are near-giddy that former President Donald Trump backer Jim Marchant is taking on Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.). Marchant is on a multi-year losing streak in key races — but he’s still a Republican primary contender given his alliance with the former president and track record of prevailing in primaries.

“He is, I believe, a three-time loser. A MAGA election denier. And so, he’s going to have his challenges,” Rosen said in an interview of Marchant, a former state lawmaker. “He’s going to have to sell himself.”

As Rosen sees it, Marchant aligns well with the Nevada GOP’s leadership, but not the battleground state’s voters. And he’s only one name on a list of dream opponents who Democrats hope to see prevail in GOP primaries and soften their rocky path to keeping the Senate majority next year.

Keeping the Senate blue will be a brutally difficult endeavor that requires losing no more than one seat in more than a half dozen red- and purple-state races. If Democrats can run against ultra-conservative or Trump-aligned candidates in those races, though, they believe they have a much better chance.

Republicans are maneuvering to avoid the pitfalls of 2022, when the party’s campaign arm took a laissez-faire approach and essentially let Trump's endorsement power pick many of their nominees. In Nevada, for example, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said many Republicans are already signaling a preference for Sam Brown, a decorated veteran, over Marchant. A GOP consultant close to Brown said he met with Daines this year and is "seriously" considering a run.

Yet Marchant is already attacking Rosen as if he's the Republican nominee. Rory McShane, a consultant to Marchant, shot back at her comments: “Sen. Rosen is going to have to sell why she should be reelected after she permitted record high inflation, the complete collapse and surrender of our southern border to the cartel and the managed decline of our nation to China. That’s a tough sell.”

Democrats don’t think Washington Republicans can climb out of their nationwide electability quagmire with candidates like Marchant. In fact, they’re counting on the opposite.

“The folks who win Republican primaries tend to be the extreme candidates. And that will be an opportunity for us,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said in an interview.

By virtue of incumbent retention, Democrats are mostly focused on defending their turf rather than chasing pick-up opportunities — and tending to undecided incumbent Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.). That imperative creates a party strategy that's focused on highlighting GOP infighting in a bid to split state parties, sap resources and produce unelectable Republican nominees.

The DSCC has put out a string of press releases so far this year seizing on the possibility of messy GOP internal battles, with subject lines ranging from “Republicans Brace for ‘Ugly’ Primaries as GOP Infighting Continues Escalating Across the Map,” to “West Virginia Republicans’ ‘Battle Royale’ Senate Primary Continues to Escalate: ‘Let the Mud Fly’” to “GOP Infighting Continues to Escalate in 2024 Senate Primaries.”

JB Poersch, president of the Chuck Schumer-aligned Senate Majority PAC, said that Senate GOP primaries have recently tended to help Democrats. Under Peters, the DSCC has not endorsed in primaries and has mostly focused on reelecting incumbents.

"Primaries generally exacerbate their problems, and it makes candidates out of touch and puts them further out of the mainstream," Poersch said of Republicans. "It's a mean process for them.”

How far will Democrats go to try to tip the scales for hobbled GOP nominees? Peters said he is not willing to use the DSCC to intervene in Republican primaries but added that when they're "very contentious," they can help produce "a weak candidate” all on their own.

Democrats helped Manchin face a weaker opponent in 2018, and former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) herself helped nominate a beatable opponent in 2012. This time around, Senate Majority PAC isn’t ruling out similar work.

“Let the situations play out and we’ll see what happens from there,” said Poersch.

While not all of the Senate fields are settled at this early date, in several battleground states there's already a clear contrast between nominees who Washington Republicans prefer and those who Democrats believe would make their lives easier.

Daines touted the early Manchin challenge by West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice as a sign that he’s serious about electability. Noting that Manchin, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio are the last Democrats elected statewide in their respective home bases, Daines said, “that bodes well for our ability to win in all three.”

“We’ve already got Gov. Justice beating Manchin by 14 points, 43-29, in West Virginia. And there’s a primary there, but that's not going to affect the outcome of the race,” Daines added.

Comments like that show the Senate GOP is putting its thumb on the scale for Justice over Rep. Alex Mooney, a conservative hardliner with the support of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Manchin appears much more viable in a general election against Mooney than Justice, according to polls and interviews with two people working on Senate races.

Asked whether national Republicans will be able to push Justice to the nomination, Manchin pointedly replied: “How popular is Mitch McConnell in West Virginia?” McConnell himself personally recruited Justice.

“If people don’t take Alex Mooney seriously, that’s the greatest misunderstanding of the political process,” Manchin said, adding that his state's GOP primary will be "entertaining as hell.”

The growing consensus in Montana is that a rematch between Rep. Matt Rosendale and Tester would benefit Democrats. Tester declined to signal a preference on his GOP opponent but said he thinks Rosendale would “have as good a chance as any” in winning the nomination to face him.

And senior Republicans are lining up to call for another Pennsylvania Senate run by former hedge fund CEO and combat veteran David McCormick. Their fear: that Doug Mastriano, who lost the governor’s race badly last year, could win the nomination to run against Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

Casey’s thoughts on the possibility the GOP might screw up the primary? “I am not going to provide them any commentary that might help them.”

A private poll shared with POLITICO, conducted for a group focusing on another race in Pennsylvania, found Casey beating Mastriano 49 to 39 percent. The April survey by Cygnal also found Casey led McCormick by a smaller amount, 46 to 41 percent, with 13 percent undecided. The margin of error was 4 percent.

In Arizona, Democrats are literally praying that Trump-aligned Kari Lake runs for the Senate. In a sign that she is inching closer toward a bid, she met with senators, including Daines, this month. Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb is the only Arizona Republican who has announced a Senate campaign so far; the NRSC has not yet taken a position.

And in Ohio, some Republicans have cringed at GOP hopeful Bernie Moreno, who called for reparations for Northern families who fought in the Civil War. Don’t expect Brown to tip his hand in that race, though.

"You think you’re going to get me to talk about that?” the incumbent Democrat said. “Talk to me in a couple months. I’ll still avoid it.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/8tSUbhR
via IFTTT

Read More