Support Our Journalism

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Politics National News World Economy Lifestyle Store

Start your day with The National Memo Newsletter

Tag: dan sullivan

How Republican Senators Forced Tuberville To Fold On Military Promotions

Earlier this month, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) finally relinquished his months-long hold on hundreds of senior-level military promotions that requires US Senate confirmation. A new report lays out how his colleagues exerted pressure to convince him to relent.

In a Politico article headlined "Inside the closed-door meeting where Tuberville caved," authors Joe Gould and Anthony Andragna published remarks from multiple Republican senators concerning their efforts to convince their colleague to give up his crusade that they said harmed US military readiness and increased global instability.

"One [commanding officer] I know personally told me: ‘I’m apolitical but one group of elected officials always had our backs — Republican senators. Now you guys hate us," Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), a veteran of the Marine Corps Reserve, said in the meeting with Tuberville. "The world has been turned upside down."

Tuberville began the confirmation blockade in protest of a Pentagon policy instituted after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, in which the Department of Defense paid for the out-of-state travel costs for service members seeking abortions who lived in states where terminating pregnancies was made illegal. GOP senators told Tuberville that while they agreed with his anti-abortion stance, the damage his hold was causing distracted from the goal of supporting the military.

"We’re all very pro-life. But we just wanted for these [nominations] to move," said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who is a retired National Guard officer who served a tour in Iraq.

Members of the Senate Republican Caucus were reportedly mulling voting in favor of a motion by Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), which would have approved nearly all of the promotions in one fell swoop. The motion was supported by all Senate Democrats, and would have passed with nine or 10 Republicans joining their colleagues across the aisle. Sullivan reportedly told Tuberville that the final vote could have far more GOP support than that.

"[I]f we’re forced to take this vote on the Reed [resolution], a number of us will feel compelled to support it. My hope is that instead of a vote of nine or 10 of us, that this could be a vote of 30 or 40," Sullivan said.

In addition to Reed, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) also sought to enlist Republicans to support an effort to break Tuberville's hold with 60 votes, and spent approximately four months leveraging her relationships with GOP senators to end-run their colleague. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who is a 25-year veteran of the US Navy, used his military credentials to sway Republicans.

"The thing that obviously worked was the political pressure from his own colleagues, just their strategy of putting this pressure on him is what got it done," Kelly said.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Senate Democrats Demand End To Filibuster and Voter Suppression, But GOP Balks

Democratic senators cited moral and historic imperatives to pass federal voting rights legislation and reform the body’s filibuster rule on Tuesday. But Republicans countered the civil rights bills and rule change were draconian overreactions that would prompt more civil strife.

“We are well within our rights as federal lawmakers to write and pass these bills,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). “We know there are 16 Republican senators here today who voted in 2006 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.”

“Calling someone a racist and a traitor is not the normal logical route to try to persuade one to come over to your side,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), referring to President Biden’s speech last week urging passage of the legislation. “Why should we listen to you? Why should any American take you seriously?”

The opening skirmishes were a prelude to a vote on Wednesday on legislation that could roll back 34 laws passed in 19 states in 2021 that complicate the voting process at key stages, and, in Georgia, empower Republicans to potentially overrule popular vote results. Hovering above the legislation was reforming the so-called filibuster, which is the body’s rule that requires 60 senators to agree to end debate to a bill can come to a vote.

Historically, the threat of endless debate has been asway to kill bills, especially those expanding civil rights. In recent years, however, the filibuster has evolved to the point where unless 60 senators are present and willing to vote, legislation will die. Democrats decried that reality, saying that it allowed opposing senators to duck debate and avoid stating their views on all kinds of controversial legislation, from gun safety to raising the minimum wage.

“Under the no show, no effort, invisible filibuster that we’ve had since 1975, the majority of either side says, ‘You know, if I can get 41 of our minority members to agree not to close debate, and all they have to do is not even show up to vote, or show up to vote if they like and vote no, then the majority can never get anything done,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR).

The rule change the Democrats will bring up on Wednesday would allow opponents of any bill to delay a vote as long as they are talking on the Senate floor. Sen. Dick Durbin n(D-IL), said the Democrats would be seeking to impose a “talking filibuster,” after which the bill under consideration could pass with a simple majority, which is 51 votes, not 60 votes.

“People out there need us to do our jobs,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), after listing major legislation that Republicans repeatedly have refused to debate, including voting rights. “And maybe that’s more important than some archaic rule that someone is now abusing.”

But the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, sneered at the Democrats’ criticism of the filibuster. He recounted many times where Democrats had praised its use and went on to say that voting rights and American democracy was not imperiled.

“We have a sitting president of the United States shouting that United States senators are on the side of [mid-1960s Birmingham Alabama commissioner of public safety] Bull Connor and [1860s Confederate president] Jefferson Davis for refusing to shatter the Senate,” said McConnell. “Was the Senate created to make these kinds of factional fevers worse, or to help break the fevers? Does the Senate exist to help narrow majorities double-down on divisions or to force broad coalitions to build bridges?”

Despite such rhetoric, Democratic senators repeatedly had to pause Tuesday for a “quorum call,” meaning that they were making speeches to an empty chamber and could not continue until more members were present. That reality underscored the Democrats’ critique that the filibuster had eviscerated the Senate’s supposed reputation as a great deliberative body.

When it came to the pending election reforms, Republicans repeatedly said that states were within their constitutionally guaranteed rights to police the electoral process as they see fit, and said that many blue-run states offered fewer voting options than red-run states like Georgia.

“Although Democrats like to call out Republicans for trying to suppress voting, the states they control in the Northeast make casting a ballot more difficult than anywhere else, Sullivan said.

But Merkley countered that the U.S. Supreme Court’s eviscerating of the Voting Rights Act's major enforcement provisions in 2013 overlooked a “significant blemish in our elections.” He then explained how local election procedures that the Voting Rights Act previously had blocked played out in a manner that suppressed voter turnout.

“On Election Day, in certain states and certain precincts, there was a game being played to make it harder for some citizens to vote than other citizens to vote,” Merkley said. “And the game worked like this. If you have an area where you want low turnout, you just need to create a big precinct so there’s a lot of people who need to go to that place to vote. And if you have the desire to encourage the people in another precinct to vote, a white precinct, you create smaller precincts, so the voting line won’t be as long.”

“And then there were other tricks, like, for example, understaffing the voting precinct where it is predominantly Black Americans, to make it harder for them to vote, and making sure you staff really well the precincts where you want white Americans to vote. And there were other tricks as well, for example, relocating the voting location in the Black precinct, so that people go to the wrong place. Or putting it where parking is virtually impossible. Or putting out false information about the date and location of the voting.”

Merkey noted that two major developments in 2020 in reaction to the pandemic – allowing voters to receive their ballots by mail, and offering the option to vote in person before Election Day – countered these disruptive and disenfranchising tactics.

“These two tools really opened the doors to the election process in the last [federal] election,” he said. “And the response of my Republican colleagues was, ‘Oh, no. We can’t let that happen. We don’t want those people to vote. We better rein in vote by mail. We better rein in voter registration.’”

On Wednesday, the Senate will continue its debate on voting rights and whether the filibuster will be reformed to spark public debates and votes where simple majorities can pass legislation.

“Right now, under our rules, it’s possible for 41 senators representing 21 states and 11 percent of the United States population to block the will of 50 senators representing 84 percent of the U.S. population,” said Van Hollen. “Think about that: Under our current rules, senators representing a small percentage of our population, 11 percent, can block the will of the majority.”

Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, The American Prospect, and many others.

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Republican Declares Victory In Alaska Senate Race As Begich Refuses To Concede

by Alaska Dispatch News (Anchorage) (MCT)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — As Alaska Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dan Sullivan declared victory early Wednesday, incumbent Democrat Mark Begich was not ready to concede his seat.

The Associated Press called the race for Sullivan after more votes were counted Tuesday, a week after the Nov. 4 election.

“I am deeply humbled and honored to serve my fellow Alaskans in the United States Senate,” Sullivan said in a statement early Wednesday. “Our campaign was about opportunity — because I truly believe that there is nothing that is wrong with America that can’t be fixed by what’s right with Alaska.”

But as Sullivan and his campaign celebrated, Begich still saw a chance to overcome a large deficit. Begich has chipped away at Sullivan’s lead since Tuesday morning, but he is still down about 8,000 votes. On Wednesday morning, Begich referred questions to his campaign managers.

“Sen. Begich believes every vote deserves to be counted in this election,” Begich campaign manager Susanne Fleek-Green said in the statement. “There are tens of thousands of outstanding votes and Senator Begich has heard from rural Alaskans that their votes deserve to be counted and their voices deserve to be heard. He will honor those requests and will follow the Alaska Division of Elections as it continues its process and timetable to reach a final count and allow every Alaskan’s vote to speak.”

The Alaska Elections Division counted more than 17,000 votes on Tuesday, following the counting of more than 220,000 votes immediately after the Nov. 4 general election. A victory appears very unlikely for Begich, though tens of thousands of votes remain to be counted. A statement sent by the Elections Division shows a known quantity of more than 30,000 questioned and absentee ballots remain to be counted.

It was the costliest campaign in Alaska’s history. Between Sullivan’s and Begich’s campaigns and the groups supporting them, $50 million poured into the state, much of it in the form of a massive advertising blitz. The stakes were high, and not just in Alaska. In Washington, D.C., Republicans had long ago targeted Begich’s seat in the hopes of flipping control of the Senate out of the hands of Democrats.

“This was a hard-fought race,” Sullivan said in a statement. “As we move forward, I want to emphasize that my door will always be open to all Alaskans.”

Sullivan is a former state attorney general and natural resources commissioner who served in the U.S. Department of State under President George W. Bush.

Begich had been the first Democrat from Alaska to serve in the Senate since Mike Gravel, who served between 1969 and 1981. A former two-term Anchorage mayor, Begich won his Senate seat in 2008 just one week after the long-serving incumbent, Republican Ted Stevens, was convicted of federal corruption charges that were later invalidated.

Photo: SenateDemocrats via Flickr

Alaska: Sullivan Holds Lead Over Begich In U.S. Senate Race

By Nathaniel Herz, Alaska Dispatch News, Anchorage (MCT)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska’s Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dan Sullivan took and held an early lead over incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Begich with more than a third of the precincts reporting Tuesday night.

With 160 of 441 precincts reporting, Sullivan led 49 percent to 44 percent. The margin remained essentially the same from the first returns earlier in the evening.

The Senate race was the costliest campaign in the state’s history, with more than $50 million spent by the two major candidates and the groups that supported them.

The race was viewed as potentially pivotal in flipping control of the Senate out of the hands of Democrats.

By the time polls closed in Alaska at 8 p.m., however, control of the Senate was already decided, with Republicans winning key races in Colorado, Arkansas, North Carolina and Kentucky.

Sullivan appeared at the Election Central gathering place at the Egan Convention Center just before 9 p.m., with his family and a crowd of several dozen sign-waving supporters in tow.

He did three television interviews, then appeared on a talk radio program, telling host Dave Stieren — who was paid to consult with Sullivan’s campaign earlier this year — that the early results were “a little bit of a surprise to me.”

Asked about his race in the context of the strong Republican showings in Senate races around the country, Sullivan said: “We’ll let the evening play out.”

Asked about the returns in those states, a spokesman for Begich, Max Croes, said in a phone interview: “We’re focused on Alaska, the same that we have been our entire campaign.”

State elections officials are also expecting tens of thousands of additional votes that won’t be counted until next week, at the earliest. That includes some 20,000 absentee votes the state hadn’t counted as of Tuesday evening, and even more absentee ballots will continue to arrive until a Nov. 19 deadline.

In Alaska, Sullivan was the favorite as voting began Tuesday. He’d led in nearly all of the pre-election polls, and Republicans outnumber Democrats in Alaska by a 2-to-1 margin — though there are more independent and unaffiliated voters than people in both parties combined.

Begich, a former Anchorage mayor, won his seat in 2008 by less than 4,000 votes, just one week after the long-serving incumbent, Ted Stevens, was convicted of federal corruption charges that were later tossed. On Tuesday, Begich was seeking to win his fourth straight campaign, a string dating back to his first successful bid for mayor in 2003.

Backed by an $11 million ad campaign funded primarily by a Washington, D.C.,-based Democratic super PAC and by a seven-figure ground game investment by the national Democratic Party, Begich was aiming to prove that his election in 2008 was more than a fluke, and that Alaska could elect a Democrat on his own merits.

The Democrats emphasized instances when Begich said he’s bucked President Barack Obama and his shared positions with Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski. They also touted Begich’s knowledge of Alaska issues, his friendly positions to Alaska Natives, to seniors, and to pro-choice women, and they tried to tag Sullivan, who was raised in Ohio, as an evasive outsider backed by big-moneyed interests.

Stephanie Simon, 51, a stay-at-home mom who was voting in East Anchorage, said Tuesday she voted for Begich even though she’s a Republican.

“He really does work across party lines,” she said, adding that Begich and his wife are “very earnest about what they’re trying to do for Alaska.”

Henry Watson, a 34-year-old African-American from Anchorage who early-voted for Begich last week, said he chose the Democrat because “he’s more for minorities.”

“He comes to our functions, and he has a voice,” Watson said outside his Midtown Anchorage polling place. “He doesn’t show up just for us to see his face.”

Sullivan is a former state attorney general and natural resources commissioner who served in the U.S. Department of State under President George W. Bush. His campaign stuck to general themes like energy security and federal overreach while joining with big-spending independent Republican groups to link Begich to Obama’s unpopularity in Alaska, and to the president’s signature health care bill, the Affordable Care Act.

Mike Hinshaw, 65, said Tuesday he picked Sullivan because Begich is “just in lockstep with Obama.”

“And that’s sad for America,” said Hinshaw, a veteran and registered independent who was voting in East Anchorage. Begich is under the thumb of Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, Hinshaw added, saying Democrats only allow Begich to vote against his party “to make himself look good.”

An early voter for Sullivan, Sherrie Walker, 57, of Eagle River, said she was “not sold” on the Republican, adding that “he hasn’t addressed” the attacks on his campaign’s funders, and on his residency history.

“But it’s better than the Big Itch,” she said, using her nickname for Begich.

Several voters said they’d been frustrated by the flood of negative campaign ads on television and radio this year — ads backed by more than $50 million that came primarily from the independent groups, which were newly empowered by a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated limits on political spending from unions and corporations.

“I was just disgusted by all the negative ads,” said Scott Hines, a 55-year-old Anchorage hospital worker who voted early.

David Breen, 25, also said he was frustrated by the negative tone, but he added that it didn’t affect his vote.

“Both candidates were really dirty this election,” Breen said. “That made that issue moot for me.”

Photo: SenateDemocrats via Flickr

        About The National Memo
    
The National Memo is a political newsletter and website that combines the spirit of investigative journalism with new technology and ideas. We cover campaigns, elections, the White House, Congress, and the world with a fresh outlook. Our own journalism — as well as our selections of the smartest stories available every day — reflects a clear and strong perspective, without the kind of propaganda, ultra-partisanship and overwrought ideology that burden so much of our political discourse.
TAGS

Created By

RebelMouse

About Masthead Terms of Service Privacy Statement Advertise Contact