Tag: endorsement
'Bigots': Teamsters Union Backed Biden In 2020 But Won't Endorse Harris

'Bigots': Teamsters Union Backed Biden In 2020 But Won't Endorse Harris

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has announced that, for the first time since 1988, it will not be endorsing the Democratic candidate for president. The union's decision is now being heavily criticized by various commentators and activists.

When announcing its decision to not endorse either former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris in the November election, the Teamsters complained there were "few commitments" from either party's nominees on "top Teamsters issues." The group also noted that while its rank-and-file membership supported President Joe Biden's candidacy in various straw polls taken between April and July of this year (prior to Biden dropping out of the race and endorsing Harris), a majority of its membership has now indicated a preference for Trump since Harris emerged as the Democratic nominee. However, presidential endorsements are not made by rank-and-file members, however, but by the union's executive board (Teamsters president Sean O'Brien spoke at the Republican National Convention this summer).

Teamsters' support for Biden but not for Harris didn't go unnoticed by former TMZ host and producer Van Lathan, who suggested racism played a role in the union's decision to not endorse a candidate this year.

"So when Joe Biden ran in 2020 the Teamsters endorsed. Biden-Harris was then the most pro union administration ever, yet support eroded when Harris was top of ticket," Van Lathan tweeted. "What changed I wonder???"

Chris Towler, who is a political science professor at Sacramento State University, tweeted the straw poll results showing support for Biden prior to him dropping out and new support for Trump when matched up against Harris. He opined that it was "no surprise the first Democratic candidate in almost 40 years to not get their endorsement is also the first woman of color to lead a major party ticket."

"And miss me with the whole 'her policies' sh—, just a few months ago the Biden-Harris policy agenda had Teamsters’ support," Towler wrote.

Towler wasn't the only political science professor to say racism among the union's rank-and-file was the motivation for the Teamsters' non-endorsement. University of South Carolina poli-sci professor David Darmofal insinuated it was the only reason that made sense. Demographic data compiled by Zippia from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the Teamsters' workforce is 73 percent male, and 60 percent white.

"White man Biden runs in 2020: The Teamsters and Pope Francis are incredibly friendly toward him. Black woman Harris runs in 2024: The Teamsters and Pope Francis are not incredibly friendly toward her," he tweeted. "What's your alternative explanation? There is none."

James Williams — a former advisor to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) — also suggested a racial element was at play. He lamented that the fourth largest labor union in the United States "won’t support a black woman for the [White House] whose policies support your very right to organize vs her opponent," adding: "In the real world, that’s just straight up being a bunch of bigots."

Others commented that the Teamsters' announcement made even less sense when considering the Biden-Harris administration's openly pro-union record. As journalist Lauren Burke pointed out, Biden and Democrats in Congress voted for a $36 billion package included in the 2021 American Rescue Plan that saved the Teamsters' pension fund (with Harris actually casting the tie-breaking vote in the U.S. Senate).

The Biden-Harris administration has also strengthened the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to help the Teamsters bolster their own ranks. According to More Perfect Union producer Jordan Zakarin, Biden's NLRB ruled earlier this month that Amazon's approximately 275,000 delivery drivers were to be classified as employees, allowing Teamsters to have the ability to organize them under their umbrella.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Potential Challengers Unite Behind Harris After Biden Withdraws

Potential Challengers Unite Behind Harris After Biden Withdraws

Less than a half-hour after posting his announcement that he would not continue his campaign for a second term, President Joe Biden put out a second statement, in which he fully endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the next Democratic nominee.

However, several other names have been tossed around as potential contenders over the last few weeks. If some in the party get their wish for some form of open convention or “mini-primary,” those may be the names involved.

Whether Harris moves directly into the role of Democratic nominee or has to fight for that position could be as significant to the party’s chances in November as Biden’s decision to stand aside. Potential rivals to Harris’ position as nominee are largely the most common, traditional sort of presidential candidates—governors. But there are others in Congress—and even within the Biden administration—whose names are being suggested.

Here’s what we know about the decisions of some of the names that more frequently appear on the list of possible contenders.

WHO’S OUT

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro: Endorsing Harris

Shortly before Biden’s bombshell announcement, Shapiro gave an interview where he was asked directly whether he would run as vice president on a ticket headed up by Harris.

"I'm not going to get into hypotheticals,” said Shapiro. “The president has made clear he is running, [and] I am proud to serve as Pennsylvania governor.”

But it was only a few hours after Biden’s withdrawal before Shapiro joined in endorsing the vice president.

I’ve known Kamala Harris for nearly two decades—we’ve both been prosecutors, we’ve both stood up for the rule of law, we’ve both fought for the people and delivered results. Kamala Harris is a patriot worthy of our support, and she will continue the work of generations of Americans who came before us to perfect our union, protect our democracy, and advance real freedom. She has served the country honorably as Vice President and she is ready to be President.The best path forward for the Democratic Party is to quickly unite behind Vice President Harris and refocus on winning the presidency. … I will do everything I can to help elect Kamala Harris as the 47th President of the United States.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom: Endorsing Harris

In a statement made earlier this month, Newsom told the Los Angeles Times that he would not run against Harris if she became the nominee. CBS News’ sources indicated that was still the case following Biden’s withdrawal, saying that Newsom was "preparing to stand down," and that they did not believe he would challenge the vice president.

On Sunday afternoon, Newsom endorsed Harris writing, "With our democracy at stake and our future on the line, no one is better to prosecute the case against Donald Trump’s dark vision and guide our country in a healthier direction than America’s Vice President, Kamala Harris.”

Newsom is the only one of Harris’ potential challengers who is also not on the list of potential vice presidential candidates. Harris and Newsom are both from California, so the governor will likely have to wait out this cycle.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore: Will reportedly endorse Harris

Reports from both Axios and NOTUS indicate that Moore is expected to endorse Harris on Monday.

Moore’s statement on Biden’s stepping aside is probably the most personal and moving, noting that Biden is a man “deeply in love with his family, his country, and the promise of America.” It’s also the only message that extends thanks to first lady, Dr. Jill Biden.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer: Not running

Whitmer’s reaction to Biden stepping aside included this statement:

My job in this election will remain the same: doing everything I can to elect Democrats and stop Donald Trump, a convicted felon whose agenda of raising families’ costs, banning abortion nationwide, and abusing the power of the White House to settle his own scores is completely wrong for Michigan.

Whitmer certainly suggested that she would not be trying to take the lead role over the next three months, but her statement was far from definitive.

However, MichiganRep. Debbie Dingell appeared to confirm Whitmer’s position in a statement to MSNBC, in which she said that the governor was “not a candidate for any office this year.” That was backed up by a Bloomberg report in which a person close to Whitmer stated that Whitmer does not intend to challenge Harris for the nomination.

As of this writing, Whitmer has not formally endorsed Harris.

STILL IN FLUX

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear: Unknown

“President Biden will be remembered as a consequential president. Along with Vice President Harris, he led us through the aftermath of the January 6th attack on our Capitol and steadily steered us out of a global pandemic. … Now it is time for our nation to come together. We need to dial down the anger, rancor and noise, We have an opportunity to remember that we are taught to treat our neighbors as ourselves—and that we all each other’s neighbors.”

Beshear’s mention of Harris in his reaction to Biden ending his campaign would seem to suggest that he might be leaning toward an endorsement, but that’s not clear so far.

Beshear has managed to sustain high popularity while fighting against a Republican-dominated legislature in a deep red state, but compared to Whitmer or Shapiro, he may be less viable as a VP alternative simply because he may not been seen as boosting the ticket in a critical swing state.

Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker: Unknown

Pritzker offered one of the longest statements in reaction to Biden’s announcement. In it he praised Biden, but notably spent a good deal of space criticizing Donald Trump, noting his felony convictions, and saying, “I will work every day to ensure that [Trump] does not win in November.”

That could just mean Pritzker would work to support Harris. However, he’s one of the few potential candidates with deep enough pockets that starting a campaign with empty coffers might not be an issue.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg: Highly unlikely to run

That a member of Biden’s Cabinet would stand up against his endorsed vice president is on the very high end of highly unlikely. However, Buttigieg remains very popular and his name has been frequently mentioned a potential member of a Democratic ticket.

On Sunday evening, Buttigieg added his name to those officially endorsing Harris.

"Kamala Harris is now the right person to take up the torch, defeat Donald Trump, and succeed Joe Biden as president," he said in a statement.

WHO KNOWS?

Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips: Calling for a “straw poll”

Dean Phillips is going to Dean Phillips. In this case, that includes reacting to Biden’s statement by saying that he got into the race “in the spirit of Paul Revere, not George Washington,” and finishing his thoughts on what may be the most critical political moment in decades with “Giddy up!”

Phillips then offered what seemed like an endorsement of Harris, calling her “talented, experienced, and well-prepared to beat Donald Trump and serve as our President.”

But an hour later, Phillips appeared to go all-in on a hackneyed plan for a popularity contest at the Democratic National Convention.

Conduct a straw poll among Dem delegates of potential candidates. Invite [Kamala Harris] and the top three other vote getters to a series of four, televised town halls w/audiences of delegates before voting at the convention.

If you’re wondering what that would look like, the top three vote-getters after Biden were Phillips, Marianne Williamson, and Jason Palmer—though all three were outpolled by “uncommitted,” which drew only 4.25 percent.

The best thing about this plan is that people are already very practiced at ignoring Dean Phillips.

During a Sunday evening interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett, Phillips predicted that Harris would win his little town hall contest, and insisted that “I do not wish to run.”

So what is Phillips actually supporting? Whatever will get him another 15 minutes in front of the cameras.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

A 'Sign Of Weakness'? Trump Sucks Up To RFK Jr. For Endorsement

Donald Trump placed a phone call to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and then met with him in Milwaukee in an apparent attempt to get Kennedy to drop his third-party presidential bid and endorse Trump at the Republican National Convention. A video of the call has now leaked online.

In the video, Trump appeals to the infamously anti-vaccine Kennedy by expressing skepticism about vaccines and claiming that he has seen infants “radically change” after being vaccinated. Then Trump calls on Kennedy to do something “big.” Trump reportedly followed up with a meeting in which he sought Kennedy’s endorsement.

The biggest takeaway is that, no matter what pundits are saying about how Trump’s victory is all but certain, he still thinks he needs more help to win in November. Selecting Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his running mate was a play to Trump’s MAGA base. Getting Kennedy to endorse him may be the closest Trump can come to anything resembling national unity.

Kennedy has apologized for the release of the video, which was reportedly leaked online by his son, Bobby Kennedy III. In his apology, the elder Kennedy blames the recording on an unnamed “videographer” while saying that he is “mortified” by its release.

The video that has been made available is incomplete, clearly beginning after the conversation is underway and cutting off before it ends. Throughout the video, Kennedy listens while Trump speaks, trying but failing to interject.

At first, Trump tries to secure Kennedy’s cooperation by appearing to agree with him on the use of vaccines.

Something’s wrong with that whole system. And it’s the doctors, you find. Remember I said I want to do small doses? Small doses. When you feed a baby, Bobby, a vaccination that is like 38 different vaccines, and it looks like it’s meant for a horse, not a, you know, 10-pound or 20-pound baby. It looks like you’re giving … you should be giving a horse this. And do you ever see the size of it, right? You know, it’s just massive. And then you see the baby all of a sudden starting to change radically. I’ve seen it too many times.

Trump moves on to trying to talk Kennedy into doing something—which may have been discussed earlier in the call, based on the way Trump describes it at this point.

Anyway, I would love you to do stuff. And I think it would be so good for you, and so big for you. And we’re going to win. We’re going to win. We’re way ahead of the guy.

After that, Trump discusses Biden calling him following Saturday’s assassination attempt, including a section in which Trump implies that he literally dodged a bullet by “moving to the right.”

Based on the in-person meeting reported by Politico, the objective of Trump’s call was likely to secure Kennedy’s endorsement. The GOP nominee met with Kennedy on the sidelines of the RNC in Milwaukee, where Trump reportedly wanted him to announce an endorsement of Trump. A Kennedy spokesperson said that he intends to remain in the race as a third-party candidate, but did not address any potential endorsement.

Trump’s selection of Vance as his running mate has already drained any suspense from the Republican National Convention. And by selecting Vance—a radical conservative and one of his most hardcore supporters—Trump has discarded anything that might have looked like an effort to reach across the lines, even within the GOP. Vance does nothing to expand his base or bring more moderate voters to Trump.

The outreach to Kennedy may have been designed to address that shortfall, generating the so-called unity narrative that the national media seems so anxious to write. Both the call and the in-person meeting indicate that Trump is a lot less confident about his chances in November than he claims in rallies. A number of recent polls show that the race remains close despite the furor over Biden’s performance in the first debate.

Trump reportedly did not know that the call was being recorded. But his obsequiousness toward Kennedy and his efforts to solicit some “big” action together show how anxious Trump is to secure support from the anti-vaccine candidate whose most recent headlines have centered around his admitted brain worm, his denial of eating a dog, and accusations of sexual assault.

Kennedy’s son reportedly posted this video on X along with a message criticizing Trump for failing to pick his father for vice president. That since-deleted post contained more anti-vax claims, including calling for Dr. Anthony Fauci to be jailed and dismissing Vance’s selection as a surrender to drug company Pfizer.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Trump Endorses Anti-Abortion Monitoring Of Pregnancy By States

Trump Endorses Anti-Abortion Monitoring Of Pregnancy By States

With little more than six months until Election Day, Donald Trump is preparing for an “authoritarian” presidency, and a massive, multi-million dollar operation called Project 2025, organized by The Heritage Foundation and headed by a former top Trump White House official, is proposing what it would like to be his agenda. In its 920-page policy manual the word “abortion” appears nearly 200 times.

Trump appears to hold a more narrow grasp of the issue of abortion, and is holding on to the framing he recently settled on, which he hoped would end debate on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One day before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled an 1864 law banning abortion was still legal and enforceable, Trump declared states have total control over abortion and can do whatever they like.

Despite the results of that framing, Trump is sticking with that policy.

In a set of interviews with TIME‘s Eric Cortellessa, published Tuesday, the four-times indicted ex-president said he would not stop states from monitoring all pregnancies within their borders and prosecuting anyone who violates any abortion ban, if he were to again become president. He also refused to weigh in on a nationwide abortion ban or on medication abortion.

Recently, Trump backed away from endorsing a nationwide abortion ban, but in the past he has said there should be “punishment” for women who have abortions. The group effectively creating what could become his polices, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025, fully support a ban on abortion.

The scope of the TIME interviews was extensive.

“What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world,” Cortellessa writes in his article.

“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.”

TIME’s Cortellessa also notes that Trump “is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

On abortion, Trump has repeatedly bragged he personally ended Roe v. Wade, which was a nearly 50-year old landmark Supreme Court ruling that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, and by extension, bodily autonomy.

But Trump has also “sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. ‘I think they might do that,’ he says.”

“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, ‘It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.’ President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation,” Cortellessa adds.

Trump in his TIME interview continued to hold on to the convenient claim as president he would have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

But “Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to ‘the moment of fertilization.’ I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. ‘I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,’ Trump says, ‘because we now have it back in the states.'”

That’s inaccurate, if a national abortion ban, or any legislation on women’s reproductive rights, comes to his desk. And they will, if there’s a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

Brooke Goren, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) writes, “In the same interview, Trump:

– Repeatedly refuses to say he wouldn’t sign a national ban
– Left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF
– Stood by his allies, who are making plans to unilaterally ban medication abortion nationwide if he’s elected.”

Cortellessa ends his piece with this thought: “Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. ‘I think a lot of people like it.'”

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol, once a hard-core conservative Republican, now a Democrat as of 2020, served up this take on TIME’s Trump interview and overview of a second Trump reign.

“Some of us: A second term really would be far more dangerous than his first, it would be real authoritarianism–with more than a touch of fascism.

Trump apologists: No way, calm down.

Trump: Yup, authoritarianism all the way!”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World