Tag: presidential election
Hey, Historically Ignorant GOP Candidates -- Go School Yourselves!

Hey, Historically Ignorant GOP Candidates -- Go School Yourselves!

Who would have thought so many of those competing to be president of the United States would have slept through American History 101? And I wonder why, if a working-class student at a modest Catholic school in Baltimore managed bus trips to museums in that city and neighboring Washington, D.C., folks who grew up with far more resources than I ever dreamed of never found the time to learn from the treasures such institutions contain?

Welcome to campaign 2024, when it seems each day’s headlines include at least one fractured history lesson, revealing just how much our leaders don’t know or don’t want to know about America’s past, and why that matters for our present and future.

There’s Donald Trump, front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, trying to snatch the title of “great negotiator” from the president he has said in the past he could have beaten, Abraham Lincoln

“The Civil War was so fascinating, so horrible,” Trump said while campaigning in Iowa, as reported in The Washington Post and other outlets. “So many mistakes were made. See, there was something I think could have been negotiated, to be honest with you,” he told prospective voters.

As Liz Cheney retorted on X: “Which part of the Civil War ‘could have been negotiated’? The slavery part? The secession part? Whether Lincoln should have preserved the Union? Question for members of the GOP — the party of Lincoln — who have endorsed Donald Trump: How can you possibly defend this?”

Historians agree with the assessment of the former Wyoming congresswoman, whose rejection of Trump-worship cast her into the wilderness, despite former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s long-ago promise that difference of opinion would be welcome in his GOP.

Those who have studied history cite states’ declarations of secession that explicitly listed maintaining the lucrative system that bought, sold and “owned” men, women and children as the reason for rebellion against the United States of America.

Because of my habit of hanging around museums, I actually read South Carolina’s document, displayed with reverence in Charleston years ago. A secession convention called in that state shortly after Lincoln’s election could not tolerate “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery.”

South Carolina was the first to secede, motivated as well by the reluctance of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning escapees to bondage. I guess those states’ rights — the right of individual states to determine their own course — mattered.

Until they didn’t.

It’s rather ironic that so much occurred in the home state of another history-challenged candidate, Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, whose gaffe of forgetting to mention slavery when asked what caused the Civil War was anything but, considering her record.

Her rambling answer read more like a candidate being too clever by half, trying to keep her South Carolina conservative base as well as Trump supporters happy by sidestepping the “s” word. She was not quick enough on her feet to realize that telling the truth wouldn’t be a deal-breaker in New Hampshire, which sent many of its own to fight and die to keep the Union intact.

Though the woman trying on the cape of super-hero Republican Trump-vanquisher would like to move on from her original answer and ever clumsier attempts at clean-up, the whole chapter remains a part of Haley’s story because it reveals a lot about her.

Haley is the same candidate who in 2010 called the Civil War a matter of “tradition versus change,” and said she could cynically and strategically use her identity as an Indian-American woman and governor to counter NAACP efforts to force removal of the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds with boycotts. Maybe working with civil rights groups to expand voting rights or bolster her state’s public schools would be the more positive play.

But the literal audience for Haley’s messaging was Confederate heritage group members.

Nikki Haley wouldn’t even have to travel far for a history lesson.

My brief holiday season trip to Charleston, South.Carolnia, would not have been complete without a visit to the International African American Museum, opened last year, looking out onto the city’s harbor, where an estimated 40 percent of enslaved Africans entered the U.S. Its dynamic exhibitions explore culture, connections and invaluable history, including the story of the Carolina gold rice that made the state rich with the skill and knowledge of the enslaved, many of whom died from that crop’s brutal cultivation.

It’s a skill many brought from home countries, perhaps a lesson for that fading Republican candidate Ron DeSantis, whose Florida African American history curriculum might actually make students less informed since it teaches Africans had to be dragged to America to learn a thing or two.

When President Joe Biden made his own trip to Charleston this week, he honored the history, both sad and triumphant, of Mother Emanuel AME Church. It’s where activists rebelled against oppression, and where that legacy fueled a white supremacist’s massacre of nine worshippers in 2015.

Their deaths were the final push that led Haley to join those calling for the flag she had defended to be moved.

The nine South Carolinians shot that day, pictured on the wall of the museum in Charleston, are as much a sign of the state’s current challenges as they are a part of its very recent past. As Malcolm Graham, a Charlotte, North Carolina city councilman and brother of Mother Emanuel victim Cynthia Graham Hurd states on a quote on the museum wall: “We can’t simply move on. We’ve got work to do.”

In Biden’s return to the church, he looked to the future, as well, to honor the resolve of the generations who have worshipped and worked for change there: “That’s patriotism. That’s patriotism. To love something so much you make it better, no matter the struggle.”

It’s a word — patriotism — that some would twist to describe those aching for another Civil War not as jailed criminals but as “hostages,” as Trump and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)., outrageously suggested.

In rapid news cycles with primary contests looming, it’s folly to glance in the rearview mirror for too long, I suppose. But that kind of amnesia could be perilous for those Americans who refuse to let hard-won progress slip away.

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call.

Martha MacCallum and  Bret Baier

Fox Anchors Resume Debasing Themselves To Boost Trump

For those who watched Fox News’ January 10 town hall with Donald Trump, one message rang loud and clear: Fox News is utterly supplicating itself to the disgraced former president in preparation for the general election in which Trump appears most likely to be the Republican nominee.

Not only are multiple media reviewers noting just how friendly and deferential the event was, but Trump himself just publicly noted it, too — specifically thanking the network’s purported “straight news” anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum for the job they did moderating the event.

It’s important to remember that Fox News followed Trump’s demands in even hosting this town hall in the first place, a fact that Baier openly admitted, by scheduling it to run opposite CNN’s Republican debate between former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, in which the former president refused to participate. The network also stacked the deck by interviewing Trump in prime time, a strong contrast to Fox’s earlier town hall events with Haley and DeSantis which ran during the 6 p.m. ET time slot.

  • The Associated Press said Baier and McCallum had the task of “not alienating” pro-Trump viewers: “They did it by not interrupting Trump with fact-checks.” [The Associated Press, 1/11/24]

Moderators Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum had their own challenge: not to allow the town hall to go off the rails, as a similar town hall televised by CNN last May did, while also not alienating a network audience filled with Trump supporters.

They did it by not interrupting Trump with fact-checks. After Trump criticized how DeSantis responded to COVID as governor of Florida, MacCallum said, “DeSantis would argue with your characterization.” During an abortion discussion, when Trump suggested “radical” Democrats supported killing babies after they were born, it was not challenged.

  • The New York Times highlighted Trump’s “charmed night” on Fox News, in contrast to the attacks between Haley and DeSantis at their separate debate. [The New York Times, 1/11/24]

Over on Fox News, Mr. Trump had a charmed night, uninterrupted by competitors and their opposition research and appearing relaxed as he batted back the few gently skeptical questions he received from the audience. One questioner even introduced herself as a “caucus captain” for him, and nothing forced him from his talking points.

  • MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough called it “an advertisement for Donald Trump.” “I would call it softball, a softball event. I’ve never seen one as fawning,” the former GOP congressman turned Trump critic said. “I’m not even sure, why did they have two hosts there? They could’ve just had one to just sit there and smile and say, ‘You’re great,’ ask another softball question.” [MSNBC, Morning Joe, 1/11/24]
  • Mediaite: “Fox News Finally Surrenders to Trump With Subservient Town Hall.” Mediaite founding editor Colby Hall wrote the event “was more like the anointment of a future leader and, even more shocking, a surrender by Fox News to their once and future King.” Colby noted, for instance, that while Baier brought up Trump’s recent statement that he hoped the economy would crash before the election, the anchor “did so in the most feckless way imaginable, prompting Trump: ‘You’re not saying you’re hoping for a crash? Just to be clear.’” [Mediaite, 1/11/24]
  • Mediaite also noted that Baier and MacCallum failed to check an outrageous lie about abortion rights. Trump “repeatedly and falsely claimed that Democrats favor ‘killing babies after birth,’” Mediaite wrote. “During a lengthy answer on the issue of abortion, Trump repeated this lie several times — without correction from either host.” [Mediaite, 1/11/24]
  • Donald Trump: “Thank you to Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum for doing a really professional job.” [Truth Social, 1/11/24]

Though some in the media have speculated that Fox News and the wider Murdoch empire might break with Trump after he refused to stop the January 6 insurrection, the fact remains that the network can still be counted on to boost Trump as long as he maintains his own hold over Fox’s conservative viewers. Indeed, documents revealed in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox shows that the network joined in spreading the defeated president’s lies about the 2020 election, and internally attacked its own reporters for telling the truth, precisely because it did not want to lose viewers to other right-wing news outlets.

The immediate reviews of Fox’s obsequious town hall with Trump may be a good start. But going forward, mainstream media outlets need to recognize that Fox is not a news organization at all, and they should instead treat it like the Republican Party propaganda outlet it really is.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

House Republicans Aim To 'Defund' Trump Prosecutions

House Republicans Aim To 'Defund' Trump Prosecutions

Three House Republican lawmakers either have filed or plan to file legislation that would strip federal funding for the work of prosecutors who have charged Donald Trump with crimes, baselessly accusing them of “weaponizing” the government against the former president.

On Monday, Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia became the latest GOP lawmaker to try to defund the efforts of three law enforcement officials who have brought charges against Trump.

Clyde, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News that he wants to use the upcoming consideration by the committee of two government funding bills to propose amendments that would take federal funds away from the Fulton County district attorney’s office, the office of special counsel Jack Smith, and the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Prosecutors from the three offices have charged Trump with dozens of crimes, ranging from violating the Espionage Act to conspiring to defraud the United States.

“Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars have no place funding the radical Left’s nefarious election interference efforts,” Clyde told Fox News. “Together, Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, and Fani Willis intentionally brought four sham indictments against the sitting president’s top political opponent, President Donald J. Trump, as the upcoming 2024 presidential election ramps up.”

Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Andy Biggs of Arizona have filed similar legislation to pull federal funding from the prosecution proceedings.

In July, Gaetz introduced a bill that would have defunded Smith’s grand jury probe into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The legislation was filed days before the grand jury charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election results, and conspiracy against Americans’ right to vote.

“The government is being weaponized to go after President Donald J. Trump. The House of Representatives must defund Jack Smith’s office and end the witch hunt,” Gaetz said in a statement. “The power of the purse is not some intermittent thing that we wield every fiscal cycle. It’s something that we have to wield day in and day out to achieve victory for our people and to stop this.”

In August, Biggs introduced a bill that would strip federal funds from the Fulton County district attorney’s office, which charged Trump and 18 of his allies with felony racketeering and conspiracy charges over their attempt to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia in 2020.

Neither Gaetz’s nor Biggs’ bill has been taken up since they were introduced.

While GOP lawmakers have railed against prosecutors for charging Trump, polls show voters broadly agree that Trump should have been charged and that the charges are serious.

An ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted August 15-17 found 49 percent of adults said Trump should suspend his 2024 presidential campaign because of his indictments.

A Politico Magazine/Ipsos poll from August 25 found 59 percent of voters believe the Justice Department indicted Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election “based on a fair evaluation of the evidence and the law.”

A Navigator Research survey from August found 62 percent of Americans believe Trump committed a crime.

On Monday, federal district court Judge Tanya Chutkan set a March 4 trial date in the case over Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. On March 25, the trial is set to begin in Manhattan of charges that Trump illegally made hush money payments to pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign. And on May 20, Trump will appear in court in Florida to answer charges that he illegally withheld classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

All of these cases are set to take place during the Republican presidential primary.

Polls show Trump currently has a wide lead over the Republicans running against him: Trump leads the field with 49.5% of the vote, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a distant second with 15.2%, according to FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average.

Some Republican operatives have expressed fears that nominating Trump despite his legal perils will cost the party in 2024.

“If we make it about Donald Trump, it’s going to be a three-ring circus and we will lose,” former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan told CNN the day the Fulton County grand jury voted to indict Trump. “And the only place we’re going to be able to make our campaign speeches as Republicans are going to be on courthouse steps, because it looks like every Republican that hung out with Trump is going to get an indictment.”

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.

Study Warns Latino Voting Rate May Drop In November Election

Study Warns Latino Voting Rate May Drop In November Election

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Latinos appear less likely to vote in this year’s presidential race than in either of the past two elections, according to a Pew Research Center study released on Tuesday, even as immigrant rights groups enraged by Republican Donald Trump’s rhetoric seek to drive them to the polls.

The results could signal a challenge for Democrat Hillary Clinton as she relies on a coalition of minority voters to help her against the brash New York businessman, who launched his presidential bid last year by calling some Mexican immigrants rapists and promising to build a wall to stop them.

About 89 percent of Latino registered voters said they plan to vote in the Nov. 8 election, according to the poll, down from 91 percent in an October 2012 survey and 94 percent in a July 2008 survey. Another 10 percent said they would not vote in the upcoming election, and 1 percent said they did not know yet.

By comparison, some 96 percent of the total U.S. population of registered voters plans to vote on Nov. 8, Pew said.

Latinos, a rapidly growing segment of the U.S. electorate with rising influence in closely fought states like Florida and Nevada, tend to lean Democratic and favor Clinton heavily over Trump. Some 58 percent support Clinton compared to 19 percent for Trump, according to the survey. Another 10 percent favor Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and 6 percent prefer Green candidate Jill Stein.

But turnout among Latinos tends to run well below that of whites and African Americans, blunting their impact in political races.

A number of civic groups opposed to Trump have been working to ensure Latinos get to the polls.

Immigrants’ rights group America’s Voice, for example, launched a new Spanish language radio ad in Miami and Orlando stations for the next two weeks bashing Trump’s hardline immigration proposals, which include deporting all undocumented foreigners and making it harder for would-be immigrants to get visas.

In Nevada, the Culinary Union, which is heavily Latino, is working to ensure its members get to the polls, helping them with logistics like finding their polling stations and arranging transport.

“It could make the difference between a one point loss and a one point win,” said Yvanna Cancela, the union’s political director.

Sergio Garcia-Rios, a professor of Latino studies at Cornell University, said Clinton could be missing an opportunity to drive voter turnout further, however, by not engaging Latino voters enough on policy.

“We can’t just rely on an anger reaction to Donald Trump,” he said. The challenge is “to create enthusiasm for Latinos to get out and vote.”

Trump has argued that his proposals on immigration can help minorities by reducing the competition for jobs.

The Pew report was based on a bilingual telephone survey of 1,507 Latino adults, including 804 registered voters, from Aug. 23 through Sept. 21. The overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points; for registered voters, the figure is plus or minus 4.6 percentage points.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

IMAGE: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a “Latinos for Hillary” rally in San Antonio, Texas October 15, 2015.  REUTERS/Darren Abate