Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is making the border a central matter, comparing himself to Vice President Kamala Harris as he fights to flip the script against the “border czar” herself.
In a flurry of campaign appearances, since former President Donald Trump selected Vance as his running mate, the Ohio Republican has promised to step into a role the Biden White House tapped Harris to do.
Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Republican vice presidential candidate, reacts to the cheering crowd during a campaign event in Reno, Nevada, Tuesday, July 30, 2024. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
During the spring of 2021, the Biden administration assigned Harris to address immigration reform at the U.S.-Mexico border. While the GOP has argued Harris oversaw a surge of illegal immigration at the border, Vance promises he’s the man “to do exactly the opposite” as he commits to massive deportation efforts.
Illegal immigration was a running theme of Vance’s debut address to the nation. As he gave a keynote address at the Republican National Convention in July, Vance spoke about the harm millions of illegal immigrants crossing “open borders” have caused by creating “cheap labor” and taking away jobs from citizens.
“Citizens had to compete, with people who shouldn’t even be here, for precious housing,” Vance mourned.
Vance’s ire for the perceived immigration failures fell mostly at Biden’s feet as the Republican’s maiden speech preceded the Democratic president’s campaign exit. However, Vance warned the MAGA base that “Kamala Harris is not much further behind,” as the firebrand senator pledged to “put the citizens of America first” if Trump wins the election.
On July 27, Vance waded into the border problem again as he rallied MAGA supporters during an event in Minnesota.
Less than five minutes into his address to the crowd, Vance opened fire on Harris as “a card-carrying member of the San Francisco Lunatic Fringe” and claimed later that the Democrat had “invited” millions of illegal immigrants into the country.
Vance spent more than a third of his roughly 20-minute speech to Trump supporters focused on Harris and the border.
“There is no greater sign of disloyalty to this country than what Kamala Harris has done at our southern border,” he said.
The New Right leader contrasted himself to Harris, promising to launch “the largest deportation program in the history of this country.”
Days later, during his next major rally before voters in Nevada, the Ohio Republican repeated his attack on the “border czar” before he hit the three-minute mark of his first solo campaign address. Trump’s feisty running mate was quick to call Harris “dangerously liberal” and claimed the surge of illegal immigration at the border was by the vice president’s “design.”
“During her first failed run for president, she told everyone exactly what she wanted: to decriminalize Illegal immigration, to tear down immigration customs and enforcement, and open up the floodgates while giving everybody who came here free healthcare,” Vance told crowds.
In the past week, Vance has continued to focus campaign appearances along the U.S.-Mexico border, harping on Harris’s role in facilitating “the worst border crisis in American history.”
Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Republican vice presidential candidate, addresses the media during his visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in Hereford, Arizona, Aug. 1, 2024. (Grace Trejo/Arizona Daily Star via AP)
On Thursday, Vance joined National Border Patrol Council President Paul Perez for an Arizona border event.
If illegal immigrants “can come into this country and they know they’re never going to be deported, you effectively have an open border” because “that’s what Kamala Harris promised,” Vance warned during the battleground state campaign appearance.
He offered a solution to “what Kamala Harris did.”
“Donald Trump and I promise to do exactly the opposite,” Vance said.
2024-08-02 16:31:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2Fpresidential%2F3108773%2Fvance-fashions-himself-new-border-czar-plot-twist-against-harris%2F?w=600&h=450, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is making the border a central matter, comparing himself to Vice President Kamala Harris as he fights to flip the script against the “border czar” herself. In a flurry of campaign appearances, since former President Donald Trump selected Vance as his running mate, the Ohio Republican has promised to step into,
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is making the border a central matter, comparing himself to Vice President Kamala Harris as he fights to flip the script against the “border czar” herself.
In a flurry of campaign appearances, since former President Donald Trump selected Vance as his running mate, the Ohio Republican has promised to step into a role the Biden White House tapped Harris to do.
Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Republican vice presidential candidate, reacts to the cheering crowd during a campaign event in Reno, Nevada, Tuesday, July 30, 2024. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
During the spring of 2021, the Biden administration assigned Harris to address immigration reform at the U.S.-Mexico border. While the GOP has argued Harris oversaw a surge of illegal immigration at the border, Vance promises he’s the man “to do exactly the opposite” as he commits to massive deportation efforts.
Illegal immigration was a running theme of Vance’s debut address to the nation. As he gave a keynote address at the Republican National Convention in July, Vance spoke about the harm millions of illegal immigrants crossing “open borders” have caused by creating “cheap labor” and taking away jobs from citizens.
“Citizens had to compete, with people who shouldn’t even be here, for precious housing,” Vance mourned.
Vance’s ire for the perceived immigration failures fell mostly at Biden’s feet as the Republican’s maiden speech preceded the Democratic president’s campaign exit. However, Vance warned the MAGA base that “Kamala Harris is not much further behind,” as the firebrand senator pledged to “put the citizens of America first” if Trump wins the election.
On July 27, Vance waded into the border problem again as he rallied MAGA supporters during an event in Minnesota.
Less than five minutes into his address to the crowd, Vance opened fire on Harris as “a card-carrying member of the San Francisco Lunatic Fringe” and claimed later that the Democrat had “invited” millions of illegal immigrants into the country.
Vance spent more than a third of his roughly 20-minute speech to Trump supporters focused on Harris and the border.
“There is no greater sign of disloyalty to this country than what Kamala Harris has done at our southern border,” he said.
The New Right leader contrasted himself to Harris, promising to launch “the largest deportation program in the history of this country.”
Days later, during his next major rally before voters in Nevada, the Ohio Republican repeated his attack on the “border czar” before he hit the three-minute mark of his first solo campaign address. Trump’s feisty running mate was quick to call Harris “dangerously liberal” and claimed the surge of illegal immigration at the border was by the vice president’s “design.”
“During her first failed run for president, she told everyone exactly what she wanted: to decriminalize Illegal immigration, to tear down immigration customs and enforcement, and open up the floodgates while giving everybody who came here free healthcare,” Vance told crowds.
In the past week, Vance has continued to focus campaign appearances along the U.S.-Mexico border, harping on Harris’s role in facilitating “the worst border crisis in American history.”
Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Republican vice presidential candidate, addresses the media during his visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in Hereford, Arizona, Aug. 1, 2024. (Grace Trejo/Arizona Daily Star via AP)
On Thursday, Vance joined National Border Patrol Council President Paul Perez for an Arizona border event.
If illegal immigrants “can come into this country and they know they’re never going to be deported, you effectively have an open border” because “that’s what Kamala Harris promised,” Vance warned during the battleground state campaign appearance.
He offered a solution to “what Kamala Harris did.”
“Donald Trump and I promise to do exactly the opposite,” Vance said.
, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is making the border a central matter, comparing himself to Vice President Kamala Harris as he fights to flip the script against the “border czar” herself. In a flurry of campaign appearances, since former President Donald Trump selected Vance as his running mate, the Ohio Republican has promised to step into a role the Biden White House tapped Harris to do. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Republican vice presidential candidate, reacts to the cheering crowd during a campaign event in Reno, Nevada, Tuesday, July 30, 2024. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong) During the spring of 2021, the Biden administration assigned Harris to address immigration reform at the U.S.-Mexico border. While the GOP has argued Harris oversaw a surge of illegal immigration at the border, Vance promises he’s the man “to do exactly the opposite” as he commits to massive deportation efforts. Illegal immigration was a running theme of Vance’s debut address to the nation. As he gave a keynote address at the Republican National Convention in July, Vance spoke about the harm millions of illegal immigrants crossing “open borders” have caused by creating “cheap labor” and taking away jobs from citizens. “Citizens had to compete, with people who shouldn’t even be here, for precious housing,” Vance mourned. Vance’s ire for the perceived immigration failures fell mostly at Biden’s feet as the Republican’s maiden speech preceded the Democratic president’s campaign exit. However, Vance warned the MAGA base that “Kamala Harris is not much further behind,” as the firebrand senator pledged to “put the citizens of America first” if Trump wins the election. On July 27, Vance waded into the border problem again as he rallied MAGA supporters during an event in Minnesota. Less than five minutes into his address to the crowd, Vance opened fire on Harris as “a card-carrying member of the San Francisco Lunatic Fringe” and claimed later that the Democrat had “invited” millions of illegal immigrants into the country. Vance spent more than a third of his roughly 20-minute speech to Trump supporters focused on Harris and the border. “There is no greater sign of disloyalty to this country than what Kamala Harris has done at our southern border,” he said. The New Right leader contrasted himself to Harris, promising to launch “the largest deportation program in the history of this country.” Days later, during his next major rally before voters in Nevada, the Ohio Republican repeated his attack on the “border czar” before he hit the three-minute mark of his first solo campaign address. Trump’s feisty running mate was quick to call Harris “dangerously liberal” and claimed the surge of illegal immigration at the border was by the vice president’s “design.” “During her first failed run for president, she told everyone exactly what she wanted: to decriminalize Illegal immigration, to tear down immigration customs and enforcement, and open up the floodgates while giving everybody who came here free healthcare,” Vance told crowds. In the past week, Vance has continued to focus campaign appearances along the U.S.-Mexico border, harping on Harris’s role in facilitating “the worst border crisis in American history.” Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Republican vice presidential candidate, addresses the media during his visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in Hereford, Arizona, Aug. 1, 2024. (Grace Trejo/Arizona Daily Star via AP) On Thursday, Vance joined National Border Patrol Council President Paul Perez for an Arizona border event. If illegal immigrants “can come into this country and they know they’re never going to be deported, you effectively have an open border” because “that’s what Kamala Harris promised,” Vance warned during the battleground state campaign appearance. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER He offered a solution to “what Kamala Harris did.” “Donald Trump and I promise to do exactly the opposite,” Vance said. , , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/J.D.-Vance-Border.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
AFP is funding a major initiative aimed at ousting vulnerable Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Bob Casey (D-PA), according to a report from the Hill.
AFP is a conservative political advocacy organization affiliated with billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. Its ads, which will go live in Montana and Pennsylvania in the next two weeks, will bash the senators over “Bidenomics” and focus on voters in those states who say they’re suffering from inflation.
Both Democratic senators are facing close reelection races. Republican challenger Tim Sheehey is leading Tester by 5% in the latest polling. Meanwhile, according to a new survey, Casey is looking to stave off a defeat from Dave McCormick, with Casey leading him by five points.
“Bidenomics might bear the President’s name, but make no mistake that he is far from the only one to blame for its policy failures and the inflation crisis that it has wrought,” Akash Chougule, AFP’s vice president of government affairs, said in a statement to the outlet. The AFP representative pointed to congressional Democrats and Vice President Kamala Harris, Biden’s heir apparent.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) speaks with reporters at the U.S. Capitol June 18, 2024. (Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images)
As he fights to keep his seat in the upper chamber, Tester has steered away from publicly backing Bidenomics and has yet to endorse Harris.
While he’s also in a competitive race, Casey enjoys slightly higher margins of support in his home state. The Pennsylvania Democrat backed Harris on July 21 and even campaigned with Biden before the incumbent president dropped his reelection bid.
This isn’t the first time AFP has set its sights on vulnerable senators. The Koch-backed group has attacked the two for supporting Biden’s American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. AFP argues that these laws created and exacerbated inflation.
In May, Tester and Casey were among two Democrats the conservative group targeted in a seven-figure ad buy.
2024-08-02 03:46:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2F3108500%2Fconservative-group-announces-seven-figure-ad-campaign-against-battleground-democrats%2F?w=600&h=450, Americans for Prosperity is wielding a seven-figure advertising campaign in an effort to flip two battleground senate races this November. AFP is funding a major initiative aimed at ousting vulnerable Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Bob Casey (D-PA), according to a report from the Hill. AFP is a conservative political advocacy organization affiliated with billionaire,
AFP is funding a major initiative aimed at ousting vulnerable Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Bob Casey (D-PA), according to a report from the Hill.
AFP is a conservative political advocacy organization affiliated with billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. Its ads, which will go live in Montana and Pennsylvania in the next two weeks, will bash the senators over “Bidenomics” and focus on voters in those states who say they’re suffering from inflation.
Both Democratic senators are facing close reelection races. Republican challenger Tim Sheehey is leading Tester by 5% in the latest polling. Meanwhile, according to a new survey, Casey is looking to stave off a defeat from Dave McCormick, with Casey leading him by five points.
“Bidenomics might bear the President’s name, but make no mistake that he is far from the only one to blame for its policy failures and the inflation crisis that it has wrought,” Akash Chougule, AFP’s vice president of government affairs, said in a statement to the outlet. The AFP representative pointed to congressional Democrats and Vice President Kamala Harris, Biden’s heir apparent.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) speaks with reporters at the U.S. Capitol June 18, 2024. (Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images)
As he fights to keep his seat in the upper chamber, Tester has steered away from publicly backing Bidenomics and has yet to endorse Harris.
While he’s also in a competitive race, Casey enjoys slightly higher margins of support in his home state. The Pennsylvania Democrat backed Harris on July 21 and even campaigned with Biden before the incumbent president dropped his reelection bid.
This isn’t the first time AFP has set its sights on vulnerable senators. The Koch-backed group has attacked the two for supporting Biden’s American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. AFP argues that these laws created and exacerbated inflation.
In May, Tester and Casey were among two Democrats the conservative group targeted in a seven-figure ad buy.
, Americans for Prosperity is wielding a seven-figure advertising campaign in an effort to flip two battleground senate races this November. AFP is funding a major initiative aimed at ousting vulnerable Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Bob Casey (D-PA), according to a report from the Hill. AFP is a conservative political advocacy organization affiliated with billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. Its ads, which will go live in Montana and Pennsylvania in the next two weeks, will bash the senators over “Bidenomics” and focus on voters in those states who say they’re suffering from inflation. Both Democratic senators are facing close reelection races. Republican challenger Tim Sheehey is leading Tester by 5% in the latest polling. Meanwhile, according to a new survey, Casey is looking to stave off a defeat from Dave McCormick, with Casey leading him by five points. “Bidenomics might bear the President’s name, but make no mistake that he is far from the only one to blame for its policy failures and the inflation crisis that it has wrought,” Akash Chougule, AFP’s vice president of government affairs, said in a statement to the outlet. The AFP representative pointed to congressional Democrats and Vice President Kamala Harris, Biden’s heir apparent. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) speaks with reporters at the U.S. Capitol June 18, 2024. (Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images) As he fights to keep his seat in the upper chamber, Tester has steered away from publicly backing Bidenomics and has yet to endorse Harris. While he’s also in a competitive race, Casey enjoys slightly higher margins of support in his home state. The Pennsylvania Democrat backed Harris on July 21 and even campaigned with Biden before the incumbent president dropped his reelection bid. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER This isn’t the first time AFP has set its sights on vulnerable senators. The Koch-backed group has attacked the two for supporting Biden’s American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. AFP argues that these laws created and exacerbated inflation. In May, Tester and Casey were among two Democrats the conservative group targeted in a seven-figure ad buy., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Jon-Tester-Senate-June-2024-scaled-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Thursday that the U.S. government is recognizing Edmundo Gonzalez as the winner of Venezuela‘s presidential election over incumbent Nicolas Maduro.
In a statement on the U.S. government’s position on the Latin American country’s presidential results, Blinken said Venzueala’s National Electoral Council decision to declare Maduro the victor on Sunday was wrong.
President Nicolas Maduro gestures during a news conference at Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, Venezuela, Wednesday, July 31, 2024, three days after his disputed reelection. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix)
“The CNE’s rapid declaration of Nicolas Maduro as the winner of the presidential election came with no supporting evidence. The CNE still has not published disaggregated data or any of the vote tally sheets, despite repeated calls from Venezuelans and the international community to do so,” Blinken noted.
Electoral data overwhelmingly demonstrate the will of the Venezuelan people: democratic opposition candidate @EdmundoGU won the most votes in Sunday’s election. Venezuelans have voted, and their votes must count.
Venezuelan presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia is led out at the end of a campaign rally, in Guatire, Venezuela, Friday, May 31, 2024. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)
The secretary of state said Gonzalez was the rightful winner of the Venezuelan presidential election.
“The democratic opposition has published more than 80 percent of the tally sheets received directly from polling stations throughout Venezuela,” Blinken said. “Those tally sheets indicate that Edmundo González Urrutia received the most votes in this election by an insurmountable margin. Independent observers have corroborated these facts, and this outcome was also supported by election day exit polls and quick counts.”
Maduro rose to power in 2013 and has been accused by the United States and other nations of being corrupt and authoritarian. The country has dealt with economic troubles and the exodus of 7.7 million residents since 2014, according to the Associated Press.
2024-08-02 02:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2F3108469%2Fus-declares-venezuelas-maduro-lost-presidential-election-rival%2F?w=600&h=450, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Thursday that the U.S. government is recognizing Edmundo Gonzalez as the winner of Venezuela‘s presidential election over incumbent Nicolas Maduro. In a statement on the U.S. government’s position on the Latin American country’s presidential results, Blinken said Venzueala’s National Electoral Council decision to declare Maduro the victor on Sunday,
Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Thursday that the U.S. government is recognizing Edmundo Gonzalez as the winner of Venezuela‘s presidential election over incumbent Nicolas Maduro.
In a statement on the U.S. government’s position on the Latin American country’s presidential results, Blinken said Venzueala’s National Electoral Council decision to declare Maduro the victor on Sunday was wrong.
President Nicolas Maduro gestures during a news conference at Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, Venezuela, Wednesday, July 31, 2024, three days after his disputed reelection. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix)
“The CNE’s rapid declaration of Nicolas Maduro as the winner of the presidential election came with no supporting evidence. The CNE still has not published disaggregated data or any of the vote tally sheets, despite repeated calls from Venezuelans and the international community to do so,” Blinken noted.
Electoral data overwhelmingly demonstrate the will of the Venezuelan people: democratic opposition candidate @EdmundoGU won the most votes in Sunday’s election. Venezuelans have voted, and their votes must count.
Venezuelan presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia is led out at the end of a campaign rally, in Guatire, Venezuela, Friday, May 31, 2024. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)
The secretary of state said Gonzalez was the rightful winner of the Venezuelan presidential election.
“The democratic opposition has published more than 80 percent of the tally sheets received directly from polling stations throughout Venezuela,” Blinken said. “Those tally sheets indicate that Edmundo González Urrutia received the most votes in this election by an insurmountable margin. Independent observers have corroborated these facts, and this outcome was also supported by election day exit polls and quick counts.”
Maduro rose to power in 2013 and has been accused by the United States and other nations of being corrupt and authoritarian. The country has dealt with economic troubles and the exodus of 7.7 million residents since 2014, according to the Associated Press.
, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Thursday that the U.S. government is recognizing Edmundo Gonzalez as the winner of Venezuela‘s presidential election over incumbent Nicolas Maduro. In a statement on the U.S. government’s position on the Latin American country’s presidential results, Blinken said Venzueala’s National Electoral Council decision to declare Maduro the victor on Sunday was wrong. President Nicolas Maduro gestures during a news conference at Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, Venezuela, Wednesday, July 31, 2024, three days after his disputed reelection. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix) “The CNE’s rapid declaration of Nicolas Maduro as the winner of the presidential election came with no supporting evidence. The CNE still has not published disaggregated data or any of the vote tally sheets, despite repeated calls from Venezuelans and the international community to do so,” Blinken noted. Electoral data overwhelmingly demonstrate the will of the Venezuelan people: democratic opposition candidate @EdmundoGU won the most votes in Sunday’s election. Venezuelans have voted, and their votes must count.— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) August 2, 2024 Venezuelan presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia is led out at the end of a campaign rally, in Guatire, Venezuela, Friday, May 31, 2024. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos) The secretary of state said Gonzalez was the rightful winner of the Venezuelan presidential election. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “The democratic opposition has published more than 80 percent of the tally sheets received directly from polling stations throughout Venezuela,” Blinken said. “Those tally sheets indicate that Edmundo González Urrutia received the most votes in this election by an insurmountable margin. Independent observers have corroborated these facts, and this outcome was also supported by election day exit polls and quick counts.” Maduro rose to power in 2013 and has been accused by the United States and other nations of being corrupt and authoritarian. The country has dealt with economic troubles and the exodus of 7.7 million residents since 2014, according to the Associated Press., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/edmundo-blinken-winner.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
Ohio has removed hundreds of noncitizens from its voting rolls as the state conducts an audit of registered voters ahead of the November presidential election.
On Thursday, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced county boards of elections are being directed to remove 499 noncitizen registrations from the state’s voter rolls.
“I swore an oath to uphold the constitution of our state, and that document clearly states that only United States citizens can participate in Ohio elections,” LaRose said in a press release announcing the news. “That means I’m duty-bound to make sure people who haven’t yet earned citizenship in this country aren’t voting. If or when they do become citizens, I’ll be the first one to congratulate them and welcome them to the franchise, but until then the law requires us to remove ineligible registrations to prevent illegal voting.”
Ohio is in the middle of a multiphase comprehensive audit of the statewide voter registration database as the state gears up for the general election on Nov. 5.
LaRose’s directive this week comes after the Secretary of State’s Public Integrity Division and Office of Data Analytics and Archives initiated a review of voter records for compliance with Ohio’s constitutional citizenship requirement in May. At the time, LaRose uncovered and removed 137 illegal immigrants from voter rolls.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose is acknowledged by former President Donald Trump at a rally at the Delaware County Fairgrounds, Saturday, April 23, 2022, in Delaware, Ohio, to endorse Republican candidates ahead of the Ohio primary on May 3. (AP Photo/Joe Maiorana)
The Buckeye State has also removed nearly 155,000 registrations that were confirmed to be abandoned and inactive for at least four consecutive years, according to LaRose.
The potential for noncitizen voting to affect the integrity of U.S. elections has become a talking point for the GOP this election cycle.
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is one of many Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) who supports passing a federal ban on noncitizen voting.
Meanwhile, Democrats such as Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) argue that such legislation could disenfranchise American citizens, including military members stationed abroad and married women whose names have changed.
2024-08-02 01:03:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2Fstate%2F3108410%2Fohio-removes-hundreds-more-illegal-immigrants-voter-rolls%2F?w=600&h=450, Ohio has removed hundreds of noncitizens from its voting rolls as the state conducts an audit of registered voters ahead of the November presidential election. On Thursday, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced county boards of elections are being directed to remove 499 noncitizen registrations from the state’s voter rolls. “I swore an oath,
Ohio has removed hundreds of noncitizens from its voting rolls as the state conducts an audit of registered voters ahead of the November presidential election.
On Thursday, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced county boards of elections are being directed to remove 499 noncitizen registrations from the state’s voter rolls.
“I swore an oath to uphold the constitution of our state, and that document clearly states that only United States citizens can participate in Ohio elections,” LaRose said in a press release announcing the news. “That means I’m duty-bound to make sure people who haven’t yet earned citizenship in this country aren’t voting. If or when they do become citizens, I’ll be the first one to congratulate them and welcome them to the franchise, but until then the law requires us to remove ineligible registrations to prevent illegal voting.”
Ohio is in the middle of a multiphase comprehensive audit of the statewide voter registration database as the state gears up for the general election on Nov. 5.
LaRose’s directive this week comes after the Secretary of State’s Public Integrity Division and Office of Data Analytics and Archives initiated a review of voter records for compliance with Ohio’s constitutional citizenship requirement in May. At the time, LaRose uncovered and removed 137 illegal immigrants from voter rolls.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose is acknowledged by former President Donald Trump at a rally at the Delaware County Fairgrounds, Saturday, April 23, 2022, in Delaware, Ohio, to endorse Republican candidates ahead of the Ohio primary on May 3. (AP Photo/Joe Maiorana)
The Buckeye State has also removed nearly 155,000 registrations that were confirmed to be abandoned and inactive for at least four consecutive years, according to LaRose.
The potential for noncitizen voting to affect the integrity of U.S. elections has become a talking point for the GOP this election cycle.
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is one of many Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) who supports passing a federal ban on noncitizen voting.
Meanwhile, Democrats such as Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) argue that such legislation could disenfranchise American citizens, including military members stationed abroad and married women whose names have changed.
, Ohio has removed hundreds of noncitizens from its voting rolls as the state conducts an audit of registered voters ahead of the November presidential election. On Thursday, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced county boards of elections are being directed to remove 499 noncitizen registrations from the state’s voter rolls. “I swore an oath to uphold the constitution of our state, and that document clearly states that only United States citizens can participate in Ohio elections,” LaRose said in a press release announcing the news. “That means I’m duty-bound to make sure people who haven’t yet earned citizenship in this country aren’t voting. If or when they do become citizens, I’ll be the first one to congratulate them and welcome them to the franchise, but until then the law requires us to remove ineligible registrations to prevent illegal voting.” Ohio is in the middle of a multiphase comprehensive audit of the statewide voter registration database as the state gears up for the general election on Nov. 5. LaRose’s directive this week comes after the Secretary of State’s Public Integrity Division and Office of Data Analytics and Archives initiated a review of voter records for compliance with Ohio’s constitutional citizenship requirement in May. At the time, LaRose uncovered and removed 137 illegal immigrants from voter rolls. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose is acknowledged by former President Donald Trump at a rally at the Delaware County Fairgrounds, Saturday, April 23, 2022, in Delaware, Ohio, to endorse Republican candidates ahead of the Ohio primary on May 3. (AP Photo/Joe Maiorana) The Buckeye State has also removed nearly 155,000 registrations that were confirmed to be abandoned and inactive for at least four consecutive years, according to LaRose. The potential for noncitizen voting to affect the integrity of U.S. elections has become a talking point for the GOP this election cycle. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is one of many Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) who supports passing a federal ban on noncitizen voting. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) argue that such legislation could disenfranchise American citizens, including military members stationed abroad and married women whose names have changed. , , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Frank-LaRose.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’s ruling against the FCC on Thursday came after the federal agency voted earlier this year to reinstate former President Barack Obama’s net neutrality regulations.
“The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations,” the court wrote. “Net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization.”
The court has paused the regulation, saying it will pick up the case with oral arguments scheduled for late October or early November.
In a statement responding to the ruling, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said, “The American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today’s decision by the Sixth Circuit is a setback but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality.”
Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel talks about the infrastructure law’s investments in affordable, accessible high-speed internet from the South Court Auditorium on the White House complex in Washington, Monday, Feb. 14, 2022. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
The court’s decision marks a blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to reinstate the Obama-era regulations. They were instituted in 2015, but after Donald Trump took office, he rescinded the internet regulations.
Net neutrality mandates that internet service providers do not discriminate based on the source or destination of data, classifying providers as common carriers under Title 2 of the Communications Act.
Advocates of net neutrality say the purpose of government regulation is to fuel a level playing field in cyberspace and ensure the internet is open and fair.
Critics say the internet has grown and flourished without government intervention, arguing that net neutrality invites unnecessary federal oversight that stifles innovation.
David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said earlier this year that the Biden administration’s actions to reinstate net neutrality were “an attempt to correct a problem that didn’t exist. And quite frankly, it’s just wanting to grow the size of government because this gives the FCC more power and more control over the internet.”
2024-08-01 23:58:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Ftechnology%2F3108370%2Ffederal-court-hands-blow-biden-administration-net-neutrality-regulations%2F?w=600&h=450, A federal court has blocked the Federal Communications Commission‘s reinstatement of net neutrality rules that expanded government oversight over the internet. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’s ruling against the FCC on Thursday came after the federal agency voted earlier this year to reinstate former President Barack Obama’s net neutrality regulations. “The final rule,
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’s ruling against the FCC on Thursday came after the federal agency voted earlier this year to reinstate former President Barack Obama’s net neutrality regulations.
“The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations,” the court wrote. “Net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization.”
The court has paused the regulation, saying it will pick up the case with oral arguments scheduled for late October or early November.
In a statement responding to the ruling, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said, “The American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today’s decision by the Sixth Circuit is a setback but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality.”
Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel talks about the infrastructure law’s investments in affordable, accessible high-speed internet from the South Court Auditorium on the White House complex in Washington, Monday, Feb. 14, 2022. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
The court’s decision marks a blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to reinstate the Obama-era regulations. They were instituted in 2015, but after Donald Trump took office, he rescinded the internet regulations.
Net neutrality mandates that internet service providers do not discriminate based on the source or destination of data, classifying providers as common carriers under Title 2 of the Communications Act.
Advocates of net neutrality say the purpose of government regulation is to fuel a level playing field in cyberspace and ensure the internet is open and fair.
Critics say the internet has grown and flourished without government intervention, arguing that net neutrality invites unnecessary federal oversight that stifles innovation.
David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said earlier this year that the Biden administration’s actions to reinstate net neutrality were “an attempt to correct a problem that didn’t exist. And quite frankly, it’s just wanting to grow the size of government because this gives the FCC more power and more control over the internet.”
, A federal court has blocked the Federal Communications Commission‘s reinstatement of net neutrality rules that expanded government oversight over the internet. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’s ruling against the FCC on Thursday came after the federal agency voted earlier this year to reinstate former President Barack Obama’s net neutrality regulations. “The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations,” the court wrote. “Net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization.” The court has paused the regulation, saying it will pick up the case with oral arguments scheduled for late October or early November. In a statement responding to the ruling, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said, “The American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today’s decision by the Sixth Circuit is a setback but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality.” Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel talks about the infrastructure law’s investments in affordable, accessible high-speed internet from the South Court Auditorium on the White House complex in Washington, Monday, Feb. 14, 2022. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) The court’s decision marks a blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to reinstate the Obama-era regulations. They were instituted in 2015, but after Donald Trump took office, he rescinded the internet regulations. Net neutrality mandates that internet service providers do not discriminate based on the source or destination of data, classifying providers as common carriers under Title 2 of the Communications Act. Advocates of net neutrality say the purpose of government regulation is to fuel a level playing field in cyberspace and ensure the internet is open and fair. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Critics say the internet has grown and flourished without government intervention, arguing that net neutrality invites unnecessary federal oversight that stifles innovation. David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said earlier this year that the Biden administration’s actions to reinstate net neutrality were “an attempt to correct a problem that didn’t exist. And quite frankly, it’s just wanting to grow the size of government because this gives the FCC more power and more control over the internet.”, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Jessica-Rosenworcel.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
As Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly considers Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) as a vice presidential candidate, the labor union enthusiast said his focus is on using his Senate leadership roles to galvanize the Democratic coalition ahead of November.
Peters commented on the vice presidential speculation during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. On Tuesday, MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire called the senator’s answer a “dodge” as Peters laughed.
“I respect … vice president’s process,” Peters told Lemire. “She’s looking for a running mate now. She’s got a lot of wonderful folks that she’s looking at, and she’s gonna make a decision that’s right for her and right for the country.”
Peters, chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told MSNBC that selecting a running mate is an “intensely personal decision and — I wanna respect that process.”
Chairman Gary Peters (D-MI) questions Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on the fiscal 2024 budget hearing for DHS, Tuesday, April 18, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)
The swing-state senator is also the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a powerful role that oversees the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm. Peters has been credited for helping his party retain battleground seats during the 2022 midterm elections, ensuring the Left avoided a red wave.
Peters preferred to focus on using his position at the DSCC to stave off Republican gains this election cycle on Tuesday.
“Most all of our Senate races are key battlegrounds,” Peters said, adding that the DSCC would “work closely with the presidential campaign” in a “battle for the heart and soul of this country.”
The Democratic senator’s remarks come after Axiosreported Peters being chosen as Harris’s running mate could encourage the United Auto Workers, a powerful labor union, to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee. Labor unions are a vital component of the Democratic coalition. With just 98 days until the election, the DSCC is working to nail down support from union employees across battleground states.
During an MSNBC interview posted last week to his X account, Peters criticized former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), for doing “nothing for unions.”
“He is not about working people, he has never lifted his finger in any way to help people in unions and unions are absolutely essential for the American middle class,” Peters said as he reiterated the importance union workers will play in voting in the next president. “And Democrats, we’ve got to continue to make that case and understand that’s the way we win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is making sure union voters know who’s on their side and Kamala Harris is on their side.”
Trump has made his own push for union workers’ votes. During the Republican National Convention earlier this month, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien shocked many Democrats when he spoke at the GOP gathering. While the leader of one of the largest labor unions in the country didn’t endorse Trump, O’Brien attracted backlash from leftists, including John Palmer, a Teamsters vice president at-large from Local 657 in San Antonio, Texas.
Sean O’Brien, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, speaks during the Republican National Convention, Monday, July 15, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)
“It is unconscionable for any Labor leader to lend an air of legitimacy to a candidate and a political party, neither of which can be said to have done, or can be expected to do, anything to improve the lives of the workers we are pledged to represent,” Palmer wrote ahead of O’Brien’s speech to the RNC.
Rumors that labor unions are leading “a quiet push” to recruit Peters to run as Harris’s running mate has sparked backlash from top Republicans.
“Gary Peters knows Democrats are about to lose the Senate majority, so now he’s trying to quit on his members and become Kamala Harris’s vice president,” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Philip Letsou told the Washington Examiner. “Kamala Harris is the most far-left presidential nominee in American history and is already absolutely toxic for down-ballot Democrats.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who hails from another battleground state and has been floated as a top vice presidential contender said he supported Peters as Harris’s No. 2.
“Absolutely,” Kelly said on Monday when asked if he would support Peters as a potential vice president. “Gary is a great guy. He’s done a great job. He’s helped us win the majority.”
2024-07-30 20:28:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fsenate%2F3104798%2Fswing-state-senator-downplays-harris-vice-presidential-rumors%2F?w=600&h=450, As Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly considers Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) as a vice presidential candidate, the labor union enthusiast said his focus is on using his Senate leadership roles to galvanize the Democratic coalition ahead of November. Peters commented on the vice presidential speculation during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. On Tuesday, MSNBC,
As Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly considers Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) as a vice presidential candidate, the labor union enthusiast said his focus is on using his Senate leadership roles to galvanize the Democratic coalition ahead of November.
Peters commented on the vice presidential speculation during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. On Tuesday, MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire called the senator’s answer a “dodge” as Peters laughed.
“I respect … vice president’s process,” Peters told Lemire. “She’s looking for a running mate now. She’s got a lot of wonderful folks that she’s looking at, and she’s gonna make a decision that’s right for her and right for the country.”
Peters, chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told MSNBC that selecting a running mate is an “intensely personal decision and — I wanna respect that process.”
Chairman Gary Peters (D-MI) questions Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on the fiscal 2024 budget hearing for DHS, Tuesday, April 18, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)
The swing-state senator is also the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a powerful role that oversees the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm. Peters has been credited for helping his party retain battleground seats during the 2022 midterm elections, ensuring the Left avoided a red wave.
Peters preferred to focus on using his position at the DSCC to stave off Republican gains this election cycle on Tuesday.
“Most all of our Senate races are key battlegrounds,” Peters said, adding that the DSCC would “work closely with the presidential campaign” in a “battle for the heart and soul of this country.”
The Democratic senator’s remarks come after Axiosreported Peters being chosen as Harris’s running mate could encourage the United Auto Workers, a powerful labor union, to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee. Labor unions are a vital component of the Democratic coalition. With just 98 days until the election, the DSCC is working to nail down support from union employees across battleground states.
During an MSNBC interview posted last week to his X account, Peters criticized former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), for doing “nothing for unions.”
“He is not about working people, he has never lifted his finger in any way to help people in unions and unions are absolutely essential for the American middle class,” Peters said as he reiterated the importance union workers will play in voting in the next president. “And Democrats, we’ve got to continue to make that case and understand that’s the way we win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is making sure union voters know who’s on their side and Kamala Harris is on their side.”
Trump has made his own push for union workers’ votes. During the Republican National Convention earlier this month, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien shocked many Democrats when he spoke at the GOP gathering. While the leader of one of the largest labor unions in the country didn’t endorse Trump, O’Brien attracted backlash from leftists, including John Palmer, a Teamsters vice president at-large from Local 657 in San Antonio, Texas.
Sean O’Brien, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, speaks during the Republican National Convention, Monday, July 15, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)
“It is unconscionable for any Labor leader to lend an air of legitimacy to a candidate and a political party, neither of which can be said to have done, or can be expected to do, anything to improve the lives of the workers we are pledged to represent,” Palmer wrote ahead of O’Brien’s speech to the RNC.
Rumors that labor unions are leading “a quiet push” to recruit Peters to run as Harris’s running mate has sparked backlash from top Republicans.
“Gary Peters knows Democrats are about to lose the Senate majority, so now he’s trying to quit on his members and become Kamala Harris’s vice president,” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Philip Letsou told the Washington Examiner. “Kamala Harris is the most far-left presidential nominee in American history and is already absolutely toxic for down-ballot Democrats.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who hails from another battleground state and has been floated as a top vice presidential contender said he supported Peters as Harris’s No. 2.
“Absolutely,” Kelly said on Monday when asked if he would support Peters as a potential vice president. “Gary is a great guy. He’s done a great job. He’s helped us win the majority.”
, As Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly considers Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) as a vice presidential candidate, the labor union enthusiast said his focus is on using his Senate leadership roles to galvanize the Democratic coalition ahead of November. Peters commented on the vice presidential speculation during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. On Tuesday, MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire called the senator’s answer a “dodge” as Peters laughed. “I respect … vice president’s process,” Peters told Lemire. “She’s looking for a running mate now. She’s got a lot of wonderful folks that she’s looking at, and she’s gonna make a decision that’s right for her and right for the country.” Peters, chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told MSNBC that selecting a running mate is an “intensely personal decision and — I wanna respect that process.” Chairman Gary Peters (D-MI) questions Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on the fiscal 2024 budget hearing for DHS, Tuesday, April 18, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib) The swing-state senator is also the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a powerful role that oversees the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm. Peters has been credited for helping his party retain battleground seats during the 2022 midterm elections, ensuring the Left avoided a red wave. Peters preferred to focus on using his position at the DSCC to stave off Republican gains this election cycle on Tuesday. “Most all of our Senate races are key battlegrounds,” Peters said, adding that the DSCC would “work closely with the presidential campaign” in a “battle for the heart and soul of this country.” The Democratic senator’s remarks come after Axios reported Peters being chosen as Harris’s running mate could encourage the United Auto Workers, a powerful labor union, to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee. Labor unions are a vital component of the Democratic coalition. With just 98 days until the election, the DSCC is working to nail down support from union employees across battleground states. During an MSNBC interview posted last week to his X account, Peters criticized former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), for doing “nothing for unions.” “He is not about working people, he has never lifted his finger in any way to help people in unions and unions are absolutely essential for the American middle class,” Peters said as he reiterated the importance union workers will play in voting in the next president. “And Democrats, we’ve got to continue to make that case and understand that’s the way we win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is making sure union voters know who’s on their side and Kamala Harris is on their side.” Trump has made his own push for union workers’ votes. During the Republican National Convention earlier this month, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien shocked many Democrats when he spoke at the GOP gathering. While the leader of one of the largest labor unions in the country didn’t endorse Trump, O’Brien attracted backlash from leftists, including John Palmer, a Teamsters vice president at-large from Local 657 in San Antonio, Texas. Sean O’Brien, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, speaks during the Republican National Convention, Monday, July 15, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash) “It is unconscionable for any Labor leader to lend an air of legitimacy to a candidate and a political party, neither of which can be said to have done, or can be expected to do, anything to improve the lives of the workers we are pledged to represent,” Palmer wrote ahead of O’Brien’s speech to the RNC. Rumors that labor unions are leading “a quiet push” to recruit Peters to run as Harris’s running mate has sparked backlash from top Republicans. “Gary Peters knows Democrats are about to lose the Senate majority, so now he’s trying to quit on his members and become Kamala Harris’s vice president,” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Philip Letsou told the Washington Examiner. “Kamala Harris is the most far-left presidential nominee in American history and is already absolutely toxic for down-ballot Democrats.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who hails from another battleground state and has been floated as a top vice presidential contender said he supported Peters as Harris’s No. 2. “Absolutely,” Kelly said on Monday when asked if he would support Peters as a potential vice president. “Gary is a great guy. He’s done a great job. He’s helped us win the majority.”, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Gary-Peters.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
After the 1972 McGovern-Fraser Commission paved the pathway for the country’s modern primary system, presidential nominees have been, more or less, decided before parties’ national conventions. This election cycle, the Democratic Party’s drama over its nominee has once again opened debate over whether conventions should go back to their roots and pick nominees, or if they should remain the decorative coronation events they’ve become over the past half-century.
The journey to how modern voters pick presidential nominees has been long and raucous. In the earliest days of the republic, there was little need for a calculated nomination process. The Founding Fathers were already esteemed by the public and organically stepped into the presidency, so Hillsdale College politics professor Joseph Postell explained, “You really didn’t need to nominate those people. They were already distinguished on their own.” For over 50 years after America’s founding, the country generally used a caucus system.
The early 1830s marked the first significant change in parties’ nomination processes. In 1831, the Anti-Mason Party held the first national party convention. Although a minor third party, the Anti-Masons’ new tactic caught the eye of the country’s major political players. Without familiar faces such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the young country was ready for a nomination process that could recruit and introduce new and unfamiliar candidates to voters.
In 1831, the National Republican Party held its own national convention, and the Democratic Party followed suit the next year.
The convention strategy used delegates to pick a winning nominee from a pool of competing candidates. It was an uncertain, dynamic process that often led to multiple rounds of voting as competitors jostled to gain favor with delegates and party bosses. In 1844, James Polk won the Democratic nomination only after the ninth ballot. At the 1860 Republican convention, Abraham Lincoln was not the favored candidate heading into the event — it was only after the third round that he won his party’s favor. Twenty years later, James Garfield clinched the GOP nomination after 36 rounds of voting.
Now called “open” or “brokered” conventions, delegates were not bound to any particular candidate headed into the event. Rather, they were free to vote for whichever candidate they favored. This political protocol for picking presidential nominees lasted well into the 20th century.
The open convention strategy was not without criticism. As Theodore Roosevelt challenged William Taft for the Republican nomination in the early 20th century, he protested the delegate model as anti-democratic. The smoke-filled rooms with big party bosses swaying delegates behind the scenes were not to his liking. As a leader of the Progressive Era, Roosevelt believed direct primaries best captured “the voice of the people” as Postell said.
Theodore Roosevelt delivers a fiery address to a crowd of 50,000 on July 21, 1915. (AP Photo)
“Roosevelt’s argument was, that [the convention model] is a betrayal of the people because the delegates often don’t speak for what the people actually want,” Postell said.
A staunch populist, Roosevelt believed that “if you really want to have democracy, you need to have the primaries choose who the delegates are going to support at the convention,” according to the political science professor. “That way, you really collect the voice of the people.”
Taft disagreed that direct primaries captured the heart of the republic. In 1913, he wrote a book called Popular Government, outlining why.
Taft argued in his book that “delegates had a sense of responsibility to pick more moderate candidates who could win and who would appeal to a broader number of voters, and so he thought that was the point of the party, was to build a big tent and have lots of different voters who can support the party,” Postell said.
While populists such as Roosevelt believed direct primaries allowed everybody to participate, Taft warned that in reality, the outcome would be far from democratic.
As Postell put it, “Somebody like you or me, we could never actually run for office. … We’d have to get the backing of all these donors. We’d have to go out and make a lot of speeches.”
Critics of the primary system warned it would be wealthy and connected people who bought and influenced their way into the nomination.
Postell called it a “weird paradox.”
“The more democratic you make your elections, the less democratic they actually become,” he said.
William Howard Taft is shown campaigning in Trenton, New Jersey in 1912. (AP Photo)
The bitter rivalry between Roosevelt and Taft proved to be a watershed moment in politics. Roosevelt may have lost the nomination, but he won the primary “war,” as the significance of the system was ingrained in the country’s political consciousness.
Unbound delegates and the open convention continued to exist until the 1970s, but after 1912, direct primaries began to play the dominant role in picking party nominees.
1968 proved to be the next pivotal point in the battle between open conventions and direct primaries. After then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, multiple Democratic candidates hustled to clinch delegates at the convention. At the same time, violent protests put a pall over the event as Vietnam fervor hit a fever pitch. Although Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the establishment’s favored candidate, won after the first round, the atmosphere crackled with tension. By the end of the saga that capped off a decade of political violence, party leaders decided it was time to wrestle peace and order into conventions.
Out of 1968 came the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which launched the primary system as America knows it today.
Demonstrators confront National Guard troops in front of Chicago’s Hilton Hotel in this August 28, 1968 file photo. The troops were called in to relieve police who had been assigned to the area. (AP Photo)
In the years since the McGovern-Fraser Commission, both major political parties in the United States have adopted what are known as direct primaries. While historically, a victory in a primary was not a guarantee of the state’s delegates, in modern politics, that is no longer the case. The current nominating process in the U.S. mandates delegates be awarded based on results in primaries and caucuses.
In an article published by Teaching American History, political science professor Jeremy D. Bailey praised the move, saying it “democratized the nomination process, taking it away from the control of party leaders.”
However, after President Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid, some voiced support for taking the nomination process back to the open convention. From two dozen former House Democrats to Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Washington Post columnist George Will, some voters hearkened to the old days, when delegates voters chose would select the best candidate.
As Welch said in a statement to the Associated Press, “Having it be open would strengthen whoever is the ultimate nominee.”
With Vice President Kamala Harris’s rapid ascension as Biden’s heir apparent, calls for an open convention have fallen on deaf ears.
While the modern primary system may have eliminated the old party-boss system and the deals that happened behind closed doors, Hillsdale history professor Paul Moreno said the breakdown of contested conventions only introduced a “different group of sort of power brokers in both parties.”
Other experts such as Jed Ober, the senior director of programs at Democracy International, disagree.
“It strips elites of a key patronage tool and a great deal of influence in determining the intellectual trajectory of their party and — if they are successful — their country,” Ober wrote in 2015.
“In the long run, though, it strengthens the foundations and competitiveness of the party by expanding its constituent base to a more representative group of citizens,” Ober added.
2024-07-27 21:51:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2Fpresidential%2F3101928%2Fwhen-did-we-stop-having-open-conventions%2F?w=600&h=450, After the 1972 McGovern-Fraser Commission paved the pathway for the country’s modern primary system, presidential nominees have been, more or less, decided before parties’ national conventions. This election cycle, the Democratic Party’s drama over its nominee has once again opened debate over whether conventions should go back to their roots and pick nominees, or if,
After the 1972 McGovern-Fraser Commission paved the pathway for the country’s modern primary system, presidential nominees have been, more or less, decided before parties’ national conventions. This election cycle, the Democratic Party’s drama over its nominee has once again opened debate over whether conventions should go back to their roots and pick nominees, or if they should remain the decorative coronation events they’ve become over the past half-century.
The journey to how modern voters pick presidential nominees has been long and raucous. In the earliest days of the republic, there was little need for a calculated nomination process. The Founding Fathers were already esteemed by the public and organically stepped into the presidency, so Hillsdale College politics professor Joseph Postell explained, “You really didn’t need to nominate those people. They were already distinguished on their own.” For over 50 years after America’s founding, the country generally used a caucus system.
The early 1830s marked the first significant change in parties’ nomination processes. In 1831, the Anti-Mason Party held the first national party convention. Although a minor third party, the Anti-Masons’ new tactic caught the eye of the country’s major political players. Without familiar faces such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the young country was ready for a nomination process that could recruit and introduce new and unfamiliar candidates to voters.
In 1831, the National Republican Party held its own national convention, and the Democratic Party followed suit the next year.
The convention strategy used delegates to pick a winning nominee from a pool of competing candidates. It was an uncertain, dynamic process that often led to multiple rounds of voting as competitors jostled to gain favor with delegates and party bosses. In 1844, James Polk won the Democratic nomination only after the ninth ballot. At the 1860 Republican convention, Abraham Lincoln was not the favored candidate heading into the event — it was only after the third round that he won his party’s favor. Twenty years later, James Garfield clinched the GOP nomination after 36 rounds of voting.
Now called “open” or “brokered” conventions, delegates were not bound to any particular candidate headed into the event. Rather, they were free to vote for whichever candidate they favored. This political protocol for picking presidential nominees lasted well into the 20th century.
The open convention strategy was not without criticism. As Theodore Roosevelt challenged William Taft for the Republican nomination in the early 20th century, he protested the delegate model as anti-democratic. The smoke-filled rooms with big party bosses swaying delegates behind the scenes were not to his liking. As a leader of the Progressive Era, Roosevelt believed direct primaries best captured “the voice of the people” as Postell said.
Theodore Roosevelt delivers a fiery address to a crowd of 50,000 on July 21, 1915. (AP Photo)
“Roosevelt’s argument was, that [the convention model] is a betrayal of the people because the delegates often don’t speak for what the people actually want,” Postell said.
A staunch populist, Roosevelt believed that “if you really want to have democracy, you need to have the primaries choose who the delegates are going to support at the convention,” according to the political science professor. “That way, you really collect the voice of the people.”
Taft disagreed that direct primaries captured the heart of the republic. In 1913, he wrote a book called Popular Government, outlining why.
Taft argued in his book that “delegates had a sense of responsibility to pick more moderate candidates who could win and who would appeal to a broader number of voters, and so he thought that was the point of the party, was to build a big tent and have lots of different voters who can support the party,” Postell said.
While populists such as Roosevelt believed direct primaries allowed everybody to participate, Taft warned that in reality, the outcome would be far from democratic.
As Postell put it, “Somebody like you or me, we could never actually run for office. … We’d have to get the backing of all these donors. We’d have to go out and make a lot of speeches.”
Critics of the primary system warned it would be wealthy and connected people who bought and influenced their way into the nomination.
Postell called it a “weird paradox.”
“The more democratic you make your elections, the less democratic they actually become,” he said.
William Howard Taft is shown campaigning in Trenton, New Jersey in 1912. (AP Photo)
The bitter rivalry between Roosevelt and Taft proved to be a watershed moment in politics. Roosevelt may have lost the nomination, but he won the primary “war,” as the significance of the system was ingrained in the country’s political consciousness.
Unbound delegates and the open convention continued to exist until the 1970s, but after 1912, direct primaries began to play the dominant role in picking party nominees.
1968 proved to be the next pivotal point in the battle between open conventions and direct primaries. After then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, multiple Democratic candidates hustled to clinch delegates at the convention. At the same time, violent protests put a pall over the event as Vietnam fervor hit a fever pitch. Although Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the establishment’s favored candidate, won after the first round, the atmosphere crackled with tension. By the end of the saga that capped off a decade of political violence, party leaders decided it was time to wrestle peace and order into conventions.
Out of 1968 came the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which launched the primary system as America knows it today.
Demonstrators confront National Guard troops in front of Chicago’s Hilton Hotel in this August 28, 1968 file photo. The troops were called in to relieve police who had been assigned to the area. (AP Photo)
In the years since the McGovern-Fraser Commission, both major political parties in the United States have adopted what are known as direct primaries. While historically, a victory in a primary was not a guarantee of the state’s delegates, in modern politics, that is no longer the case. The current nominating process in the U.S. mandates delegates be awarded based on results in primaries and caucuses.
In an article published by Teaching American History, political science professor Jeremy D. Bailey praised the move, saying it “democratized the nomination process, taking it away from the control of party leaders.”
However, after President Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid, some voiced support for taking the nomination process back to the open convention. From two dozen former House Democrats to Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Washington Post columnist George Will, some voters hearkened to the old days, when delegates voters chose would select the best candidate.
As Welch said in a statement to the Associated Press, “Having it be open would strengthen whoever is the ultimate nominee.”
With Vice President Kamala Harris’s rapid ascension as Biden’s heir apparent, calls for an open convention have fallen on deaf ears.
While the modern primary system may have eliminated the old party-boss system and the deals that happened behind closed doors, Hillsdale history professor Paul Moreno said the breakdown of contested conventions only introduced a “different group of sort of power brokers in both parties.”
Other experts such as Jed Ober, the senior director of programs at Democracy International, disagree.
“It strips elites of a key patronage tool and a great deal of influence in determining the intellectual trajectory of their party and — if they are successful — their country,” Ober wrote in 2015.
“In the long run, though, it strengthens the foundations and competitiveness of the party by expanding its constituent base to a more representative group of citizens,” Ober added.
, After the 1972 McGovern-Fraser Commission paved the pathway for the country’s modern primary system, presidential nominees have been, more or less, decided before parties’ national conventions. This election cycle, the Democratic Party’s drama over its nominee has once again opened debate over whether conventions should go back to their roots and pick nominees, or if they should remain the decorative coronation events they’ve become over the past half-century. The journey to how modern voters pick presidential nominees has been long and raucous. In the earliest days of the republic, there was little need for a calculated nomination process. The Founding Fathers were already esteemed by the public and organically stepped into the presidency, so Hillsdale College politics professor Joseph Postell explained, “You really didn’t need to nominate those people. They were already distinguished on their own.” For over 50 years after America’s founding, the country generally used a caucus system. The early 1830s marked the first significant change in parties’ nomination processes. In 1831, the Anti-Mason Party held the first national party convention. Although a minor third party, the Anti-Masons’ new tactic caught the eye of the country’s major political players. Without familiar faces such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the young country was ready for a nomination process that could recruit and introduce new and unfamiliar candidates to voters. In 1831, the National Republican Party held its own national convention, and the Democratic Party followed suit the next year. The convention strategy used delegates to pick a winning nominee from a pool of competing candidates. It was an uncertain, dynamic process that often led to multiple rounds of voting as competitors jostled to gain favor with delegates and party bosses. In 1844, James Polk won the Democratic nomination only after the ninth ballot. At the 1860 Republican convention, Abraham Lincoln was not the favored candidate heading into the event — it was only after the third round that he won his party’s favor. Twenty years later, James Garfield clinched the GOP nomination after 36 rounds of voting. Now called “open” or “brokered” conventions, delegates were not bound to any particular candidate headed into the event. Rather, they were free to vote for whichever candidate they favored. This political protocol for picking presidential nominees lasted well into the 20th century. The open convention strategy was not without criticism. As Theodore Roosevelt challenged William Taft for the Republican nomination in the early 20th century, he protested the delegate model as anti-democratic. The smoke-filled rooms with big party bosses swaying delegates behind the scenes were not to his liking. As a leader of the Progressive Era, Roosevelt believed direct primaries best captured “the voice of the people” as Postell said. Theodore Roosevelt delivers a fiery address to a crowd of 50,000 on July 21, 1915. (AP Photo) “Roosevelt’s argument was, that [the convention model] is a betrayal of the people because the delegates often don’t speak for what the people actually want,” Postell said. A staunch populist, Roosevelt believed that “if you really want to have democracy, you need to have the primaries choose who the delegates are going to support at the convention,” according to the political science professor. “That way, you really collect the voice of the people.” Taft disagreed that direct primaries captured the heart of the republic. In 1913, he wrote a book called Popular Government, outlining why. Taft argued in his book that “delegates had a sense of responsibility to pick more moderate candidates who could win and who would appeal to a broader number of voters, and so he thought that was the point of the party, was to build a big tent and have lots of different voters who can support the party,” Postell said. While populists such as Roosevelt believed direct primaries allowed everybody to participate, Taft warned that in reality, the outcome would be far from democratic. As Postell put it, “Somebody like you or me, we could never actually run for office. … We’d have to get the backing of all these donors. We’d have to go out and make a lot of speeches.” Critics of the primary system warned it would be wealthy and connected people who bought and influenced their way into the nomination. Postell called it a “weird paradox.” “The more democratic you make your elections, the less democratic they actually become,” he said. William Howard Taft is shown campaigning in Trenton, New Jersey in 1912. (AP Photo) The bitter rivalry between Roosevelt and Taft proved to be a watershed moment in politics. Roosevelt may have lost the nomination, but he won the primary “war,” as the significance of the system was ingrained in the country’s political consciousness. Unbound delegates and the open convention continued to exist until the 1970s, but after 1912, direct primaries began to play the dominant role in picking party nominees. 1968 proved to be the next pivotal point in the battle between open conventions and direct primaries. After then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, multiple Democratic candidates hustled to clinch delegates at the convention. At the same time, violent protests put a pall over the event as Vietnam fervor hit a fever pitch. Although Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the establishment’s favored candidate, won after the first round, the atmosphere crackled with tension. By the end of the saga that capped off a decade of political violence, party leaders decided it was time to wrestle peace and order into conventions. Out of 1968 came the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which launched the primary system as America knows it today. Demonstrators confront National Guard troops in front of Chicago’s Hilton Hotel in this August 28, 1968 file photo. The troops were called in to relieve police who had been assigned to the area. (AP Photo) In the years since the McGovern-Fraser Commission, both major political parties in the United States have adopted what are known as direct primaries. While historically, a victory in a primary was not a guarantee of the state’s delegates, in modern politics, that is no longer the case. The current nominating process in the U.S. mandates delegates be awarded based on results in primaries and caucuses. In an article published by Teaching American History, political science professor Jeremy D. Bailey praised the move, saying it “democratized the nomination process, taking it away from the control of party leaders.” However, after President Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid, some voiced support for taking the nomination process back to the open convention. From two dozen former House Democrats to Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Washington Post columnist George Will, some voters hearkened to the old days, when delegates voters chose would select the best candidate. As Welch said in a statement to the Associated Press, “Having it be open would strengthen whoever is the ultimate nominee.” With Vice President Kamala Harris’s rapid ascension as Biden’s heir apparent, calls for an open convention have fallen on deaf ears. While the modern primary system may have eliminated the old party-boss system and the deals that happened behind closed doors, Hillsdale history professor Paul Moreno said the breakdown of contested conventions only introduced a “different group of sort of power brokers in both parties.” Other experts such as Jed Ober, the senior director of programs at Democracy International, disagree. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “It strips elites of a key patronage tool and a great deal of influence in determining the intellectual trajectory of their party and — if they are successful — their country,” Ober wrote in 2015. “In the long run, though, it strengthens the foundations and competitiveness of the party by expanding its constituent base to a more representative group of citizens,” Ober added., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/1968-Democratic-Convention.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
The first unionized Apple store in Towson, Maryland, is set to make a historic collective bargaining contract with the Big Tech company.
On Friday evening, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (CORE), which represents the employees at the Towson Apple store, announced it had made a three-year deal with the tech company that will increase pay by an average of 10%, among other benefits.
“By reaching a tentative agreement with Apple, we are giving our members a voice in their futures and a strong first step toward further gains,” the union’s negotiating committee said in a statement. “Together, we can build on this success in store after store.”
The Towson Apple store, located in a Baltimore suburb, and a second Apple location in Oklahoma, are the tech companies’ only unionized sites in the U.S. The Oklahoma site voted to unionize in April but has not yet secured a contract with Apple. The Maryland location followed suit in June.
FILE – The Apple logo is illuminated at a store in the city center of Munich, Germany, Dec. 16, 2020. (AP Photo/Matthias Schrader, File)
The Maryland site’s union deal comes after workers initially voted to join the union in June of 2022. The site’s roughly 85 workers began negotiations with Apple and the union over a year ago. In May, Towson employees voted to strike, saying the company was not moving fast enough.
“Despite persistent efforts to engage in constructive and meaningful dialogue, Apple has unfortunately not addressed our core concerns,” IAM District 4 Directing Business Representative Jay Wadleigh said ahead of the strike in a statement to AppleInsider.
2024-07-27 20:05:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fbusiness%2F3101919%2Fmaryland-apple-store-reaches-first-union-contract%2F?w=600&h=450, The first unionized Apple store in Towson, Maryland, is set to make a historic collective bargaining contract with the Big Tech company. On Friday evening, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (CORE), which represents the employees at the Towson Apple store, announced it had made a three-year,
The first unionized Apple store in Towson, Maryland, is set to make a historic collective bargaining contract with the Big Tech company.
On Friday evening, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (CORE), which represents the employees at the Towson Apple store, announced it had made a three-year deal with the tech company that will increase pay by an average of 10%, among other benefits.
“By reaching a tentative agreement with Apple, we are giving our members a voice in their futures and a strong first step toward further gains,” the union’s negotiating committee said in a statement. “Together, we can build on this success in store after store.”
The Towson Apple store, located in a Baltimore suburb, and a second Apple location in Oklahoma, are the tech companies’ only unionized sites in the U.S. The Oklahoma site voted to unionize in April but has not yet secured a contract with Apple. The Maryland location followed suit in June.
FILE – The Apple logo is illuminated at a store in the city center of Munich, Germany, Dec. 16, 2020. (AP Photo/Matthias Schrader, File)
The Maryland site’s union deal comes after workers initially voted to join the union in June of 2022. The site’s roughly 85 workers began negotiations with Apple and the union over a year ago. In May, Towson employees voted to strike, saying the company was not moving fast enough.
“Despite persistent efforts to engage in constructive and meaningful dialogue, Apple has unfortunately not addressed our core concerns,” IAM District 4 Directing Business Representative Jay Wadleigh said ahead of the strike in a statement to AppleInsider.
, The first unionized Apple store in Towson, Maryland, is set to make a historic collective bargaining contract with the Big Tech company. On Friday evening, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (CORE), which represents the employees at the Towson Apple store, announced it had made a three-year deal with the tech company that will increase pay by an average of 10%, among other benefits. “By reaching a tentative agreement with Apple, we are giving our members a voice in their futures and a strong first step toward further gains,” the union’s negotiating committee said in a statement. “Together, we can build on this success in store after store.” The Towson Apple store, located in a Baltimore suburb, and a second Apple location in Oklahoma, are the tech companies’ only unionized sites in the U.S. The Oklahoma site voted to unionize in April but has not yet secured a contract with Apple. The Maryland location followed suit in June. FILE – The Apple logo is illuminated at a store in the city center of Munich, Germany, Dec. 16, 2020. (AP Photo/Matthias Schrader, File) CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The Maryland site’s union deal comes after workers initially voted to join the union in June of 2022. The site’s roughly 85 workers began negotiations with Apple and the union over a year ago. In May, Towson employees voted to strike, saying the company was not moving fast enough. “Despite persistent efforts to engage in constructive and meaningful dialogue, Apple has unfortunately not addressed our core concerns,” IAM District 4 Directing Business Representative Jay Wadleigh said ahead of the strike in a statement to AppleInsider. , , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AP23313439320965-1024×683.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
After Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) caught flak for controversial comments about “childless cat ladies,” former President Donald Trump’s campaign is hitting back with a spirited defense.
“The fact of the matter is, it’s been blatantly taken out of context,” Trump campaign advisor Chris LaCivita said during a Brian Kilmeade Show segment that aired on Friday. Asked if the Trump campaign was against “childless women,” Lacivita retorted, “No, that’s absurd. It’s absolutely absurd.”
Lacivita’s support for Trump’s running mate comes after a media firestorm erupted over comments Vance made several years ago. During a 2021 Fox News interview, the Ohio senator made observations about Vice President Kamala Harris — and other notable members of President Joe Biden’s administration — not having biological children.
“We are effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too,” Vance told then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
JD Vance says women who haven’t given birth like Kamala Harris are “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives,” and have “no direct stake” in America. pic.twitter.com/3DJY3pQTGe
“It’s just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” Vance continued. “How does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”
After the interview resurfaced on social media this week, critics were quick to note Harris has two stepchildren, while labeling Vance as sexist and extreme.
“What a normal, relatable guy who certainly doesn’t hate women having freedoms,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mocked in a post to X.
During an interview on Friday, Vance said his comments should be interpreted as “sarcasm” as he responded to the backlash. “The point is not that she’s lesser. The point is that her party has pursued a set of policies that are profoundly anti-child,” the Ohio senator told conservative commentator Megyn Kelly.
“This is not about criticizing people who, for various reasons, didn’t have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child,” he added.
However, some in his own party disagree with Vance, warning that his remarks alienate women voters. Meghan McCain, a conservative commentator and the daughter of late Republican Sen. John McCain, posted on X “I have been trying to warn every conservative man I know – these JD comments are activating women across all sides, including my most conservative Trump-supporting friends. These comments have caused real pain and are just innately unchristian. This is not who we are.”
I have been trying to warn every conservative man I know – these JD comments are activating women across all sides, including my most conservative Trump supporting friends.
These comments have caused real pain and are just innately unchristian.
Vance has sought to characterize himself as the defender of the family, supporting in vitro fertilization (IVF) protection legislation in the Senate, expressing concern about the U.S.’ historically low birth rate, and supporting the childcare tax credit.
As he defended Vance, Lacivita tried to deflect criticism about Trump’s running mate back onto the attackers.
“As a matter of fact, there was a discussion today, where the follow-up — the Democrat follow-up attack is that JD Vance believes that only people with children should get certain tax breaks,” the Trump spokesman noted.
“Well, that’s called the childcare tax credit,” he continued. “So now we have the Democrat Party and the Kamala Harris campaign on record as opposing something that has been law for years which is, you know, the childcare tax credit.”
Lacivita referenced a comment from the Harris campaign on Friday that criticized Vance for supporting higher taxes for Americans without children.
Historically, the childcare tax credit has been a bipartisan issue, with Democrats supporting efforts to expand it this year.
2024-07-27 19:10:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2Fpresidential%2F3101880%2Ftrump-team-slams-attacks-on-vance%2F?w=600&h=450, After Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) caught flak for controversial comments about “childless cat ladies,” former President Donald Trump’s campaign is hitting back with a spirited defense. “The fact of the matter is, it’s been blatantly taken out of context,” Trump campaign advisor Chris LaCivita said during a Brian Kilmeade Show segment that aired on Friday.,
After Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) caught flak for controversial comments about “childless cat ladies,” former President Donald Trump’s campaign is hitting back with a spirited defense.
“The fact of the matter is, it’s been blatantly taken out of context,” Trump campaign advisor Chris LaCivita said during a Brian Kilmeade Show segment that aired on Friday. Asked if the Trump campaign was against “childless women,” Lacivita retorted, “No, that’s absurd. It’s absolutely absurd.”
Lacivita’s support for Trump’s running mate comes after a media firestorm erupted over comments Vance made several years ago. During a 2021 Fox News interview, the Ohio senator made observations about Vice President Kamala Harris — and other notable members of President Joe Biden’s administration — not having biological children.
“We are effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too,” Vance told then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
JD Vance says women who haven’t given birth like Kamala Harris are “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives,” and have “no direct stake” in America. pic.twitter.com/3DJY3pQTGe
“It’s just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” Vance continued. “How does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”
After the interview resurfaced on social media this week, critics were quick to note Harris has two stepchildren, while labeling Vance as sexist and extreme.
“What a normal, relatable guy who certainly doesn’t hate women having freedoms,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mocked in a post to X.
During an interview on Friday, Vance said his comments should be interpreted as “sarcasm” as he responded to the backlash. “The point is not that she’s lesser. The point is that her party has pursued a set of policies that are profoundly anti-child,” the Ohio senator told conservative commentator Megyn Kelly.
“This is not about criticizing people who, for various reasons, didn’t have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child,” he added.
However, some in his own party disagree with Vance, warning that his remarks alienate women voters. Meghan McCain, a conservative commentator and the daughter of late Republican Sen. John McCain, posted on X “I have been trying to warn every conservative man I know – these JD comments are activating women across all sides, including my most conservative Trump-supporting friends. These comments have caused real pain and are just innately unchristian. This is not who we are.”
I have been trying to warn every conservative man I know – these JD comments are activating women across all sides, including my most conservative Trump supporting friends.
These comments have caused real pain and are just innately unchristian.
Vance has sought to characterize himself as the defender of the family, supporting in vitro fertilization (IVF) protection legislation in the Senate, expressing concern about the U.S.’ historically low birth rate, and supporting the childcare tax credit.
As he defended Vance, Lacivita tried to deflect criticism about Trump’s running mate back onto the attackers.
“As a matter of fact, there was a discussion today, where the follow-up — the Democrat follow-up attack is that JD Vance believes that only people with children should get certain tax breaks,” the Trump spokesman noted.
“Well, that’s called the childcare tax credit,” he continued. “So now we have the Democrat Party and the Kamala Harris campaign on record as opposing something that has been law for years which is, you know, the childcare tax credit.”
Lacivita referenced a comment from the Harris campaign on Friday that criticized Vance for supporting higher taxes for Americans without children.
Historically, the childcare tax credit has been a bipartisan issue, with Democrats supporting efforts to expand it this year.
, After Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) caught flak for controversial comments about “childless cat ladies,” former President Donald Trump’s campaign is hitting back with a spirited defense. “The fact of the matter is, it’s been blatantly taken out of context,” Trump campaign advisor Chris LaCivita said during a Brian Kilmeade Show segment that aired on Friday. Asked if the Trump campaign was against “childless women,” Lacivita retorted, “No, that’s absurd. It’s absolutely absurd.” Lacivita’s support for Trump’s running mate comes after a media firestorm erupted over comments Vance made several years ago. During a 2021 Fox News interview, the Ohio senator made observations about Vice President Kamala Harris — and other notable members of President Joe Biden’s administration — not having biological children. “We are effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too,” Vance told then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson. JD Vance says women who haven’t given birth like Kamala Harris are “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives,” and have “no direct stake” in America. pic.twitter.com/3DJY3pQTGe — Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) July 22, 2024 “It’s just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” Vance continued. “How does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?” After the interview resurfaced on social media this week, critics were quick to note Harris has two stepchildren, while labeling Vance as sexist and extreme. “What a normal, relatable guy who certainly doesn’t hate women having freedoms,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mocked in a post to X. During an interview on Friday, Vance said his comments should be interpreted as “sarcasm” as he responded to the backlash. “The point is not that she’s lesser. The point is that her party has pursued a set of policies that are profoundly anti-child,” the Ohio senator told conservative commentator Megyn Kelly. “This is not about criticizing people who, for various reasons, didn’t have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child,” he added. However, some in his own party disagree with Vance, warning that his remarks alienate women voters. Meghan McCain, a conservative commentator and the daughter of late Republican Sen. John McCain, posted on X “I have been trying to warn every conservative man I know – these JD comments are activating women across all sides, including my most conservative Trump-supporting friends. These comments have caused real pain and are just innately unchristian. This is not who we are.” I have been trying to warn every conservative man I know – these JD comments are activating women across all sides, including my most conservative Trump supporting friends. These comments have caused real pain and are just innately unchristian. This is not who we are. https://t.co/VBpmDlzgEo — Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) July 25, 2024 Vance has sought to characterize himself as the defender of the family, supporting in vitro fertilization (IVF) protection legislation in the Senate, expressing concern about the U.S.’ historically low birth rate, and supporting the childcare tax credit. As he defended Vance, Lacivita tried to deflect criticism about Trump’s running mate back onto the attackers. “As a matter of fact, there was a discussion today, where the follow-up — the Democrat follow-up attack is that JD Vance believes that only people with children should get certain tax breaks,” the Trump spokesman noted. “Well, that’s called the childcare tax credit,” he continued. “So now we have the Democrat Party and the Kamala Harris campaign on record as opposing something that has been law for years which is, you know, the childcare tax credit.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Lacivita referenced a comment from the Harris campaign on Friday that criticized Vance for supporting higher taxes for Americans without children. Historically, the childcare tax credit has been a bipartisan issue, with Democrats supporting efforts to expand it this year. , , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/how-vance-will-be-replaced-if-elected-vice-president.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
Former President Donald Trump is speaking Bitcoin Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, after independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged support for cryptocurrency supporters on Friday.
Trump is slotted to deliver a keynote address at 3 p.m. EDT on Saturday. The former president’s advisor on crypto, former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is also set to speak at the world’s largest gathering of bitcoins, sharing his prediction that single-issue crypto voters will represent 1% or more of the electorate in November, according to Fox Business.
Trump’s address comes after Kennedy, a fellow presidential contender, spoke at the conference on Friday. The independent candidate made a series of pledges to crowds, saying that as president, he would sign an executive order for the United States to buy 550 bitcoin daily to build a reserve of 4 million BTC; make all transfers between dollars and Bitcoin unreportable and non-taxable; and order the transfer of 200,000 bitcoin to the U.S. Treasury to be held as a strategic asset.
Meanwhile, Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), has been a vocal supporter of crypto. During his tenure in the upper chamber, Vance has been critical of Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Gary Genlser’s regulatory crackdown on bitcoin.
2024-07-27 17:39:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2Fpresidential%2F3101829%2Fwatch-live-trump-speaks-at-nashville-bitcoin-conference%2F?w=600&h=450, Former President Donald Trump is speaking Bitcoin Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, after independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged support for cryptocurrency supporters on Friday. Trump is slotted to deliver a keynote address at 3 p.m. EDT on Saturday. The former president’s advisor on crypto, former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is also set,
Former President Donald Trump is speaking Bitcoin Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, after independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged support for cryptocurrency supporters on Friday.
Trump is slotted to deliver a keynote address at 3 p.m. EDT on Saturday. The former president’s advisor on crypto, former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is also set to speak at the world’s largest gathering of bitcoins, sharing his prediction that single-issue crypto voters will represent 1% or more of the electorate in November, according to Fox Business.
Trump’s address comes after Kennedy, a fellow presidential contender, spoke at the conference on Friday. The independent candidate made a series of pledges to crowds, saying that as president, he would sign an executive order for the United States to buy 550 bitcoin daily to build a reserve of 4 million BTC; make all transfers between dollars and Bitcoin unreportable and non-taxable; and order the transfer of 200,000 bitcoin to the U.S. Treasury to be held as a strategic asset.
Meanwhile, Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), has been a vocal supporter of crypto. During his tenure in the upper chamber, Vance has been critical of Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Gary Genlser’s regulatory crackdown on bitcoin.
, Former President Donald Trump is speaking Bitcoin Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, after independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged support for cryptocurrency supporters on Friday. Trump is slotted to deliver a keynote address at 3 p.m. EDT on Saturday. The former president’s advisor on crypto, former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is also set to speak at the world’s largest gathering of bitcoins, sharing his prediction that single-issue crypto voters will represent 1% or more of the electorate in November, according to Fox Business. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Trump’s address comes after Kennedy, a fellow presidential contender, spoke at the conference on Friday. The independent candidate made a series of pledges to crowds, saying that as president, he would sign an executive order for the United States to buy 550 bitcoin daily to build a reserve of 4 million BTC; make all transfers between dollars and Bitcoin unreportable and non-taxable; and order the transfer of 200,000 bitcoin to the U.S. Treasury to be held as a strategic asset. Meanwhile, Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), has been a vocal supporter of crypto. During his tenure in the upper chamber, Vance has been critical of Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Gary Genlser’s regulatory crackdown on bitcoin. , , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/trump-reaction-biden-dropping-out.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Emily Hallas,
