Rabu, 31 Maret 2021

Biden endorses moving MLB All-Star Game out of Georgia

President Joe Biden on Wednesday said he would "strongly support" moving the Major League Baseball All-Star Game out of Atlanta in response to Georgia's newly passed voting law that critics say restricts voting access.

"I think today's professional athletes are acting incredibly responsibly," Biden told ESPN's Sage Steele in an interview. "I would strongly support them doing that. People look to them. They're leaders."

Biden's comments joined a growing chorus of voices that have called on the MLB to move its marquee summertime game out of Cobb County, as part of a larger effort to boycott organizations headquartered in the state that have remained silent on the voting rights issue, as well as major sporting events, including golf's annual Masters Tournament.

The new law would add an ID requirement to absentee ballots, shorten runoffs in the state after two high-profile Republican losses and strip the secretary of state from the state election board.

In response to those calls, the CEOs of Delta Airlines and Coca-Cola, both Atlanta-based companies, condemned the law Wednesday, calling it "unacceptable."

Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey told CNBC it was "a step backwards," while Delta CEO Ed Bastian said in a company memo that it did "not match Delta's values."

In the ESPN interview, Biden criticized the law and the impact it would have on voters.

"Look at what's happened across the board. The very people who are victimized the most are the people who are the leaders in these various sports, and it's just not right," Biden said. "This is Jim Crow on steroids, what they're doing in Georgia and 40 other states."

While Georgia's law was passed last week, GOP-dominated statehouses across the country are weighing similar legislation that could potentially restrict voting access.

The All-Star Game is scheduled for July 13 at the Atlanta Braves' Truist Park. At the time the game was awarded, the Atlanta Braves organization said: "This is a tremendous honor for our organization and we are incredibly proud to be able to host this Midsummer Classic for the fifth time." Last year's game was canceled for the first time since 1945 due to Covid.

MLB Players Association executive director Tony Clark told the Boston Globe last week that the players were "very much aware" of what was going on in Georgia, and that the association "would look forward to having that conversation" about moving the event.

Asian neighbors pen letter of fear to Ohio’s lieutenant governor

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Dozens of Asian American residents of the suburb that Ohio’s Republican lieutenant governor calls home penned a letter to him Wednesday, citing their concerns over a tweet he sent referring to the “Wuhan virus” and the fears they have for the safety of their children because of such comments.

“Lt. Governor Husted, your choice of words has only raised the anxiety and fear that Asians and Asian Americans in Upper Arlington are currently experiencing,” the letter obtained by the local NBC affiliate read.

Jon Husted has been Ohio's second highest-ranking official since 2019.

“Our children have been targeted for bullying and abuse in the district well before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but that abuse has increased significantly in the last 14 months and has reached levels that have brought news media attention to our doorsteps,” the letter continued. “Our children are the classmates, friends, and neighbors of your children.”

The letter to the lieutenant governor was signed by nearly 70 members and families of the Asian community in Upper Arlington, a suburb of Columbus.

It came in response to a March 26 tweet where Husted linked to an article in which Robert Redfield, the ex-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said, without citing evidence, that he believed the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan.

“So it appears it was the Wuhan Virus after all?” Husted tweeted Friday from his personal account.

His intention with the tweet, Husted said in an interview with The Associated Press earlier on Wednesday, was to criticize the Chinese government.

“I was just pointing out that this is an international crisis, in my opinion, that the Chinese government is responsible for and I wanted an independent investigation,” he said. “So I wasn’t trying to accomplish anything that the political left or political right thinks that I might have from that tweet other than to draw attention to the issue.”

The claim that COVID-19 originated in a lab in Wuhan has been scrutinized in the past year by health officials, including the leading U.S. infectious disease specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The claim was further muddied when a draft obtained by The AP on Monday and formally published Tuesday from the World Health Organization’s inquiry said it was “extremely unlikely” that the virus emerged accidentally from a Chinese laboratory and was likely spread from animals to humans.

Some replies on the original post supported Husted for standing up to China. More numerous were critical replies from Twitter users who said such rhetoric feeds into hate and violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Infrastructure Year: Dems brace for brutal slog to pass Biden’s $2.5T plan

President Joe Biden’s first big legislative package sped through Congress. The next one could take at least half a year to pass — if it can get to his desk.

Biden and Hill Democrats on Wednesday began a months-long sprint to pass a $2.5 trillion bill to shore up the nation’s physical infrastructure, paid for by hiking taxes on corporations. Republicans are already balking, dismissing Biden’s attempted outreach as disingenuous, and preparing a messaging campaign against the package that will almost certainly force Democrats to go it alone as they juggle competing wish lists from their members across the ideological spectrum.

Absent a seismic political shift, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will have to draft a sprawling bill that can only afford to lose three Democratic votes in the House and zero in the Senate. Because Democrats are expecting to use their budget powers to steer the bill past a Senate filibuster, Biden’s infrastructure plan would also need to survive a slew of procedural hurdles that could further split the party.

“Three votes. Three votes," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said in an interview. “It's tough in the House with how tight things are, but I think it will be approved. ... I don't mean it will be approved easily and people will be laying outside on the grass while the vote's going on, sipping on iced tea. It's going to be hard work."

The infrastructure debate amounts to a political ultra-marathon for Biden and his Democratic-led Congress, a stark contrast with the mostly breezy path to approving Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill. Party leaders will be under immense pressure from their base to deliver, while also protecting the political future of their most endangered members, some of whom are already anxious about GOP attacks on proposed tax hikes, ahead of the midterm elections.

Pelosi has privately told her caucus that she aims to get the package through the House by the Fourth of July — an aggressive timeline that would give leadership roughly six weeks in session to finish assembling the package and secure the votes. Some senior Democrats are already warning that timeline could slip.

“The bigger it is, the more finesse you’ve got to have,” centrist Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said in an interview. “Highways, infrastructure? Easy. Water projects? Easy. How you pay for it? Let’s take a look. And if you start adding climate? Well, what exactly are you talking about?”

Democrats so far have mostly praised the package, though some are already itching to put their own stamp on the bill. And with local projects at the center of the package, virtually every lawmaker will become a de facto lobbyist for their home-state priorities, from the $10 billion-plus Gateway Tunnel in New York to the $2.5 billion replacement for Cincinnati's Brent Spence Bridge.

"I’m sure I’m like a lot of Democrats: I want to make sure that Virginia’s needs are taken care of in a package like this," said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). "Every Democrat will be asking about the same thing.”

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) pointed to Biden's proposal to expand broadband access as one area he wanted to see accelerated. But, he stressed, lawmakers need to act as quickly as possible: “I believe that Congress needs to get it done this year."

Biden’s rollout appeared designed to appeal to the GOP, and the president called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ahead of the formal unveiling. But Republicans say the White House is just paying lip service to Biden's bipartisanship pledge — or trying to redefine it altogether. The president's party muscled its Covid relief bill through Congress without a single GOP vote, marketing the package as bipartisan because it polled well with 75 percent of voters.

Democrats haven't fully given up on getting GOP votes for the infrastructure effort; several, including Kaine, said they would keep trying. But even if Schumer uses the filibuster-proof protections of the budget process to pass the massive bill, Senate rules may stop him from getting Biden's complete proposal to a floor vote.

Perhaps the biggest elbow Biden’s infrastructure package throws at Republicans is its move to pay for new spending on roads, bridges and clean energy by partly undoing their 2017 tax cut bill, their signature legislative accomplishment in the Trump era. Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, the House Ways and Means Committee's top GOP member, said the proposed business tax hikes are a non-starter for Republicans and only served as more proof that Biden isn’t serious about attracting their support.

“Democrats don’t give a flip discussing infrastructure with Republicans,” Brady said in an interview, or else they “would not have proposed a business rate that is worse than China and equal to Syria and France.”

“It is a major economic blunder,” he added.

Democrats defended Biden’s plan to pay for the package as only a partial easing of the corporate tax cuts the GOP passed. The White House's proposal would raise rates to a level that's still lower than the 35 percent corporate tax that Republicans slashed in 2017.

“If you talk to many of those in corporate America ... I think the 28 percent corporate tax structure does not take away their competitiveness on a global scale,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in an interview, noting that the tax rate set under Trump was “far too low.”

But it's not just the proposal's tax hikes that frustrate the GOP. Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called the plan an “out-of-control socialist spending spree” and urged Biden to look at a bipartisan highway bill instead.

Biden’s first legislative rollout focused on the $2.5 trillion infrastructure plan, though his administration has told lawmakers that it will unveil the second phase in two weeks. That follow-up measure will include an expansion of healthcare access, including the Affordable Care Act, and other social welfare programs. Democrats have not yet decided whether to combine those two plans into a single package on the floor, though some Democratic Hill sources said it's likely his best chance to get both priorities passed.

Bringing every Democrat aboard such a legislative ocean liner won't be easy, and some fissures within the party are already beginning to surface.

The head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), said the bill fell short and called for it to be “substantially larger in size and scope.” But across the Capitol, an aide to a progressive senator noted that the package includes several priorities for the left, including child care, the electrification of vehicles and the corporate tax hike.

Repealing the Trump-era limit on state and local tax deduction — known as the SALT deduction — could also be a point of contention for a handful of blue-state House Democrats.

Rank-and-file Democrats are especially eager to flex their muscles in the upcoming infrastructure debate, after a largely top-heavy process to assemble the Covid relief bill. After Biden took office, Democrats faced immense pressure to fall in line so they could deliver his first legislative victory while also providing much-needed pandemic aid to the country. But the dynamic is different this time around, some lawmakers said.

“The first package was obviously a pandemic, an emergency. It was his first ask. It was wildly popular,” said one Democratic lawmaker, who spoke candidly on condition of anonymity. “This one, it’s different territory.”

Biden has dramatically stepped up his outreach to the Hill ahead of his formal unveiling on Wednesday night.

A cadre of White House officials — economic adviser Brian Deese, along with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg andEnergy Secretary Jennifer Granholm — all briefed lawmakers Wednesday on the plan. The Biden administration held a separate briefing for a bipartisan group of moderates in the House and Senate.

And while Democrats are aiming to make substantial progress by the summer, even White House aides acknowledged that getting the plan shaped into law will take time.

“We’re willing to go through the process and have conversations on the Hill,” said White House Deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. “We’re just going to see how it goes.”

Laura Barrón-López and Nicholas Wu contributed reporting.

Republican donors are hobnobbing in person again — Dems are sticking to Zoom

More and more people are getting the Covid vaccine, but for party fundraisers and members of Congress on the Democratic side, it's not quite time to be piling into overpriced steakhouses or Georgetown soirees once again.

A few Democrats have dipped their toes in the water with outdoor events, but the party has mostly stuck to virtual fundraisers. A list of more than 80 upcoming fundraisers for House Democrats sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Friday and obtained by POLITICO includes no in-person events, and a half-dozen Democratic lobbyists and consultants said they couldn’t recall being invited to any such gatherings.

“We’re not going to put the cart before the horse,” said Justin Davey, a Democratic fundraiser who hasn’t organized an in-person event since the pandemic started. “We’re not going to do events and then wait for the pandemic to improve.”

Democrats’ restraint comes as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Wolensky warned this week that the country faces another virus surge, citing mass travel, the rise of more contagious variants and loosening restrictions. President Joe Biden for the first time urged governors to slow their reopening plans and to keep mask mandates in place as leaders race to make shots widely available. When Biden headlined a fundraiser for Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms last week, it was a virtual one.

Democrats’ caution poses a sharp contrast with a growing number of lawmakers on the GOP side of the aisle, who have been hobnobbing in person with donors for weeks, if not months, and are showing no desire to slow down.

Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.) hosted a ski trip fundraiser this past weekend in Park City, Utah, joined by Reps. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and Jason Smith (R-Mo.), according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO.

In May, donors will be able to join Reps. William Timmons (R-S.C.), Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and Lance Gooden (R-Texas) on a fundraising trip to Key Biscayne, Fla. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) is set to host a spring retreat at the Inn at Willow Grove in Virginia. And Republican lawmakers are convening breakfasts, lunches and dinners at the same Washington restaurants that hosted their pre-pandemic fundraisers as well as the Capitol Hill Club.

A list of upcoming fundraisers sent out by the National Republican Congressional Committee on Friday lists 204 upcoming events, more than half of which are described as “in person.”

The DCCC declined to comment on whether it had issued guidelines for holding fundraisers during the pandemic. The NRCC didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee hasn’t “issued formal guidance and encourage[s] all Senators to follow local guidelines for their fundraisers,” according to an NRSC spokesperson.

Republican lawmakers and donors have for months been far more willing to meet and mingle in the flesh — as was in evidence last summer when Republicans held a limited in-person convention while Democrats kept everything virtual. But now that Washington’s ruling classes are mostly vaccinated, the divide in fundraising approaches is getting starker.

More than half a dozen GOP lobbyists, consultants and fundraisers said they’ve witnessed an uptick in interest in these live events in recent weeks, particularly now that lawmakers and many donors have had their shots and the weather is improving.

The return to real life fundraising, they said, seems to stem from the same pandemic fatigue afflicting the general public, which has led many Americans to return to normal life even though the majority of the country remains unvaccinated. But there are also downsides to virtual fundraising that have persuaded GOP fundraisers to shun it, including that the confines of Zoom and other online platforms don’t allow for one-on-one time with lawmakers.

“People are certainly over the Zooms, if you will,” said one Republican fundraiser who’s started planning in-person events. “The weather is getting nicer, so doing an outdoor reception is a feasible idea — whereas in January that wasn’t going to happen.”

Rep. Daniel Kildee (D-Mich.) speaks to reporters during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

A few Democrats are also trying out in-person events. Reps. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) and Scott Peters (D-Calif.) are set to host a fundraiser benefiting Kildee’s leadership PAC next month at the Whiskey Creek golf course in Maryland, according to an invitation.

A spokesperson for Kildee’s PAC said the fundraiser would be held entirely outdoors and that attendees would “strictly” follow state and federal guidelines for such events.

“Whiskey Creek is following enhanced sanitation procedures, including sanitizing golf carts,” the spokesperson said. “There will be no communal food at the event (everything will be individually boxed or wrapped).”

A Democratic lobbyist said the handful of other invitations he’d seen for in-person fundraisers were also for events taking place outdoors.

“People are cautious, and understandably so,” said Michael Fraioli, whose Democratic fundraising firm hadn’t held an in-person fundraiser in more than a year.

Some Democratic lobbyists said they thought in-person events might resume this summer as Covid restrictions eased and more people were vaccinated. “There’s been some talk of hopefully doing an in person event or (perhaps) even a PAC trip later this year but it’s all in the ‘Let’s see how it goes’ phase,” Paul Bock, a Democratic lobbyist, wrote in an email to POLITICO.

And the GOP lawmakers who do opt to host in-person events have a more limited guest list from which to draw. Some trade associations bar their lobbyists from attending in-person shindigs, one fundraiser said, while others leave it to their employees’ discretion. Among those who can attend, there’s also the divide between those who find it easier to stick to Zoom and those who prefer to go out for a party. Local health restrictions — particularly in D.C. — also keep numbers small.

For now, Republicans have more political cover to host events — whereas for Democrats, who have largely come down much harder on the side of public health precautions, the optics are more fraught. And so, the party’s fundraisers have stuck with the virtual money-raising circuit. And they’ve endured a load of Zoom fatigue in the process.

“I don’t think [virtual events] will ever go away completely, but I’ve had some lobbyists say if they never have to Zoom again they’ll be thrilled,” Davey said. He noted that he recently re-upped his Zoom subscription for another year.

‘People are just angry’: Schwarzenegger warns Newsom not to dismiss California recall

OAKLAND — California has seen this movie before.

The historic 2003 gubernatorial recall, starring action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger, had a blockbuster feel and a script right out of Hollywood — a political revolution that promised to “sweep Sacramento clean” of political gridlock and “blow up the boxes” of special interests dominating state politics.

Its sequel, the 2021 California recall, stars a handful of grassroots conservative activists, a worldwide Covid-19 pandemic and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has dismissed the effort to unseat him as a “Republican power grab’’ orchestrated by dangerous far-right extremists.

But Schwarzenegger, 73, warns that there are plenty of similarities between California's history-making populist movements nearly two decades apart, and that elected officials ignored them at their peril.

“It's pretty much the same atmosphere today as it was then," Schwarzenegger, the 38th governor of California, said in an interview this week. "There was dissatisfaction, to the highest level. And it’s the same with the momentum. Something that sets it off to a higher level, kind of the straw that breaks the camel’s back ... like an explosion.”

In his first-ever interview on this year's California recall drive, which is expected to be certified soon, the Republican former governor tells POLITICO that the same voter frustration and yearning for effective leadership and post-partisan cooperation are still clearly at play in the nation's most populous state — and offers Newsom some advice on what may lie ahead.

Here are some excerpts from that conversation, edited for length and clarity:

Do the 2003 California recall that brought you to power and the current recall against Gavin Newsom have anything in common?

It's pretty much the same atmosphere today as it was then. There was dissatisfaction, to the highest level [in political leadership].

People are working very hard. People are making unbelievable sacrifices every day. It's very tough to raise kids and to have a family, and to go through this challenge, working to make ends meet. And you feel like, “Wait a minute, but Sacramento doesn't really do everything for us that they promised they’ll do. We are working hard — but they're not. They're failing us every day." That’s what I see as the similarities from 2003. It’s the same vibe.

And it’s the same with the momentum. Something that sets it off to a higher level, kind of the straw that breaks the camel’s back ... like an explosion.

In Newsom’s case, it was the French Laundry thing. With us, it was the power outages in 2003.

Newsom’s team says it’s a “Republican recall” and an effort to overthrow a Democratic governor — is that how you see it?

The Republican party is, like I have said, dying at the box office. This is the crazy thing here, when they say it’s a “power grab” of the Republicans. Let me tell you, the [California] Republicans couldn't even get anyone elected. It's ludicrous — the Republican Party doesn't exist. These are the signatures of the ordinary folks that have signed on.

But isn’t the recall a struggle between the two major political parties?

The political parties will make it right away about them. The Republicans are going to claim the Democrats are terrible, and then the Democrats are going to come in and they say, ”It's a power grab," which of course I heard a million times in 2003.

It had nothing to do then — and it has nothing to do today — with either party.

People are dissatisfied. [The recall is] the people's way of kind of letting off some steam, and then they decide: Do we want to follow through, or not follow through?

You say recalls aren’t about politics. But didn’t Democrats work hard to attack you — as they’re doing now to attack recall backers?

The Democrats brought out Bill Clinton. They brought out my good friend, John Kerry. They said [to voters], “This would be the worst thing you can do," that "Let's think of it as a heart surgeon, would you want to have a heart surgery from someone that has never performed heart surgery?"

I just said that, [in Sacramento], the surgeons have been doing surgery for years, and they’ve killed every patient.

Are you concerned about the Democrats' argument that there is a far right element to this recall — people who have talked about extreme things like microchipping undocumented immigrants, etc.?

Well, no. But I mean it's exactly the same thing they said [about] me, it was the same dialogue. And so, there is no difference. You have to step back. What is it someone has to say when he wants to keep his job? He is going to paint the other side in a horrible way. That’s what happens in political campaigns, but you can’t take it seriously, because that’s what you do. It’s the same in a UFC fight: Who is the one who can take the best punch, and give the best punch?

In the 2003 recall, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante made the move to get on the ballot to stop you. Was it a real threat to have an elected official from the other party?

That’s all nonsense. No one knew who Bustamante was then, and nobody knows who he is today. It was literally just me — being able to connect with the people and to have big rallies. They got bigger and bigger and bigger. I told [Californians]: Here’s my vision. I know I can do that, and I will work my butt off for you. And I will not look at it in a political way as a Republican. I will just work with both parties, I will serve you, I will be a public servant, not a politician. People bought in, they connected. And I connected with them.

What was the biggest thing that made the difference in the 2003 recall’s success?

The people were looking for an outsider. That doesn't mean always there's a degree of success — with Trump, outsider is not always the best bet.

I made it very clear to the people of California that I don't see the Democrats as the enemy, and I don't see Republicans as the enemy. I said we must work together to bring the people together — and then we can accomplish certain things. So, this is what I think was a refreshing kind of a thing to hear.

Yes, stardom helps — as much as when people say, “If you have money you can buy the election.” But there's many elections that we can point to in America that have happened where billionaires didn’t win, like [former eBay CEO and 2010 gubernatorial candidate] Meg Whitman. I think that you have to also show that you are personally interested in serving the people. The reality is, in my case it worked to my advantage, and I never ever looked at the recall as a political issue.

But this time, there’s no “Schwarzenegger-like” figure who can rally voters, right?

Just remember that the people will vote first of all on, “Do they want to have the governor recalled?” — so that has nothing to do with any one individual. That's nonsense dialogue.

What would happen if George Clooney would run for the governorship? What if Brad Pitt would run? If Oprah Winfrey would run? We don't know, so there will be an interesting answer to do a poll like that.

California is one of 19 states that allows recalls of governors. Is it too easy here to make this happen?

[In the last 100 years], we had only one recall. It's very, very difficult. You can start the fire, you can go crazy and you can go and collect the signatures, but can you actually get to the finish line? I think it is very difficult to do.

Does Gavin Newsom take some blame for this recall because of his performance in the pandemic?

I'm very sensitive about one thing — and this is when we go and pretend it's only happening in California. I was in the mid 60s with my approval rating when I was governor in 2007. Then in 2008, in the recession, my poll numbers plummeted.

So today is the same thing. We have to be careful. The whole nation, and the entire world is fighting over, “Should we take the kids to school or not? What is risky?" The virus is a world phenomenon. And people are just angry — angry that the kids are not in school, angry that we’re supposed to follow science, and there’s a whole crisis going on here and nationwide.

So does Newsom deserved to be recalled?

Newsom is doing something very smart, and that is that he is engaged now. The people have already succeeded with that, even if there’s no recall, because he now has gotten out of Sacramento. He is traveling around the state, is being seen everywhere, is involved and engaged with the vaccine, is involved with education. I see him on the news all the time now. And you know, he’s handling this situation really well. That is already a victory.

Then what’s your advice to him?

I call [the recall] a valve. People have to have a way to let our their anger. And this recall is a way to let out their anger. So now, it’s up to him to say, “Now wait a minute, okay, maybe I was slow at the wheel in the beginning, but I promise you, this is the kind of governor I will be.” And then he is going to go and now jump into more action.

There is progress that people have already experienced. Now it’s, can you really address the homeless? Can you really create equality in education? [On those issues, he must] sit down and they have to go and work on that, without listening to the special interests, and really represent the people in the best possible way.

It’s not easy, because there's a lot of powers out there, it will pull in one direction or the other — but it has to be done.

So the only advice I have for him is that he's doing a good job now. That he has improved his connection with the people, and that he should continue on being real — being himself, and to really always just think about the people — and not about the unions, not about the party, not about any of that — just the people. And to solve the problems. Solve the problems.

Will you endorse in this recall?

No, I don't get involved in that at all. I try to be, in this case, the elder statesman, one that understands the phenomenon of a recall, that understands why people are dissatisfied, that understands what needs to be done and is not being done.

All I can tell you is that I've had many people come to me for advice over the period of these last few months. I don't talk about who, but I can tell you, a lot of people. And I can tell you also — that I will never say what we talked about.

Selasa, 30 Maret 2021

DeSantis hires top GOP operative for 2022 campaign

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has tapped a veteran national Republican political operative to help spearhead his 2022 reelection race.

Phil Cox, a former executive director of the Republican Governors Association, has joined the DeSantis team as a senior-level adviser. The Florida governor had been in talks with several candidates for the post but ultimately settled on Cox, who has established close relationships with a number of Republican governors over the years.

Until now, DeSantis had yet to build out a 2022 political apparatus. The governor, who has seen in his national profile grow in recent weeks, has generally kept a small circle of advisers, which includes his wife, Casey.

Republican officials say they are preparing for what is expected to be a competitive race in the perennial swing state. DeSantis won in 2018 by less than half-a-percentage point, and he is facing a possible showdown next year against Democrat Nikki Fried, the state agriculture commissioner.

“Phil is an incredibly talented and trusted operative who has played a key role in dozens of successful gubernatorial campaigns over the last decade. Gov. DeSantis is well positioned heading into his reelection campaign, and Phil is an excellent addition to his operation,” Dave Rexrode, the current RGA executive director, said in a statement.

Cox led Virginia Republican Bob McDonnell’s successful 2009 gubernatorial campaign and spent four years at the RGA, first as a consultant and then as executive director. During the 2016 election, he oversaw a super PAC that backed the presidential campaign of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

DeSantis is widely seen as a likely 2024 presidential candidate. He has become a favorite of major GOP donors and conservative activists, who have praised him for reluctance to implement coronavirus restrictions and for his fiery clashes with the media. Many party officials describe him as being in the top tier of future potential contenders.

Senin, 29 Maret 2021

CDC extends eviction ban through June 30

The Centers for Disease Control said Monday that the federal eviction moratorium has been extended through June 30, a move that will protect millions of tenants who have struggled to make their rent payments during the coronavirus crisis.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a historic threat to the nation’s public health,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement. “Keeping people in their homes and out of crowded or congregate settings — like homeless shelters — by preventing evictions is a key step in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19.”

The CDC initially released an order in September barring eviction for nonpayment of rent through the end of 2020, citing a 1944 public health law. Congress extended it in December, and the Biden administration renewed it again through March 31.

Congress has also enacted more than $45 billion in rental assistance to help distressed tenants pay off back rent and ensure that struggling landlords are able to make mortgage payments, but little of that money has been distributed yet.

The eviction ban requires tenants to state that they have been financially affected by Covid-19 and can no longer pay rent. Evictions for other reasons are still permitted.

Monday’s extension makes no substantive changes to the policy, despite housing advocates pushing the administration to boost enforcement measures to prevent landlords from going around the moratorium.

National Low Income Housing Coalition President and CEO Diane Yentel said the extension was “essential” but does not go far enough.

“It’s disappointing that the administration didn’t act on the clear evidence and need to also strengthen the order to address the flaws that undermine its public health purpose,” Yentel said in an email.

“While the Biden administration is well aware of the shortcomings in the moratorium order that allow some evictions to proceed during the pandemic, the CDC director did not correct them,” she added. “She simply extended President Trump’s original order, leaving the loopholes and flaws in place, an unfortunate and shortsighted decision that will result in some continued harmful evictions during the pandemic.”

Obama family matriarch has died in a Kenyan hospital at 99

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Sarah Obama, the matriarch of former U.S. President Barack Obama’s Kenyan family has died, relatives and officials confirmed Monday. She was at least 99 years old.

Mama Sarah, as the step-grandmother of the former U.S. president was fondly called, promoted education for girls and orphans in her rural Kogelo village. She passed away around 4 a.m. local time while being treated at the Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching and Referral hospital in Kisumu, Kenya’s third-largest city in the country’s west, according to her daughter Marsat Onyango.

“She died this morning. We are devastated,” Onyango told The Associated Press on a phone call.

“Mama was sick with normal diseases she did not die of COVID-19,” a family spokesman Sheik Musa Ismail said, adding that she had tested negative for the disease. He said she had been ill for a week before being taken to the hospital.

President Barack Obama had been informed of the death and has sent his condolences, he said.

She will be buried Tuesday before midday and the funeral will be held under Islamic rites.

“The passing away of Mama Sarah is a big blow to our nation. We’ve lost a strong, virtuous woman, a matriarch who held together the Obama family and was an icon of family values,” President Uhuru Kenyatta said.

She will be remembered for her work to promote education to empower orphans, Kisumu Governor Anyang Nyong’o said while offering his condolences to the people of Kogelo village for losing a matriarch.

“She was a philanthropist who mobilized funds to pay school fees for the orphans,” he said.

Sarah Obama, was the second wife of President Obama’s grandfather and helped raise his father, Barack Obama, Sr. The family is part of Kenya’s Luo ethnic group.

President Obama often showed affection toward her and referred to her as “Granny” in his memoir, “Dreams from My Father.” He described meeting her during his 1988 trip to his father’s homeland and their initial awkwardness as they struggled to communicate which developed into a warm bond. She attended his first inauguration as president in 2009. Later, Obama spoke about his grandmother again in his September 2014 speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

For decades, Sarah Obama has helped orphans, raising some in her home. The Mama Sara Obama Foundation helped provide food and education to children who lost their parents — providing school supplies, uniforms, basic medical needs, and school fees.

In a 2014 interview with AP, she said that even as an adult, letters would arrive but she couldn’t read them. She said she didn’t want her children to be illiterate, so she saw that all her family’s children went to school.

She recalled pedaling the president’s father six miles (nine kilometers) to school on the back of her bicycle every day from the family’s home village of Kogelo to the bigger town of Ngiya to make sure he got the education that she never had.

“I love education,” Sarah Obama said, because children “learn they can be self-sufficient,” especially girls who too often had no opportunity to go to school.

“If a woman gets an education she will not only educate her family but educate the entire village,” she said.

In recognition of her work to support education, she was honored by the United Nations in 2014, receiving the inaugural Women’s Entrepreneurship Day Education Pioneer Award.

Minggu, 28 Maret 2021

‘He’s toast’: GOP leaves Raffensperger twisting in the wind

The former president is obsessed with defeating him next year. He’s getting mauled by his own state party. Last week alone, a Republican congressman announced he’d challenge in the primary and the state legislature voted to strip his office of some official powers.

By most accounts, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger doesn’t have a prayer of being reelected.

“He’s toast,” said Jay Williams, a Georgia-based Republican strategist. “I don’t know that there’s a single elected official who would put their neck out for Brad Raffensperger right now.”

Not everyone in state political circles is convinced Raffensperger’s political plight is so grim. Some still see a path to reelection, despite the serious resistance within his own party.

Either way, as the GOP forges its post-Trump era identity, Raffensperger’s reelection campaign is emerging as one of the earliest and most contentious test cases for the direction of the party. At issue is more than just whether critics of the former president can succeed in the party. It’s whether a Republican who rejects the lie that the last election was stolen has any chance of winning another one.

The answer in Georgia, so far, is that it will be exceedingly difficult — if not flat-out impossible.

It is a remarkable turn of events for a conventional Republican politician whose down-ballot election in 2018 went largely unnoticed outside his own state. Yet after refusing to buckle to Donald Trump’s requests to change the state’s vote count and feuding with Trump over the former president’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, Raffensperger’s reelection campaign is unfolding, improbably, as one of the most consequential of the election cycle – with implications for the GOP in every state and at all levels of government.

Jason Shepherd, the chair of the Republican Party in Cobb County, Georgia, said he has friends who are “completely uninvolved in politics” who tell him “there is no way they are going to vote to reelect Raffensperger.”

That sentiment, he said, is coming from “the type of person you’re almost surprised they know the name of the secretary of state.”

“I don’t want to say there’s zero chance, but at this point right now, it’s nearly impossible to find anyone in the party who supports the reelection of [Raffensperger],” he said.

Raffensperger still has more than a year to turn it around. But he is running up against the heavy weight of GOP’s election fraud orthodoxy. Earlier this week, Rep. Jody Hice, a defender of Trump’s effort to overturn the election, announced he’s running with Trump’s endorsement to unseat Raffensperger. And the Georgia Republican Party isn’t exactly sitting on the sidelines.

The state executive committee publicly called this week on Raffensperger to repudiate his staff for misquoting Trump’s words in a December phone call in which Trump urged a Georgia elections official to find “dishonesty” in the vote in an attempt to reverse the election results.

The party said Raffensperger has “dodged repeated attempts” by committee members to discuss the issue with him.

Closer to home, Raffensperger failed this past weekend to get Republicans in his own precinct to elect him as a delegate to his county’s upcoming Republican Party convention, said Stewart Bragg, executive director of the Georgia Republican Party. After Raffensperger wrote a letter asking to be elected, no one at the precinct meeting moved to nominate him, Bragg said.

In a statement, the chair of the Fulton County Republican Party, Trey Kelly, said he was unaware of any letter from Raffensperger, adding that, “like many others who did not attend Saturday, he was not added to the delegate or alternate list for the county convention.” A person close to Raffensperger also denied that he sent a letter seeking election.

His representatives otherwise declined to comment for this story, pointing to Raffensperger’s past public statements.

Raffensperger's official responsibilities have also been targeted by Republicans in the state. On Thursday, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law, signed by Georgia GOP Gov. Brian Kemp, that removes the secretary of state as the state election board chair — to be replaced by a person approved by the state legislature.

The law, in effect, hands control of the five-person board over to the state legislature: Two other members on the board are picked by the respective legislative chambers. The law also gives the state election board the ability to suspend county election officials, who are replaced by an individual picked by the board.

Raffensperger is not without a fan base. In fact, he’s the most popular Republican in Georgia, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll in January — even more than Kemp or Trump.

But that feat is in large part because Raffensperger is admired by Democrats, who viewed him as a truth-telling, elections administration equivalent of Dr. Anthony Fauci after the November vote. Nearly 45 percent of Republicans in the state disapprove of Raffensperger’s performance, according to the poll.

Raffensperger has been a focal point for Trump and his supporters since shortly after the presidential election. Even as early as November, he said he was preparing for a primary challenge because of how angry some in the state may be with him.

In an election cycle where secretary of state races are likely to get a near-unprecedented amount of attention, Georgia’s may be the most competitive. Not only is Raffensperger facing a Trump-backed primary challenger, Democrats will be gunning for the office in 2022 as well, enraged by the Republicans in the legislature pushing through bills that will restrict voter access to the polls and emboldened by the party’s successes in the state’s last election.

Raffensperger has joined the chorus of Republicans across the country in opposing H.R. 1, or the For the People Act, congressional Democrats' sweeping piece of legislation that would drastically remake most aspects of federal elections, penning an op-ed in USA Today on Friday that says the bill makes "reckless demands of Georgia’s elections system."

At the same time, Raffensperger has been harshly critical of the falsehoods about the 2020 election promoted by Trump and embraced by Hice, saying voters will punish Hice because of it.

“We saw in January what Georgia voters will do to candidates who use that rhetoric,” he said in a statement shortly after Hice got into the race, alluding to the two GOP Senate runoff losses. “His recklessness is matched by his fecklessness as a congressman. Georgia Republicans seeking a candidate who's accomplished nothing now have one.”

Hice also isn't Raffensperger's only primary challenger. David Belle Isle, the former mayor of Alpharetta who Raffensperger handily defeated in a 2018 runoff for the nomination, also announced he was running again.

Raffensperger’s newly acquired national profile means the outcome will reverberate far beyond Georgia, where Republican primaries are emerging as litmus tests on questions about voter fraud and fealty to Trump’s grievances.

"Raffensperger is not just somebody running in a Republican primary,” said Sarah Longwell, the founder of the Republican Accountability Project, an anti-Trump group working to promote non-MAGA Republicans. “He is being primaried by Jody Hice, who is somebody who has been an election truther.”

The umbrella organization that RAP belongs to has pledged a $50 million campaign to back Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, and a sister organization of RAP previously ran ads defending Raffensperger’s handling of an election, saying he ran “a “textbook election under extraordinary circumstances.”

But the issue will likely play out across the country, Longwell said. “In a Republican primary — like the Ohio Senate primary, for example — I suspect the challengers are going to be MAGA, or more MAGA, or mega MAGA. … You can definitely see that people will try to outmatch each other by the extent to which they will play up the election being stolen.”

The national primary environment appears more favorable to Republicans running on the idea that the election was illegitimate, with a majority of Republican voters saying the November election wasn’t free or fair.

Still, it’s possible that in Raffensperger’s race and elsewhere, the electorate’s view of 2020 will shift by 2022 — especially as more information undercutting Trump’s voter fraud claims materializes about the election. Pointing to a recent court filing from Sidney Powell — the former Trump lawyer who recently conceded that “no reasonable person” would believe what she had been saying was factual — Georgia Republican John Cowan said he is not yet sure how he will vote in Raffensperger’s primary.

The secretary of state “admirably stood up to power, the-guy-in-Tiananmen-Square kind of stuff,” said Cowan, a neurosurgeon who ran against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in a 2020 House primary and is considering running against her again next year.

Right now, Cowan said Raffensperger is getting “scapegoated.”

But “when the anger and the passion subsides,” he said, “I think people are going to say, ‘Gosh, we just got beat.’ And unless we want to get beat again, we’ve got to get our act together.”

Sabtu, 27 Maret 2021

Atlanta massacre sparks a political awakening in the Korean church

DULUTH, Ga. — This month’s killing spree at Atlanta-area spas is pushing Korean American pastors to do something quietly radical: Urge their flocks to get politically involved and rise up against racism against Asian Americans.

Political activism is normally off-limits in the evangelical Korean church. Pastors, many of them immigrants themselves, firmly believe in separating church and state. Politics and protests, they say, are secular matters that don’t belong in the sanctuary.

But this month’s massacre, which killed eight people, four of whom were Korean, is animating the Korean community here. It’s spurring them to act in new ways — reminiscent of the Black church and the role it played in the civil rights struggle. Religious leaders are at the forefront of this nascent movement, agitating for change. And as they look to harness Korean American electoral power in the Atlanta suburbs, their turn toward activism could have lasting implications in a state roiled by rapid demographic upheaval.

Churches can no longer stay silent about racism, said Pastor Han Byung-chul from the Korean Central Presbyterian Church of Atlanta, who recently formed an anti-AAPI hate group in the city with 11 other religious leaders.

“It should be a time that Asian Americans reflect on their indifference and irresponsibility,” Han said in an interview, using language striking for its rebuke of his fellow Asians. “This is an awakening moment for Asian Americans.”

Pastors are reluctant to align themselves with a party. And right now, their efforts are in the very early planning stages. But they’re making it clear they intend to be a force strong enough to pressure lawmakers and political parties into addressing the needs of the Asian American and Pacific Islander community.

“It’s not about specific politicians or political parties. We want an overarching understanding that we need to create a society where immigrants and Asians aren’t discriminated [against]," said Pastor Lee Jun-hyup from Immanuel Korean United Methodist Church in Marietta, Ga. “Korean churches and Asian American groups will likely put more pressure on lawmakers to implement systematic changes to address these issues.”

A similar political awakening is gaining momentum across the United States. Last week, Pastor Choi Byung-ho, president of the National Caucus of Korean Presbyterian Churches, sent out instructions encouraging pastors around the country to incorporate anti-racism messages in their sermons.

Lew Jae-duk, the president of the Korean United Methodist churches, put out a statement that both condemns hate crimes and criticizes xenophobic lawmakers: “I think politicians who have used Asians as a scapegoat are partially to blame,” he said. “Because the country is struggling, they’re fueling hate against immigrants, minorities and other countries to court the support of the far-right.”

Ultimately these pastors say they want to work with lawmakers to enact policy change protecting Asian Americans from further violence, said Pastor Michael Lee of All Nations Community Church in Bellevue, Wash. Law enforcement must improve both the way it tracks hate crimes and the way those crimes are prosecuted, Lee said. But that can only happen by ensuring all police departments carry a hate crime unit, which can help expedite the investigation of these incidents. He also emphasized the need for oversight committees to monitor law enforcement's handling of hate crimes.

“All this hype without policy change is just hype. It's just emotions,” Lee said. “And so I think the only way to make lasting changes is through policy changes. Having a seat at the table with lawmakers, with elected officials locally, statewide, nationally … that's absolutely essential.”

Like other ethnic groups, Korean Americans often split along generational lines. First-generation immigrants tend to align with conservatives on matters like abortion and the economy; many Korean Americans, for instance, are small business owners who despise taxes and red tape. But younger generations are more likely to tell pollsters that the Republican Party, dominated increasingly by white identity politics, doesn’t represent them.

An invigorated Korean community, pushed to action by Korean churches, could be good news for Democrats, who have been losing ground with the Korean community in recent years, according to early poll data. Although nationally, 57 percent of Korean Americans said they would vote for Biden pre-election, an exit poll conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund found that only 39 percent voted for the current president. While the numbers are still incomplete, it shows that Democrats need better outreach to the community to secure their vote in future elections.

It’s why the current galvanizing around racism works in the Democrats’ favor because Korean Americans approve their handling of the issue: In a September survey by AAPI Data, a demographic data and policy research organization, 63 percent of Korean Americans said they thought Democrats did a better job at addressing racism than Republicans — the highest rate out of all ethnicities polled and 14 percent above the overall Asian American average.

What’s more, this spark in activism among pastors is bridging the generational gap in civic participation for the community. Young second- and third-generation Korean Americans are mingling with older first-generation immigrants at protests against racial discrimination. Korean culture is very family focused, so this multigenerational approach will likely inspire older, first-generation immigrants to stay engaged, activists say. And that, in turn, will likely translate to then having a united voice on issues, fostering higher voter turnout.

“That’s what it feels like for the Asian community: That finally, after all these years of being silenced and minimized and demonized, we have this window,” said Hyepin Im, president and founder of Faith and Community Empowerment. “It feels like we’re finally given this platform for us to speak.”

Until now, these populations have shied away from speaking out about racial issues or even being a part of political movements. Part of that is due to cultural and language barriers, as well as a deeply ingrained belief that religion should not be a part of secular activities, such as politics or protests.

But churches have long held a prominent role in fighting against racial injustice, especially within the Black community. Black churches were the epicenter of the 60s civil rights movement — led by Martin Luther King, Jr., the pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, and his network of fellow preachers across the South — as they hosted community meetings, organized mass marches and provided spiritual support.

Korean churches today are following in that tradition, said Omar Wasow, a politics professor at Princeton who tracks political movements. And he sees many of the same patterns playing out in the Korean community today.

“Young people were perceived as too militant and older generations were like, ‘We need to keep our heads down in the context of civil rights activism,’” he said. “Some of what brought an older generation along was the Black church and leaders there who could kind of bridge these more traditional institutions and a more activist kind of wing in the community.”

These churches will likely act as a safe space for first-generation immigrants who have historically felt they’ve never had a platform to voice the discrimination they feel, Im said. It’s the best way to keep this population — which has long been coveted as a “silent giant” among local organizers who see the group’s potential — engaged despite their long-held wariness of civic participation due to cultural and language barriers, she added. Organizers had already been targeting this group because of its sheer size: 70 percent of Asian Americans in Georgia are foreign-born.

As the number of politically engaged Korean Americans grows, with church pastors at the forefront, the group will likely have “to actually search what they want to fight for” beyond fighting racial injustice, Wasow said. Surveys already show that Korean Americans are heavily invested in the economy, environment, education and national security, and the current burgeoning political movement will likely encourage members to speak out more publicly on these issues than ever before.

But even the starting fight against racism won’t be an easy process for Korean churches, warns Peter Chin, a Korean pastor at the Rainier Avenue Church in Seattle, Wash., who has ministered churches with a majority Black congregation. That’s particularly true for the many first-generation pastors who may feel “standing up for racial justice is very foreign,” Chin said.

“Black churches had to actively live against white supremacy from the time of slavery, and Jim Crow and the civil rights movement. So their voice on these matters has really been life or death for almost 300 years,” he said.

“Whereas for Asian churches, it's so new that that kind of foundational language and the common denominators and experiences and numerous experiences that would kind of frame that aren't there yet. That breadth of experience hasn't really taken place.”

One of the many cultural factors that has kept Korean Americans out of the political arena is the idea, held by many first-generation immigrants, that they ought to work hard, keep their heads down and not complain. Political scientists have called this phenomenon “the model minority myth” — and younger generations of Korean Americans are increasingly chafing against this narrow conception of their identity.

Now first-generation religious leaders like Han from the Korean Central Presbyterian Church of Atlanta are joining the criticism against the stereotype, which he regrets churches have helped perpetuate.

“Us priests are likely one of the people who have spread the model minority myth to our congregation. We told Christians to follow those stereotypes by putting successful people on a pedestal, yet failed to teach them about their role as a responsible citizen and the importance of solidarity,” Han said.

On a recent Sunday, Han and a group of 11 other local religious leaders held a prayer vigil outside of Gold Spa, one of the shooting sites where three Korean women were killed. The parking lot was packed with people wearing masks. Some held white chrysanthemums, the mourning flowers of Korea that are rarely seen in the U.S., in one hand — and signs condemning racism in the other. Attendees sang “Come Now, O Prince of Peace,” which echoed throughout the area, as cars honked along in the background.

During the event, which was conducted entirely in Korean, Han addressed the crowd, gently chastising those who cling to the model minority myth. It wasn’t exactly the booming oration of a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Ralph Abernathy, but his words felt like a major leap for a community more accustomed to staying silent — the quiet eloquence of newfound determination, of previously untapped resolve.

“We’ve lived with the idea that simply working hard and caring for our family is enough,” Han told the congregation. “Yet look at what that’s made us: We failed to become responsible citizens of the U.S.

“Real, responsible citizens don’t just seek their own survival,” he went on. “They envision and work toward a world where everyone can live together in prosperity.”

Jumat, 26 Maret 2021

WATCH: All roads lead back to the filibuster

The ongoing debate over filibuster reform took center stage in political news this week. TARA and EUGENE look back at Biden’s response over eliminating the filibuster during his first official press conference on Thursday. They also discuss why the filibuster is the only way Democrats can pass legislation on gun control and voting rights.

Watch all the individual clips that Eugene and Tara get into in this week’s edition of Playback:

1. Biden thinks the filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era

During his first official exchange with reporters, Biden gave vague answers on lowering the number of votes to 51 to pass legislation through the Senate. But when asked if he agreed with President Barack Obama's assessment that rule was a relic of the Jim Crow era, he agreed.


2. McConnell disagrees

During a press conference on Wednesday, Sen. Mitch McConnell was asked why voters should trust Republicans not to filibuster voting rights legislation, despite the GOP's history on doing so in the past — he claims the it has no ties to racism whatsoever.


3. Cruz dramatically talks about political theater

One day after the mass shooting in Boulder, Colo., the Texas senator accused his Democratic colleagues of political theater when discussing expanded background checks, and critics think he got just as theatrical in the process.

Trump: Rioters in deadly insurrection posed ‘zero threat’

Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed Thursday that his supporters who stormed the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection posed “zero threat” — despite the fact that five people died as a result of the violent insurrection, including a Capitol Police officer.

“It was zero threat. Right from the start, it was zero threat,” Trump told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “Look, they went in — they shouldn’t have done it — some of them went in, and they’re hugging and kissing the police and the guards, you know? They had great relationships. A lot of the people were waved in, and then they walked in, and they walked out.”

The former president’s remarks represent perhaps his most serious distortion yet of the events of Jan. 6, when a mob of pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol in an effort to halt the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

Trump himself urged his supporters to march on the Capitol in a fiery speech outside the White House prior to the siege. “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said, among other incendiary statements. One week later, the House impeached him for a second time for inciting the insurrection.

Trump was acquitted by the Senate, but his trial in the chamber presented previously unseen video showing just how close the rioters came to lawmakers and then-Vice President Mike Pence. House impeachment managers also showed shocking footage of violence by the rioters against responding law enforcement officers.

Earlier Thursday, seven House committees launched a sweeping investigation into the federal government’s handling of the insurrection, which law enforcement officials have testified was exacerbated by the Pentagon delaying the deployment of National Guard troops and federal intelligence authorities providing insufficient warnings of the attack.

Prosecutors have arrested more than 300 participants in the Capitol attack, and the former leader of the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation said in an interview Sunday that he believes evidence would support a charge of “seditious conspiracy” against some of the rioters. The head of the Capitol Police officers’ union has indicated that roughly 140 officers were injured in the insurrection.

Fili-fix the Filibuster?

Black civil rights leaders, voting rights advocates and elected officials are putting more and more pressure on Senate Democrats to nix the filibuster. The argument? Keep the filibuster OR pass voting rights legislation... 'cause you can’t do both! Playbook author Eugene Daniels and reporter Zach Montellaro dig into the politics behind the filibuster and voting rights legislation.

Subscribe and rate Nerdcast on Apple Podcasts.

Kamis, 25 Maret 2021

Final voting results show major setback for Israel's Netanyahu

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing allies fell short of winning a parliamentary majority in Israel’s latest election, according to a final vote count released Thursday, leaving a political deadlock that put the long-time leader’s future in question.

The fourth election in just two years brought a stinging rebuke for Netanyahu, the most dominant figure in Israeli politics in a generation. Adding to the pain, he lost ground to former partners who vowed never to sit in a government with him again.

Under Israel’s fragmented political system, Netanyahu could still try to reach across the aisle and cobble together a governing coalition. But the makeup of the new parliament will make that extremely difficult, giving his opponents the upper hand in coalition talks. It’s also quite possible Israel will go into a fifth election later this year.

“It is clear that Netanyahu does not have a majority to form a government under his leadership,” said Gideon Saar, one of the former Netanyahu allies who now oppose him. “Action must now be taken to realize the possibility of forming a government for change.”

In order to form a government, a candidate must work with allied partners to secure a 61-seat majority in the Knesset, or parliament.

According to the final results released by Israel’s election commission, Netanyahu and his allies captured 52 seats, compared to 57 held by his opponents.

In the middle were two undecided parties: Yamina, a seven-seat nationalist party headed by a former Netanyahu lieutenant, and Raam, an Arab Islamist party that won four seats.

Neither Naftali Bennett of Yamina nor Mansour Abbas of Raam has committed to either camp. Yet deep divisions in both the pro-Netanyahu and anti-Netanyahu blocs could make it difficult for either side to secure a majority with them.

“Israel is experiencing its worst political crisis in decades. It’s apparent that our political system finds it very difficult to produce a decisive outcome,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute. “This is as a result of inherent weaknesses in our electoral system, but it’s also because of the Netanyahu factor.”

Tuesday’s vote was widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership style and fitness to rule while under indictment. “Israelis are split right down the middle on this question,” Plesner said.

Netanyahu’s supporters see him as a statesman uniquely qualified to lead the country. He campaigned on his management of the country’s successful coronavirus vaccination program and diplomatic agreements reached last year with four Arab countries.

His opponents, however, say Netanyahu is untrustworthy and has bungled many aspects of the coronavirus crisis. They also say he should not be running the country at a time when he is on trial on multiple corruption charges. The evidentiary phase, in which a series of former aides are to take the stand against him, is set to begin on April 5.

Thursday’s results set the stage for weeks of uncertainty as the country’s figurehead president, Reuven Rivlin, consults with party leaders to see if they can agree on a candidate who can cobble together a new governing majority.

Merav Michaeli, whose center-left Labor party won seven seats, declared victory for the anti-Netanyahu camp. “Now it is time to form a government,” she told Channel 13 TV.

That may not be so simple. The anti-Netanyahu camp includes a diverse array of parties ranging from leftist Arab factions to hard-line nationalists opposed to cooperation with them.

One option floated on Thursday was the possibility of using their slim parliamentary majority to pass legislation that would disqualify an indicted politician from forming a new government, a measure aimed at barring Netanyahu from office. Several parties said they were leaning in that direction.

Netanyahu is on trial for fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three cases. He has denied any wrongdoing and has dismissed the charges as a witch-hunt by a biased law enforcement and media. His opponents accuse him of leading the country into repeated elections in hopes of winning a parliament that would grant him immunity from prosecution.

Dani Dayan, a member of Saar’s New Hope party, said he wasn’t thrilled about pursuing a “personalized” law but said it was worth considering.

“Netanyahu has made such a mishmash between his lawsuit and the needs of the state. Therefore, there’s room for debate on the matter,” he said.

Netanyahu’s Likud party issued an angry statement comparing his opponents to the clerical leadership in Iran, which vets candidates for office. “The ‘change bloc’ is just a nice way of saying an ’anti-democratic bloc,” Likud said.

Despite the charges against him, Netanyahu’s Likud party received around a quarter of the votes, making it the largest party in parliament. A total of 13 parties received enough votes to enter the Knesset — the most since the 2003 election — leaving the parliament divided among a host of midsize parties representing ultra-Orthodox Jewish, Arab, secular, nationalist, and liberal factions.

For Netanyahu to secure a majority, he would likely need to bring in both Bennett, who leads a party popular with hard-line Jewish nationalists, and Abbas, whose party is inspired by the regionwide Muslim Brotherhood movement. Bennett has ruled out an alliance with Abbas.

In another blow to Netanyahu, Bezalel Smotrich, an ally of the prime minister and head of the far-right Religious Zionism party, said Thursday that “a right-wing government will not be established with support from Abbas. Period. Not on my watch.”

Netanyahu will also try to look for individual lawmakers on the other side of the aisle to “defect” and join him.

That, for now, looks like a longshot given the hostility toward the prime minister.

Bennett, Saar and Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the secular nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, are all former Netanyahu confidants who had messy breakups with the prime minister.

Benny Gantz, leader of the Blue and White party, formed a power-sharing deal with Netanyahu last year, only to see it quickly disintegrate amid nonstop infighting.

Netanyahu’s opponents will also explore various possible combinations that could secure the required 61-seat majority. This could include luring Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox allies and even disgruntled members of Likud.

The mind-boggling array of possibilities means that weeks of uncertainty most likely lie ahead, with a chance of an unprecedented fifth consecutive election if an alternative coalition cannot be found.

Late Thursday, Yair Lapid, whose centrist Yesh Atid party finished second with 17 seats, announced he had met with Michaeli and “discussed options for cooperation to build a coalition for change.”

It said they agreed to “meet again and continue discussions.”

Trump’s secret sit-down with Ohio candidates turns into ‘Hunger Games’

It was a scene right out of "The Apprentice."

Donald Trump was headlining a fundraiser on Wednesday night at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Fla. But before the dinner began, the former president had some business to take care of: He summoned four Republican Senate candidates vying for Ohio’s open Senate seat for a backroom meeting.

The contenders — former state Treasurer Josh Mandel, former state GOP Chair Jane Timken, technology company executive Bernie Moreno and investment banker Mike Gibbons — had flown down to attend the fundraiser to benefit a Trump-endorsed Ohio candidate looking to oust one of the 10 House Republicans who backed his impeachment. As the candidates mingled during a pre-dinner cocktail reception, one of the president's aides signaled to them that Trump wanted to huddle with them in a room just off the lobby.

What ensued was a 15-minute backroom backbiting session reminiscent of Trump’s reality TV show. Mandel said he was “crushing” Timken in polling. Timken touted her support on the ground thanks to her time as state party chair. Gibbons mentioned how he’d helped Trump’s campaign financially. Moreno noted that his daughter had worked on Trump’s 2020 campaign.

The scene illustrated what has become a central dynamic in the nascent 2022 race. In virtually every Republican primary, candidates are jockeying, auditioning and fighting for the former president’s backing. Trump has received overtures from a multitude of candidates desperate for his endorsement, something that top Republicans say gives him all-encompassing power to make-or-break the outcome of primaries.

And the former president, as was so often the case during his presidency, has seemed to relish pitting people against one another.

One person familiar with what transpired in Wednesday evening’s huddle described it as “Hunger Games,” an awkward showdown that none of them were expecting.

Trump kicked off the meeting by asking everyone to tell him about how the race was going. Timken, who was Trump’s handpicked state party chair, was the first to speak. She talked about the early support she’d received and how she’d worked to reelect him.

Two people familiar with the discussion said that Trump at one point reminded Timken that she’d initially defended Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio) after he’d voted for Trump’s impeachment in January. That evening’s fundraiser was to benefit Max Miller, a former Trump White House aide who was running to unseat Gonzalez, and the former president spoke derisively about the member of Congress throughout the evening, several attendees said.

Timken, two people said, responded to Trump by saying that she’d “cleaned” up her position, an apparent reference to a later statement she released calling on Gonzalez to resign.

Another person briefed on the meeting pushed back on that account, saying that Trump was only playfully teasing Timken over her past remarks on Gonzalez. The person noted that later on in the night, speaking before the fundraiser, the former president had complimented Timken on her work as chair.

Multiple people familiar with what transpired during the meeting said most of the tension seemed to be between Timken and Mandel, and that it appeared they were trying to outdo one another. Timken and Mandel have already announced their candidacies and are considered the early frontrunners; Gibbons and Moreno have yet to formally launch their campaigns.

Mandel used his speaking time to promote his recent endorsement from the Club for Growth, an anti-tax organization whose president, former Rep. David McIntosh (R-Ind.), is close to the former president. He also noted that a recent Club for Growth poll showing him leading the field and mentioned that his campaign had conducted a private survey with similar results.

According to one account, Mandel added that he was “crushing” Timken in the early polling.

Timken laughed off the broadside, insisting that her internal polling showed her in a strong early position.

The former president indicated that he was aware of surveys showing Mandel ahead. But at one point, he asked if the former state treasurer was fully committed to the contest — an apparent reference to Mandel’s decision to withdraw from the 2018 Senate race, which at the time he attributed to his problems with his wife’s health.

Mandel responded: “Mr. President I only know two ways to do things: either not at all, or balls to the wall. I hired a bunch of killers on my team. I’m a killer, and we’re going to win the primary and then the general.”

Mandel went in hard during the conversation, saying that he’d endorsed Trump earlier than any of his opponents during the 2016 presidential race and mentioned that he’d been active in raising money for his reelection bid.

Gibbons spoke about how he’d donated extensively to Trump, even though the former president had backed Gibbons’ opponent in the 2018 Senate primary, then-Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio). According to the accounts of two people, Trump responded by saying Renacci, whom Gonzalez replaced in the House, wasn’t a winner — a likely reference to Renacci's defeat in the 2018 general election to Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Moreno largely stayed out of the fray, though at one point he said that each of the four candidates should earn Trump’s endorsement.

Over the course of the evening, Trump appeared to be fixated with Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, whom the former president attacked last fall after DeWine called Joe Biden “president-elect” during an appearance on national television.

Trump has yet to endorse in the race, and during the meeting he made no indication that he was backing one candidate over another. The four are running to replace retiring GOP Sen. Rob Portman. The Republican field is also likely to include author J.D. Vance, who was not present Wednesday evening.

During the meeting, Trump asked about the governor and whether he could be defeated in a primary. While Mandel said the governor was politically vulnerable, Timken argued that he’d be hard to beat.

Later in the evening at the fundraiser, the former president polled the attendees on what they thought of their governor. The question at first drew some confusion, given that the event was taking place in Florida whose Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, has been allied with Trump. It soon became clear, however, that he was referring to DeWine.

DeWine has yet to draw a Republican challenger, though Renacci has been mentioned as a possible candidate.

Rabu, 24 Maret 2021

Bernie isn't a fan of Twitter's Trump ban

Don’t count Bernie Sanders as a fan of Twitter’s move to permanently suspend former President Donald Trump.

In an interview with Ezra Klein on Klein’s New York Times podcast, Sanders (I-Vt.) railed against Trump, but said he had reservations about Twitter banning Trump.

“You have a former president in Trump, who is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, a pathological liar, an authoritarian, somebody who doesn’t believe in the rule of law. This is a bad news guy,” Sanders said when asked if liberals have become " too censorious," according to a transcript of the interview. “But if you’re asking me, do I feel particularly comfortable that the president, the then-president of the United States could not express his views on Twitter? I don’t feel comfortable about it.”

Sanders, a progressive senator who has been a frequent critic of big tech and corporations, said that he isn’t sure what the right answer is on how to protect “First Amendment rights without moving this country into a big lie mentality and conspiracy theories.”

“So how do you balance that? I don’t know, but it is an issue that we have got to be thinking about," Sanders said, according to the transcript. "Because of anybody who thinks yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned and tomorrow it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view. So I don’t like giving that much power to a handful of high tech people, but the devil is obviously in the details, and it’s something we’re going to have to think long and hard on.”

Twitter permanently suspended Trump’s personal account after the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence” after Trump repeatedly peddled false claims that the election was stolen from him. Trump allies have slammed Twitter for the move to ban the former president, with some arguing it was "censorship," but few Democrats have questioned the move. In wake of the insurrection, moderate Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) applauded Twitter for its move and others argued it was overdue.

Sanders has previously called for big tech companies like Facebook and Amazon to be broken up. Sanders himself has a prolific Twitter following, with more than 15 million followers on his personal account.

‘This is the moment’: Gun reform movement sees rare opportunity for change

If fallout from the nation’s two most recent mass shootings runs to form, calls for stricter gun laws on the left will meet resistance from the right. Washington will gridlock, and the media will move on.

But the current debate is taking place under an uncommon alignment of the political stars, creating a unique moment in the arc of gun politics. Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress for the first time since 2011. Public polling reflects widespread support for background checks and other gun measures, while the National Rifle Association — a traditional power in Republican Party politics — has been crippled by financial problems and infighting.

For the gun reform movement — a centerpiece of the Democratic Party’s agenda for at least a quarter century — the question this week has become, if not now, when?

“This is the moment,” said Shannon Watts, founder of the advocacy group Moms Demand Action. “The NRA is sidelined by bankruptcy, and we have a gun-sense trifecta in the White House, the Senate and the House.”

The shootings in Boulder, Colo., on Monday and in Georgia last week did not just restart America’s on-again, off-again hostilities over guns. The November election tilted the field in Democrats’ favor. More than after any shooting in the past decade, the party’s response to the killings in Colorado and Georgia will serve as a measure of how much Democrats can achieve when they occupy the commanding heights.

It’s a pivotal moment for gun politics. The history of midterm elections suggests Democrats are at risk of losing the House next year, shrinking their window for legislative victories.

“The time is definitely now,” said Peter Ambler, executive director of the gun control group Giffords. “We can’t wait.”

It’s in no small part due to the changing demographics and voting behavior of Georgia and Colorado that gun reform is on the table in Washington at all. It was the January runoff elections in Georgia, only recently a solidly Republican state, that gave Democrats their functional majority in the Senate.

Colorado, now reliably Democratic after years as a swing state, sent John Hickenlooper to the Senate in November, defeating the Republican incumbent, Cory Gardner, by nearly 10 percentage points. And in Colorado, in particular, there are reasons for Democrats to find optimism in the gun reform movement. Nowhere near a bastion of far-left politics, lawmakers there nevertheless have enacted stricter gun laws in recent years. So had the city of Boulder, where a locally passed assault weapons ban was blocked by a judge earlier this month. Lawmakers are discussing potential legislation in response — to allow cities to enact more stringent gun laws than the state.

Tom Sullivan, a Colorado state lawmaker who sought elected office after his son, Alex, was killed in the Aurora theater shooting in 2012, said the climate surrounding gun legislation has “obviously” shifted — as evidenced by his own election and those of other survivors of victims of gun violence, including Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia, whose teenage son was shot to death in 2012. Gun control was a winning issue for Democrats in some congressional swing districts nationally in the midterm elections in 2018.

“We can run on this issue, and we can win elections on this issue,” Sullivan said. “Quite obviously, the tone has changed.”

Democrats, of course, lack a filibuster-proof majority. And at least one Senate Democrat, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, hails from one of the most pro-gun states in the nation. But even if legislation ultimately fails in Washington, holding a vote on a major gun reform bill could be politically significant ahead of the midterm elections next year. For Democrats, said Floyd Ciruli, a Denver-based pollster, such legislation “would be, at least to some extent, to get a vote on it and be able to use it in suburban districts” in Colorado and across the country.

Still, Colorado is also the state of Lauren Boebert, the gun-toting congresswoman who said after the Boulder shooting that she would not “blame society at large for the sick actions of one man and I will not allow lawbreakers to dictate the rights of law-abiding citizens.” And she is far from alone in her conference. While Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he will force a vote on background checks, the legislation’s prospects of drawing the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster appear dim.

In Colorado as it is nationally, said Dick Wadhams, a former Colorado Republican Party chairman and longtime party strategist, “It’s a complicated issue for both parties.”

“It’s a thorny issue in the suburbs for Republicans,” he said. “It’s a thorny issue for Democrats in the rural areas.”

Gun control, like almost everything else, took a back seat in last year’s elections to concerns about the coronavirus pandemic and then-President Donald Trump’s handling of it. With fewer people gathering, mass shootings were down last year, too.

But as people have begun to re-emerge in public, a gunman killed eight people at three Atlanta-area spas last week. On Monday, a shooter killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder — including at least one person who was in line for a vaccine. And for the first time in a decade, advocates of stricter gun laws had a Democratic president and a Democratic-controlled Congress — though narrowly in the Senate — to turn to.

“As we begin to emerge from Covid, there is this emerging sense of foreboding now among Americans … that what we’re going to return to is going to be constant headlines about gun violence,” Ambler said. “We can’t let that be the American experience. That can’t be how we as a nation emerge from the trauma of Covid. We can’t go reeling from pandemic to epidemic.”

He said, “In some way, shape or form, the Senate as an institution needs to respond to this crisis.”

Mathew Littman, a Democratic strategist and executive director of the gun reform group 97 Percent, said of universal background checks that “it’s ridiculous that it hasn’t happened. Absolutely ridiculous.”

The gun control debate has put more pressure on Democrats to abandon the legislative filibuster in the Senate, broadening the range of constituencies lobbying for the change. Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter was killed in Aurora and who now advocates on behalf of survivors of gun violence, said, “The best thing that can happen right now — the one thing I would give everything up for — is get rid of the filibuster so we can pass some laws.”

But Phillips and other gun control advocates are frustrated not only with the Senate, but with President Joe Biden, who has yet to fulfill a campaign promise to take unilateral action on gun violence. Phillips’ wife, Sandy, said that “we were so hopeful that the president would follow through on his promises on Day 1. And that hasn’t happened.”

A first-hand witness to political difficulties surrounding the issue, Biden was an author of the now-expired assault weapons ban while in the Senate in 1994. Later, as vice president, he assumed an instrumental role in a major push for gun control legislation following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, the failure of which in the Senate marked one of the most significant defeats of President Barack Obama’s second term.

Biden said Tuesday that he does not want to “wait another minute” to address gun violence, calling on Congress to act while his administration considers measures he could take on his own.

If Democrats seizing control of Washington raised the expectations of gun reform advocates, it will also make any defeat that much more painful.

Looking back over 12 years of disappointment on the issue, Lonnie Phillips said, “Obama couldn’t get it done, and of course, Trump made it worse, if that’s possible,” adding that Biden “hasn’t lived up to his promise.”

“Yeah,” he said. “We’re at a frustrating point.”

Selasa, 23 Maret 2021

Eternal gridlock: Exit polls indicate no clear winner in Israeli elections

JERUSALEM — Israeli parliamentary elections on Tuesday resulted in a virtual deadlock for a fourth time in the past two years, exit polls indicated, leaving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with an uncertain future and the country facing the prospect of continued political gridlock.

The exit polls on Israel’s three main TV stations indicated that both Netanyahu and his religious and nationalist allies, along with an anti-Netanyahu group of parties, both fell short of the parliamentary majority required to form a new government. That left Naftali Bennett, leader of the small nationalist Yamina party, as the potential kingmaker, though even that was not certain.

The election was seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s polarizing leadership style, and the initial results showed that the country remains as deeply divided as ever, with an array of small sectarian parties dominating the parliament.

The results also signaled a continuing shift of the Israeli electorate toward the right wing, which opposes concessions in peace talks with the Palestinians, highlighted by the strong showing of an ultranationalist anti-Arab religious party.

Despite the inconclusive results, Netanyahu claimed his Likud party had claimed a “great victory” with fellow right-wing parties.

“It is clear that a clear majority of Israeli citizens are right wing, and they want a strong and stable right wing government that will protect the economy of Israel, security of Israel and land of Israel. This is what we will do,” he said on Facebook.

Exit polls have often been imprecise in the past, meaning the final results, expected in the coming days, could still shift the balance of power. Even if the final results are in line with Tuesday’s exit polls, there is no guarantee that Netanyahu will succeed in putting together a coalition.

Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, said that the initial exit polls indicated the elections were still a very close call.

Even though Netanyahu, who is in the middle of a corruption trial, may manage to build a narrow government, he did not get a license “to overhaul the constitutional makeup of the state,” Plesner said.

“All three options are on the table: a Netanyahu-led government, a change coalition that will leave Netanyahu in the opposition, and an interim government leading to a fifth election,” he said.

Several right-wing parties have vowed never to sit in a government with Netanyahu. And Bennett, a former Netanyahu ally turned harsh critic, refused to endorse either side during the campaign.

Bennett shares Netanyahu’s hard-line nationalist ideology and would seem to be more likely to ultimately join the prime minister. But Bennett has not ruled out joining forces with Netanyahu’s opponents.

In a speech to his supporters, Bennett said he would promote right-wing values in the next government, but failed to endorse Netanyahu and even took several veiled swipes at the prime minister’s leadership style.

“Now is the time for healing,” he said. “What was is not what will be.”

Bennett has indicated he will drive a hard bargain with Netanyahu, demanding senior Cabinet ministries and perhaps even a power-sharing arrangement that includes a stint as prime minister.

In addition, their partners would also include a pair of ultra-Orthodox religious parties and the “Religious Zionists,” a party whose leaders are openly racist and homophobic. One of its leaders, Itamir Ben-Gvir, is a disciple of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Kach party was branded a terrorist group by the U.S. before Kahane was assassinated in New York in 1990.

Relying on the party could be deeply embarrassing for Netanyahu on the international stage, particularly as he tries to court the new Biden administration.

The election campaign was largely devoid of substance and was seen instead as a referendum on Netanyahu’s divisive rule.

During the campaign, Netanyahu emphasized Israel’s highly successful coronavirus vaccination campaign. He moved aggressively to secure enough vaccines for Israel’s 9.3 million people, and in three months the country has vaccinated some 80% of its adult population. That has enabled the government to open restaurants, stores and the airport just in time for election day.

He also tried to portray himself as a global statesman, pointing to the four diplomatic accords he reached with Arab countries last year. Those agreements were brokered by his close ally, then-President Donald Trump.

Netanyahu’s opponents say the prime minister bungled many aspects of the pandemic, particularly by allowing his ultra-Orthodox allies to ignore lockdown rules and fuel a high infection rate for much of the year.

Over 6,000 Israelis have died from Covid-19, and the economy remains in weak shape with double-digit unemployment.

They also point to Netanyahu’s corruption trial, saying someone who is under indictment for serious crimes is not fit to lead the country. Netanyahu has been charged with fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in a series of scandals that he dismisses as a witch hunt by a hostile media and legal system.

Even Netanyahu’s reputation as a statesman has suffered a bit in recent days. The United Arab Emirates, the most important of the four Arab nations to establish official diplomatic ties with Israel, last week made clear that it did not want to be used as part of Netanyahu’s reelection bid after he was forced to call off a visit to the country. The Biden administration also has kept its distance, a contrast to the support he received in past elections from Trump.

Netanyahu’s Likud Party was projected to emerge as the largest individual party, with just over 30 seats in the 120-seat parliament, followed by the centrist opposition party Yesh Atid, with some 17 seats.

The remainder of the parliament would be divided between some 10 other small parties. These range from an Arab party to left-wing secular parties to a pair of secular, right-wing parties.

Altogether, Netanyahu and his allies were projected to control 53 to 54 seats, while his opponents are expected to control some 58 or 59, with Bennett controlling the remainder.