#Re-Elect Judge Cox

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 8, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 09, 2024

Fifty years ago, on August 9, 1974, Richard M. Nixon became the first president in U.S. history to resign.

The road to that resignation began in 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, who was at the time an employee of the RAND Corporation and thus had access to a top-secret Pentagon study of the way U.S. leaders had made decisions about the Vietnam War, leaked that study to major U.S. newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

The Pentagon Papers showed that every president from Harry S. Truman to Lyndon B. Johnson had lied to the public about events in Vietnam, and Nixon worried that “enemies” would follow the Pentagon Papers with a leak of information about his own decision-making to destroy his administration and hand the 1972 election to a Democrat. 

The FBI seemed to Nixon reluctant to believe he was being stalked by enemies. So the president organized his own Special Investigations Unit out of the White House to stop leaks. And who stops leaks? Plumbers. 

The plumbers burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in California, hoping to find something to discredit him, then moved on to bigger targets. Together with the Committee to Re-elect the President (fittingly dubbed CREEP as its activities became known), they planted fake letters in newspapers declaring support for Nixon and hatred for his opponents, spied on Democrats, and hired vendors for Democratic rallies and then scarpered on the bills. Finally, they set out to wiretap the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, in the fashionable Watergate office complex.

Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, Watergate security guard Frank Wills noticed that a door lock had been taped open. He ripped off the tape and closed the door, but on his next round, he found the door taped open again. Wills called the police, who arrested five men ransacking the DNC’s files. 

The White House immediately denounced what it called a “third-rate burglary attempt,” and the Watergate break-in gained no traction before the 1972 election, which Nixon and Vice-President Spiro Agnew won with an astonishing 60.7% of the popular vote. 

But Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two young Washington Post reporters, followed the sloppy money trail back to the White House, and by March 1973 the scheme was unraveling. One of the burglars, James W. McCord Jr., wrote a letter to Judge John Sirica before his sentencing claiming he had lied at his trial to protect government officials. Sirica made the letter public, and White House counsel John Dean immediately began cooperating with prosecutors.

In April, three of Nixon’s top advisors resigned, and in May the president was forced to appoint former solicitor general of the United States Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor to investigate the affair. That same month, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, informally known as the Senate Watergate Committee, began nationally televised hearings. The committee’s chair was Sam Ervin (D-NC), a conservative Democrat who would not run for reelection in 1974 and thus was expected to be able to do the job without political grandstanding.

The hearings turned up the explosive testimony of John Dean, who said he had talked to Nixon about covering up the burglary more than 30 times, but there the investigation sat during the hot summer of 1973 as the committee churned through witnesses. And then, on July 13, 1973, deputy assistant to the president Alexander Butterfield revealed the bombshell news that conversations and phone calls in the Oval Office had been taped since 1971.

Nixon refused to provide copies of the tapes either to Cox or to the Senate committee. When Cox subpoenaed a number of the tapes, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. In the October 20, 1973, “Saturday Night Massacre,” Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, refused to execute Nixon’s order and resigned in protest; it was only the third man at the Justice Department—Solicitor General Robert Bork—who was willing to carry out the order firing Cox.

Popular outrage at the resignations and firing forced Nixon to ask Bork—now acting attorney general—to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a Democrat who had voted for Nixon, on November 1. On November 17, Nixon assured the American people that “I am not a crook.”

Like Cox before him, Jaworski was determined to hear the Oval Office tapes. He subpoenaed a number of them. Nixon fought the subpoenas on the grounds of executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, in U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with the prosecutor, saying that executive privilege “must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that 'the twofold aim (of criminal justice) is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.'... The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts….”

Their hand forced, Nixon’s people released transcripts of the tapes. They were damning, not just in content but also in style. Nixon had cultivated an image of himself as a clean family man, but the tapes revealed a mean-spirited, foul-mouthed bully. Aware that the tapes would damage his image, Nixon had his swearing redacted. “[Expletive deleted]” trended.

In late July 1974, the House Committee on the Judiciary passed articles of impeachment, charging the president with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. Each article ended with the same statement: “In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”

And then, on August 5, in response to a subpoena, the White House released a tape recorded on June 23, 1972, just six days after the Watergate break-in, that showed Nixon and his aide H.R. Haldeman plotting to invoke national security to protect the president. Even Republican senators, who had not wanted to convict their president, knew the game was over. A delegation went to the White House to deliver the news to the president that he must resign or be impeached by the full House and convicted by the Senate.

In his resignation speech, Nixon refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong. Instead, he told the American people he had to step down because he no longer had the support he needed in Congress to advance the national interest. He blamed the press, whose “leaks and accusations and innuendo” had been designed to destroy him. His disappointed supporters embraced the idea that there was a “liberal” conspiracy, spearheaded by the press, to bring down any Republican president.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[zayaanhashistory]

The Watergate Scandal

The Watergate scandal began early in the morning of June 17, 1972, when several burglars were arrested in the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate complex of buildings in Washington, D.C. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught wiretapping phones and stealing documents. Nixon took aggressive steps to cover up the crimes, but when Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein revealed his role in the conspiracy, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. The Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leaders and think more critically about the presidency. 

The origins of the Watergate break-in lay in the hostile political climate of the time. By 1972, when Republican President Richard M. Nixon was running for reelection, the United States was embroiled in the Vietnam War, and the country was deeply divided. A forceful presidential campaign therefore seemed essential to the president and some of his key advisers. Their aggressive tactics included what turned out to be illegal espionage. In May 1972, as evidence would later show, members of Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (known derisively as CREEP) broke into the Democratic National Committee’s Watergate headquarters, stole copies of top-secret documents and bugged the office’s phones. The wiretaps failed to work properly, however, so on June 17 a group of five burglars returned to the Watergate building. As the prowlers were preparing to break into the office with a new microphone, a security guard noticed someone had taped over several of the building’s door locks. The guard called the police, who arrived just in time to catch them red-handed. It was not immediately clear that the burglars were connected to the president, though suspicions were raised when detectives found copies of the reelection committee’s White House phone number among the burglars’ belongings. In August, Nixon gave a speech in which he swore that his White House staff was not involved in the break-in. Most voters believed him, and in November 1972 the president was reelected in a landslide victory. 

It later came to light that Nixon was not being truthful. A few days after the break-in, for instance, he arranged to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars in “hush money” to the burglars. Then, Nixon and his aides hatched a plan to instruct the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to impede the FBI’s investigation of the crime. This was a more serious crime than the break-in: It was an abuse of presidential power and a deliberate obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, seven conspirators were indicted on charges related to the Watergate affair. At the urging of Nixon’s aides, five pleaded guilty to avoid trial; the other two were convicted in January 1973. By that time, a growing handful of people—including Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, trial judge John J. Sirica and members of a Senate investigating committee—had begun to suspect that there was a larger scheme afoot. At the same time, some of the conspirators began to crack under the pressure of the cover-up. Anonymous whistleblower “Deep Throat” provided key information to Woodward and Bernstein. A handful of Nixon’s aides, including White House counsel John Dean, testified before a grand jury about the president’s crimes; they also testified that Nixon had secretly taped every conversation that took place in the Oval Office. If prosecutors could get their hands on those tapes, they would have proof of the president’s guilt. Nixon struggled to protect the tapes during the summer and fall of 1973. His lawyers argued that the president’s executive privilege allowed him to keep the tapes to himself, but Judge Sirica, the Senate committee and an independent special prosecutor named Archibald Cox were all determined to obtain them. 

When Cox refused to stop demanding the tapes, Nixon ordered that he be fired, leading several Justice Department officials to resign in protest. (These events, which took place on October 20, 1973, are known as the Saturday Night Massacre.) Eventually, Nixon agreed to surrender some—but not all—of the tapes. Early in 1974, the cover-up and efforts to impede the Watergate investigation began to unravel. On March 1, a grand jury appointed by a new special prosecutor indicted seven of Nixon’s former aides on various charges related to the Watergate affair. The jury, unsure if they could indict a sitting president, called Nixon an “unindicted co-conspirator.” In July, the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes. While the president dragged his feet, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, criminal cover-up and several violations of the Constitution. 

Finally, on August 5, Nixon released the tapes, which provided undeniable evidence of his complicity in the Watergate crimes. In the face of almost certain impeachment by Congress, Nixon resigned in disgrace on August 8, and left office the following day. Six weeks later, after Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in as president, he pardoned Nixon for any crimes he had committed while in office. Some of Nixon’s aides were not so lucky: They were convicted of very serious offenses and sent to federal prison. Nixon’s Attorney General of the United States John Mitchell served 19 months for his role in the scandal, while Watergate mastermind G. Gordon Liddy, a former FBI agent, served four and a half years. Nixon’s Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman spent 19 months in prison while John Ehrlichman spent 18 for attempting to cover up the break-in. Nixon himself never admitted to any criminal wrongdoing, though he did acknowledge using poor judgment. 

His abuse of presidential power had a long-lasting effect on American political life, creating an atmosphere of cynicism and distrust. While many Americans had been deeply dismayed by the outcome of the Vietnam War, and saddened by the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and other leaders, Watergate added further disappointment to a national climate already soured by the difficulties and losses of the previous decade. 

[judgelonniecox-blog]

Judge Lonnie Cox is the judge of the 56th district Court in Galveston County. Recognized for his dedication and service, he has received two awards from Mothers against Drunk Drivers (MADD) as well as the Texas Gang Investigators Association Damn Good judge Award. Before his legal career, Judge Cox worked for The Lubrizol Corporation, first as an operator and later working his way up to Customer Service Supervisor for two Texas plants.

[lonniecox]

Justice, commitment towards society, and efficiency are what Judge Lonnie Cox is known for. He is the 56th judge of Galveston County in Texas, USA elected in the year 2004. His duties towards the people of the Galveston community are to facilitate the trials and promote justice among the community whose Judge he is being elected.

[judge-lonnie-cox]

Lonnie Cox Galveston - Re-Elect Judge Cox

Judge Lonnie Cox is the judge of the 56th District Court in Galveston County.  The duties of the 56th District Court are to promote justice and to facilitate the scheduling of trials and the disposal of cases through trials or agreements.

 Elected in 2004, Judge Cox has been committed to serving his community with three goals; efficient justice, following the law, and keeping our community safe.

 Before becoming a judge, Judge Cox was an Assistant Criminal District Attorney for Galveston County for over 10 years, with assignments as Chief Felony Prosecutor and Chief of Misdemeanor.  As an Assistant District Attorney, he tried over 50 jury trials before his election to the bench.

 Before his legal career, Judge Cox worked for the Lubrizol Corporation, first as an operator and later working his way up to Customer Service Supervisor for two Texas plants.  Before Lubrizol, he was a musician with the Calgary Philharmonic, the Houston Symphony, the Houston Grand Opera, and the Houston Ballet.  While working a full-time job and raising a family, he received a Master of Business Administration from Houston Baptist University and a Doctorate of Jurisprudence for the University of Houston Law School. He also has a Bachelor of Music Education from the University of Houston.

 Recognized for his dedication and service, he has received two awards from Mothers against Drunk Drivers (MADD) as well as the Texas Gang Investigators Association Damn Good judge Award.  Judge Cox has a long history of service to his community as well. He has served as President of Communities in Schools, a director of the Galveston Employees Credit Union, President of the Kiwanis Club, President of the Rotary Club, President of the Optimist Club, President of the Gideon’s Camp, is currently the Vice President of M I Lewis Social Services, a member of the Propeller Club, Galveston Beach Band, and is a Deacon and Sunday School Teacher at South Main Baptist Church.

 He is also a member of numerous professional organizations.  He is a member of the State Bar of Texas, Texas Board of Legal Specializations in Criminal Law, the College of the State Bar of Texas, a graduate of the Texas Judicial College, the Galveston Bar Association (where he served as a Director and Secretary), the Pro Bono Committee for the years 2002 and 2003, the Judicial Section of the Texas State Bar, Chair of the Galveston County Community Supervision and Correction Board, Director of the Galveston County Juvenile Probation Board, member of the Advisory Board for Rules for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  Judge Cox has been appointed twice as an MDL (Multi-District Litigation) Master (handling over 40,000 cases in addition to his regular case load).  Judge Cox has also been a visiting Judge on the 1st Court of Appeals.

 Judge Cox’s long list of accomplishments and multiple organizations with which he is affiliated have given him many life experiences which have helped him serve his community as Judge of the 56th District Court. His experiences and working with people in the private sector have given him a special insight and have taught him to be fair and courteous to all people.  He recognizes an even greater need when people are experiencing the stress of legal proceedings.  His courtroom is dedicated to maintaining those ideals.

 With his multiple years of experience in the courtroom, having the advantage of being involved in trying cases as Assistant District Attorney, and having the perspective of being on both sides of the bench, Judge Cox knows the importance of having an efficient courtroom that allows justice without unnecessary delay.  His experiences have shown him how to effectively move cases so that a fair and just outcome is achieved for all parties involved.  It’s that commitment that leads to effective outcomes.

 His involvement in the community has shown him every day how we must all work together for a safer community.  Judge Lonnie Cox understands how important a safe community is for the hard-working citizens of Galveston County and is dedicated to continuing his long record of working towards and achieving that goal.  He works and volunteers with multiple organizations with the goal of strengthening those ties to the community.  Local Police Chiefs and Law Enforcement Associations have routinely supported and continue to support Judge Cox and his fair but firm stance against crime.

 But, that goal cannot be achieved without your help.  The upcoming election that will be held on Tuesday, November 3rd, is critical.  Good, dedicated public servants like Judge Lonnie Cox will need your vote at the ballot box.  There are many important dates to observe in anticipation of Election Day.  Here are a few to keep in mind.  If you have not requested your ballot by mail, and are eligible to do so, PLEASE APPLY NOW!  Also, please note that if you are not currently registered to vote, the last day you can register is October 5, 2020.  The first day to vote early by personal appearance is Monday, October 19, 2020, and you can vote early at any Galveston Early Voting Center until the last day of Early Voting on Friday, October 30, 2020.

 There are many reasons to get out the vote on November 3rd and cast your ballot for Judge Lonnie Cox.  We need to keep experienced, dedicated judges that are concerned about what’s best for the citizens of Galveston.  We need courts that are run efficiently and justly.  Judge Lonnie Cox has a proven record of excellence serving in that position.

 But, most of all, Judge Cox is proud to be married to Alison and a proud father to six children, grandfather to 11, and great-grandfather to seven.  Both personally and professionally, his dedication and hard work have helped and contributed to making Galveston County a safer place for everyone.  Efficient justice, fairness to all concerned, following the law, and keeping the community safe – goals that have been the focus of Judge Cox’s service.

[jan-uinely]

hot takes continued

here we go. season 12 episode 12. 

so. it’s time to chit chat about drag race. if u dont like my opinions sry. 

this is gonna get bigger than one episode or one season. this is meta drag race. 

but first i guess the episode. right. so. obviously it was a “musical” so obviously i wanted to see jan sing and obviously she did not. I do think that this challenge [not necessarily placed in this episode] would have been a great time to do a like returning queens. but i digress.

i think that it was a little muddled. like it wasn't like any of the “girl group” numbers where it’s just the verse and chorus. all of the verses were placed in different spots throughout the show. I also think it’s ironic that this whole episode is to promote this live vegas show which is obviously not happening right now. but alas. 

i agree with bob in that i liked jackie’s verse the best. 

i did not love gigi’s outfit in the challenge. you couldn't make out the heart as easily bc the red was all the same color. I also think the material used was too chunky- it was quilted. i would have rather had the heart be quilted, not have a corset underneath it, and have the rest of the top part not be quilted. i thought it was a good concept but i would have preferred different #choices. i also would have rather the hair been straight instead of curled.

i did not have a huge issue w crystal’s orange and green outfit. i also appreciated the callback stars and stripes hair. though maybe not together?

jaida was good as per usual. i want her to win, but we will get to that later. 

also let us note the basketball wives hair that made a comeback [gigi, jackie]

runway time.

crystal and ******’s outfits did not fit the way i wanted them too, and the problems were both in the hips. when i saw them i thought the hips should be exaggerated, but instead they both looked weirdly deflated. and crystal’s torso section could have been brought in. [i did see on instagram that the person who made crystal’s look [casey caldwell who is a nyc based designer, works w a lot of neoprene/thick materials- just look up on instagram caseyyalater] actually made it for dragcon and crystal bought it right there, so it wasn’t tailored] 

in the dior v dior battle, i thought gigi won. jackie’s dress was just i think a little too large [not in terms of tailoring, in terms of diameter] but it was very jackie

gigi said that her outfit was quintessential gigi, which i think it interesting bc if you look up showgirls performances, it very much is. however in terms of the character portrayed on drag race i didn’t think it was. it was very well made, etc. but it just didn’t fit the “perfectionist trope” of the show. 

jaida is once again wearing a gown with a presequinned fabric, which i am not mad at. it is quintessential jaida. 

critiques. 

again ooh we have to nitpick bc we accidentally cast too many winners on this season blah blah blah. i was not a fan of when they said oh well we will have to look at report cards. as if they didnt intentionally load up gigi and ****** with wins at the start of the show. 

and then it’s like oh well jackie and crystal have to lip sync blah blah blah. and you know that jackie is going home. bc the judges absolutely love crystal, all because of that mullet. 

to quote bob “I used to be really upset at queens who won the judges with their personality” and that is still mostly true for me. i don’t think her placement is unjust or whatever, but like if ru didn’t like the mullet, she would not have been given the confidence boost to turn her trajectory around, compared to jackie and widow and jan, who did most things right but just were not rupaul’s fave, and must have had a much more difficult time mentally on the show. 

and FWIW heidi falls into this category as well. race chaser i think said it - all of her success comes from ru’s ideas. and being naturally funny and charismatic and having ru like you as a person is a huge gift and huge talent, but the inability to wrangle it...  that being said i think she deserves the world and will grow [and has already grown] from this experience.

and the thing is that crystal also keeps going back to the same stuff which could have been funny if the episodes were more than one apart or if she didn't do it twice in one episode but. idk. 

now, who will win, who should win, hmm hmm hmm. tbh i don’t think it will be crystal. they just crowned the oddball and they like to mix it up, or at least try to. also why looking at the history of dusted or busted scores [and s/o to jan for coming in @ 4 [after the disqualification]] crystal is at a 2, and bebe won with the lowest score at a 3 [w 2nd and 3rd place at 4 and 5], and that was in season 1, which was a whole other ballgame. leaving us with jaida and gigi. i am team jaida. i think that she is much more developed as an artist and performer than gigi, and I think that she will bring us something new.

[here comes the meta part]

the title is america’s next drag superstar. and i think in the beginning of the show, they decided that that had to mean something new and exciting, something that pushed the boundaries of what drag could be [which is rly ironic coming from them but]. which has developed this culture of what is the formula to be successful on drag race. and some people were more overt about this [jan] and some people were more subtle about this [gigi and jackie]. 

but for some reason, the [Black] pageant queens will make it to the top and then never win. - and they’ve had overt conversations regarding pageants and pageant culture on the show before - but balls and pageants were like the building blocks of drag culture in the us [from what i understand]. so inherently that means it’s no longer “new” and exciting. but the thing is that so many of these fashion [/nyc] queens work so exclusively with these high end designers to produce these looks [i think bob said it can cost like 10K to prep all your stuff for drag race] and with that the ability to design and sew falls away. 

and i think that is reflected in the challenges and how they have changed. this season there was one design challenge. and that is just so disappointing to me bc i think the design challenges really separate who has a full understanding of their persona and who does not. 

and with fewer and fewer design challenges, you have more and more designer items, and the ability to create something has fallen to the wayside. personally [and i will probably make another post about this later] i want to bring back the design challenges in one of two ways. 1. have an all designers season. where drag designers work to make elaborate costumes based on a prompt and given certain materials. bc on the show designers are not credited as much [that part comes on instagram]. 2. i want to have a drag race blank slate competition. where contestants audition and are given a list of prompts but cannot bring anything except like a notebook. no prepared outfits. you can sketch designs to the prompts, but all the materials are provided. contestants still have a main challenge and a runway, but rather than 2 days, they are given a full week to execute the challenge and the outfit. this would totally change the game in my mind. like one you wouldn't have to have money or take out loans to compete, you could just come and show who you are. and two the audience could see more of what goes into this stuff. AND if drag race really wants to feed us, they could do like a wed. ep and a friday ep. to spread things out. 

my favorite challenges are design challenges, and while i think the first challenge this season gave us a better introduction to who the contestants are, the design challenge is a really good thing to have at the front. 

i do think that if they had not had the debate that there would have been another design challenge in the mix, but bc it was an election year. 

anyways, i want jaida to win bc she’s excellent at what she does. and at this point there is something new and exciting about making all your own clothes and being polished and knowing who you are.  and tbh gigi doesn’t bring anything new to the table. sure the ability to sew and design is good, but compared to aquaria and violet the designs were not as diverse or inventive. on top of that, the fact that gigi is outwardly apolitical [and doesn’t understand the connotation of “privilege” in today’s times] is just not a good look. I also think that it is interesting that gigi came in as the look queen but actually did better in the acting challenges. 

idk my main takeaway is that gigi is really really good at playing other people, and with that comes a lack of self awareness. striving so hard to be perfect can come at the cost of not knowing who you are as an artist. like gigi’s brand is literally “im that bitch/bitch” which again, just isn’t what i want in a winner. 

and tbh the gigi bug bit early but ended when ru gave her the win on the madonna episode. [i will say that jackie could have won snatch game but tbh i was annoyed w her for being a little dickish to the safe girls that week [though what she said was totally understandable] and also i <3 jackie cox [and chelsea piers we stan chelsea piers in this house] i think there is something so gr8 abt being a nerd and being prepared and being on brand about it. also jackie is always the one to hop on the dolls’ lives and comment their venmo. hashtag cool aunt jackie. [though that here for cox t-shirt and the promo photos make me uncomfy though i get it]]

re jackie coming back to complete the top 4... IDK it’s nice and all but they've already established that they don’t want her to win- otherwise she would not have been eliminated. 

also in my mind there are only 12 places so jan actually came in 7, widow 6, heidi 5, jackie 4. 

anyways these are my thoughts. as usual, raw and unedited. 

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

This story was produced in collaboration with ABC News and Ballotpedia.1

On the afternoon of July 18, President Trump tweeted his “full and total endorsement” of Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a candidate in the state’s closely matched Republican gubernatorial primary runoff. Kemp’s opponent, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, had strong conservative chops — he enjoyed the endorsement of the National Rifle Association and the support of popular outgoing Republican Gov. Nathan Deal. But after the president’s tweet, the race began to look very different. Within days, Kemp surged in the polls and won in a landslide.

The Republican Party is a coalition of overlapping factions — pro-business types, libertarians, evangelicals, populists, single-issue advocates and more — but to whom does it really belong? To many, the answer is clear: Donald J. Trump. And the success of Trump-endorsed candidates in the Republican primaries this year seems to bear that out — but, according to our research, that’s only part of the story.

Between Feb. 27 and Sept. 13,2 774 people appeared on the ballot this year in “open” Republican primaries — those with no Republican incumbent3 — for Senate, House and governor. Like we did with Democrats earlier this year, FiveThirtyEight, Ballotpedia and ABC News teamed up to look at every single one of those candidates and see which GOP-affiliated people and organizations supported which candidates. Using campaigns’ financial filings, endorsement information from various interest groups and, of course, Trump tweets, we attempted to quantify which wing of today’s Republican Party best reflects the preferences and mood of rank-and-file voters.4 Here are some of the biggest takeaways.

Almost all candidates Trump endorsed won their primaries

How candidates endorsed by selected people and groups fared in open Republican primaries for Senate, House and governor in 2018

Candidates endorsed Total Winners Share that won Donald Trump 17 15 88% Koch network 21 18 86 Republican Main Street Partnership 17 11 65 Chamber of Commerce 8 5 63 Tea Party Express 16 10 63 Club for Growth 21 13 62 National Republican Congressional Cmte. 41 28 62 National Rifle Association 14 8 57 Susan B. Anthony List 23 12 52 House Freedom Fund 14 7 50 No Labels 2 1 50 Right to Life 74 33 45

Open races are those that do not feature a Republican incumbent.

Sources: Ballotpedia, secretaries of state, Associated Press, candidate websites, listed organizations’ websites, Federal Election Commission, Twitter, news reports

The Trump card

Let’s start with the kingpin of the Republican Party, the president himself. Trump endorsed 17 candidates in open Republican primaries this election cycle, and 15 of them won. That 88 percent win rate is the highest of any person or group we looked at. In early August, Trump tweeted, “As long as I campaign and/or support Senate and House candidates (within reason), they will win!” It was a bit of an exaggeration, but his success rate has certainly been high so far.

But the evidence is mixed on how much credit Trump deserves for actually driving those primary wins. On the plus side for Trump, in the GOP primary for Florida governor, state Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam led in most polls before June 22 — but then Trump tweeted his full endorsement of then-U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (who resigned from the House this month). DeSantis surged into the lead, and he topped practically every poll the rest of the way. On the other hand, in California’s gubernatorial primary, Republican John Cox polled about equally well both before and after receiving Trump’s endorsement. Cox averaged 16.5 percent support among voters of all parties — in California primaries, candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot5 — in four polls taken the month before Trump’s May 18 endorsement. Cox averaged 17.7 percent in three polls taken after the president’s endorsement.6 But the role Trump played in the Georgia gubernatorial primary is less clear-cut: We have some evidence that some, but not all, of Kemp’s rise was due to Trump. An Opinion Savvy poll that happened to be in the field when the president gave his endorsement found that Kemp was already outperforming his previous polling even before Trump tweeted.7 But the same poll also found that Kemp polled even better after Trump’s endorsement.

Trump’s win rate may also be inflated by the type of candidate he endorses. For example, several of the candidates he endorsed didn’t face truly competitive primary opposition, including U.S. Senate candidates Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Mitt Romney, who is running in Utah. Other candidates he backed are less firebrands in Trump’s own image and more straitlaced establishment types with broad appeal. Trump has repeatedly cautioned Republican primary voters to “remember Alabama” — where a Republican Senate candidate lost to a Democrat in a deep-red state after the GOP nominee was embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal involving minors — and vote for a candidate who can win a general election.

The old guard

But the Republican establishment isn’t leaving it all up to Trump. For example, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program steers donors toward the GOP’s strongest candidates in swing congressional districts by naming them to any level of their “Young Guns” program.8 The NRCC named 63 candidates to their Young Guns program; 39 advanced to the general election, for a 62 percent win rate. One caveat, multiple candidates running in the same district can be named to Young Guns. This lowers the NRCC’s win rate because only one GOP candidate per race appears on the general election ballot in most states. We couldn’t find any endorsements from the NRCC’s Senate counterpart.

A handful of groups that explicitly endorse more moderate or pragmatic Republicans have also had some success this cycle. The pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its state-level affiliates endorsed eight candidates in open Republican primaries; five of them won, for a win rate of 63 percent. The moderate Republican Main Street Partnership, which styles itself as the “governing wing of the Republican Party,” had a 65 percent win rate (11 wins out of 17 endorsements). And the bipartisan centrist group No Labels had a better record in Republican primaries than it did in Democratic ones: The two Democrats the group endorsed both lost, but of the two Republicans No Labels explicitly supported, one prevailed.9

The conservative diehards

But the establishment wing’s endorsements were frequently at odds with those of an old nemesis: tea party-style conservatives. Starting in 2010, hard-right Republicans won primaries under the banner of the tea party movement, and a number went on to win their general elections as well; today, many of those successful tea partiers wield significant influence as members of the House Freedom Caucus, and together they have successfully shifted legislation to the right in recent years. But despite this faction’s success in Congress, its popularity with the public is dwindling: Support for the movement peaked at 32 percent in 2010 but had fallen to 17 percent by 2015. Perhaps as a result, the Tea Party Express — one of the original and most influential organizing groups of the tea party movement — today issues fewer endorsements than it has in the past.10 But according to our data, the relatively small group of candidates backed by the Tea Party Express didn’t do too badly. They won 10 out of 16, or 63 percent, of open Republican primaries they ran in this year. The House Freedom Fund — the unofficial electoral counterpart of the House Freedom Caucus — did a bit worse, endorsing 14 candidates, seven of whom ended up winning (50 percent). In a trend that may indicate Americans are losing interest in the tea party, the House Freedom Fund lost six of the eight primaries in which it went head-to-head with the Republican Main Street Partnership.

Although the tea party appears to have largely gone out of style, we’d be remiss if we didn’t look at the endorsements of the individual power brokers most closely associated with the movement: the Koch brothers. Charles Koch (his brother David has retired) and groups affiliated with the Koch family, like Americans for Prosperity, continue to spend money and political capital on candidates who support their limited-government priorities. And it looks like they still have plenty left in the tank: This year, the Koch political network backed 21 candidates, 86 percent of whom won their races. That’s especially interesting given the Kochs’ opposition to Trump’s trade policies and Trump’s public feud with the brothers. In fact, Trump has bragged on Twitter that the Kochs’ “network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn.” But at least in the open primaries we looked at, the two have not supported opposing candidates this year. By contrast, they’ve actually supported the same candidates in eight open races.11

The issue scorecard

Since its founding in 1999, the Club for Growth hasn’t been shy about spending money to elect fervently anti-tax Republicans. (The group says it is “focused on conservative economic policy, and does not take positions on social issues or on the immigration/borders debate.”) We identified 21 candidates endorsed by the Club for Growth; 62 percent of them won their races. That makes the club roughly as successful as the Tea Party Express, whose goals and endorsements often overlap with the Club for Growth’s.

The NRA is currently more popular among Republicans than it has been at any point since Gallup began asking Americans about it in 1989; 88 percent of Republicans have a positive view of the group. Puzzlingly, however, candidates who won the NRA’s endorsement in this year’s primaries are finding only middling success. The NRA endorsed 14 candidates in open Republican races, but only eight — or 57 percent — won.

If Republicans have an equivalent of Emily’s List, which strives to elect pro-choice Democratic women, it’s the Susan B. Anthony List. Its mission is to elect pro-life politicians, especially women. But if Republican primary voters are driven by the issue of abortion, it’s not showing up in the Susan B. Anthony List’s track record. The group has a win rate of just 52 percent (12 wins out of 23 candidates). The batting average of National Right to Life,12 another anti-abortion advocacy organization, is even worse — 45 percent, or 33 out of 74 — despite endorsing more than three times as many candidates.

So what have we learned? Generally, it doesn’t look like Republicans are single-issue voters or care much about identity politics; the Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life and the NRA had some of the lowest win rates of any group we analyzed. The conservative purists endorsed by the likes of the Tea Party Express and Club for Growth have fared about as well as the pragmatists backed by the likes of the Republican Main Street Partnership and the NRCC, although the House Freedom Fund is performing notably worse than other purists and the Koch network is performing notably better. (Perhaps access to money explains why the Koch network has outperformed the House Freedom Fund.) But the candidates with the best chance of success are currently those who have attracted the support of the president — so, in whichever direction the causation may run, an endorsement from Trump himself remains the most valuable prize in a Republican primary.

[newstfionline]

Friday, October 1, 2021

Federal agencies are still dealing with pandemic backlogs. A shutdown could make delays worse. (Washington Post) The threat of a partial government shutdown this week comes as several federal agencies are still battling to dig out from pandemic backlogs. The Internal Revenue Service is struggling to serve taxpayers 18 months after the pandemic sidelined thousands of employees. Close to a half-million immigrants are on a State Department list to schedule interviews for their visa applications—and the wait for a passport is now as long as 16 weeks. Thousands of documents for Social Security benefits lay unprocessed this summer in field offices where in-person service has been suspended since March 2020, the agency’s watchdog recently found. A shutdown would magnify these delays and further weaken services that the pandemic has hobbled while many federal offices have remained closed or with limited operations during the public health crisis, employees and experts on the federal government said Tuesday—even if the closure were brief. “It’s burning down the house in the middle of a blizzard,” said Max Stier, president and chief executive of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. “It’s going to make what’s hard even harder.” / Later: With only hours to spare, Congress passed legislation that would avoid a partial federal shutdown and keep the government funded through Dec. 3, and sent the bill to President Joe Biden.

Health workers once saluted as heroes now get threats (AP) More than a year after U.S. health care workers on the front lines against COVID-19 were saluted as heroes with nightly clapping from windows and balconies, some are being issued panic buttons in case of assault and ditching their scrubs before going out in public for fear of harassment. Across the country, doctors and nurses are dealing with hostility, threats and violence from patients angry over safety rules designed to keep the scourge from spreading. Cox Medical Center Branson in Missouri started giving panic buttons to up to 400 nurses and other employees after assaults per year tripled between 2019 and 2020 to 123, a spokeswoman said. One nurse had to get her shoulder X-rayed after an attack. In Idaho, nurses said they are scared to go to the grocery store unless they have changed out of their scrubs so they aren’t accosted by angry residents. Doctors and nurses at a Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, hospital have been accused of killing patients by grieving family members who don’t believe COVID-19 is real, said hospital spokeswoman Caiti Bobbitt. Others have been the subject of hurtful rumors spread by people angry about the pandemic. Across the U.S., the COVID-19 crisis has caused people to behave badly toward one another in a multitude of ways. Several people have been shot to death in disputes over masks in stores and other public places. Shouting matches and scuffles have broken out at school board meetings. A brawl erupted earlier this month at a New York City restaurant over its requirement that customers show proof of vaccination.

Los Angeles moves toward barring the unvaccinated from most businesses (Reuters) Los Angeles officials on Wednesday signaled they would vote next week to prohibit unvaccinated people from entering most businesses in the United States’ second-largest city, one of the nation’s most severe crackdowns so far of the COVID-19 pandemic. All but one of the City Council members present on Wednesday said they supported the proposed “emergency” ordinance, which would require proof of vaccination to enter restaurants, bars, shopping centers, gyms and other indoor spaces. If the proposal is approved next week, as expected, Los Angeles would join San Francisco and New York among major U.S. cities requiring proof of vaccination for indoor businesses. The new rule would take effect in November. Political leaders across the United States, led by Democratic President Joe Biden, have ratcheted up pressure on the unvaccinated in recent weeks. Laws requiring proof of vaccinations are deeply controversial in the United States, with many Americans criticizing them as unconstitutional and authoritarian.

From paints to plastics, a chemical shortage ignites prices (AP) In an economy upended by the coronavirus, shortages and price spikes have hit everything from lumber to computer chips. Not even toilet paper escaped. Now, they’re cutting into one of the humblest yet most vital links in the global manufacturing supply chain: The plastic pellets that go into a vast universe of products ranging from cereal bags to medical devices, automotive interiors to bicycle helmets. Like other manufacturers, petrochemical companies have been shaken by the pandemic and by how consumers and businesses responded to it. Yet petrochemicals, which are made from oil, have also run into problems all their own, one after another: A freak winter freeze in Texas. A lightning strike in Louisiana. Hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. All have conspired to disrupt production and raise prices. The price of polyvinyl chloride or PVC, used for pipes, medical devices, credit cards, vinyl records and more, has rocketed 70%. The price of epoxy resins, used for coatings, adhesives and paints, has soared 170%. Ethylene—arguably the world’s most important chemical, used in everything from food packaging to antifreeze to polyester—has surged 43%.

Hurricane Ida devastation lingers in Louisiana a month later (AP) The land on which Audrey Trufant Salvant’s home sits in the small Louisiana town of Ironton has become an island in a sea of mud and snake-infested marsh grass. Nearby houses are disconnected from their foundations, a refrigerator is lodged sideways in a tree, and dozens of caskets and tombs from two nearby cemeteries are strewn across lawns for blocks. The entire town is without power and running water. A month after Hurricane Ida roared ashore with 150-mph (241-kph) winds, communities all along the state’s southeastern coast—Ironton, Grand Isle, Houma, Lafitte and Barataria—are still suffering from the devastating effects of the Category 4 storm. Many, like Trufant Salvant, are bunking with relatives until they can get back into their homes. Others are staying in hotels or have left the state, she said. Some residents have returned to pick up what few belongings may have survived the flood, but she says they aren’t finding much to salvage—the storm surge generated by Ida rose as high as some homes’ rooftops. “The day that they allowed folks to come back in here, it was like a funeral,” she said. “Everybody was just heartbroken, because we had seen devastation before ... but we had never seen anything like this.”

More than 100 killed in Ecuadoran prison riot as gangs fight for control (Washington Post) More than 100 prison inmates have been killed and dozens more injured this week in one of the deadliest prison riots in Ecuador’s history amid a turf war between gangs. The violence erupted around 9:30 a.m. Tuesday as gangs exchanged gunfire and explosives in their battle for control of one of the units in the main prison in Guayaquil, police said. At least five of the slain inmates were decapitated, Gen. Fausto Buenaño, a regional police commander, said Tuesday night. At least 52 others were injured. On Wednesday afternoon, the country’s director of prisons said that 40 people had been confirmed dead but that authorities had discovered dozens more bodies in one of the prison units. Tuesday’s riot came two months after a similar wave of violence broke out in two of the country’s prisons, including the same Guayaquil penitentiary, killing 22 inmates and prompting Ecuador’s president to declare a state of emergency in the prison system. With the more than 100 deaths in this week’s riots, the death toll in Ecuador’s prisons has surpassed 221 this year, violence that has been growing steadily since 2018, according to the country’s Ombudsman’s Office. More than 103 inmates were killed in 2020.

Lava from La Palma eruption finally reaches the Atlantic (AP) A bright red river of lava from the volcano on Spain’s La Palma island finally tumbled over a cliff and into the Atlantic Ocean, setting off huge plumes of steam and possibly toxic gases that forced local residents outside the evacuation zone to remain indoors on Wednesday. The immediate area had been evacuated for several days as authorities waited for the lava that began erupting Sept. 19 to traverse the 6½ kilometers (four miles) to the island’s edge. On the way down from the Cumbre Vieja volcanic ridge, the lava flows have engulfed at least 656 buildings, mostly homes and farm buildings, in its unstoppable march to the sea. The meeting of molten rock and sea water finally came at 11 p.m. on Tuesday. By daybreak, a widening promontory of newborn land could be seen forming under plumes of steam rising high into the area. Even though initial air quality reading showed no danger in the area, experts had warned that the arrival of the lava at the ocean would likely produce small explosions and release toxic gases that could damage lungs.

France’s Sarkozy found guilty of illegally financing 2012 election bid (Reuters) Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was found guilty of illegal campaign financing over his failed 2012 re-election bid by a Paris court on Thursday. It was the second guilty verdict this year for Sarkozy, who led France from 2007 to 2012 and retains influence among conservatives despite falling from grace over his legal woes. The court was yet to say what sentence he would receive. Prosecutors were seeking a one-year prison sentence, half of it suspended, for the 66-year old former president. He is in any case unlikely to go to jail immediately as he would be expected to appeal the sentence. Sarkozy was found guilty in a separate trial in March of trying to bribe a judge and peddle influence in order to obtain confidential information on a judicial inquiry. The former president was sentenced to three years in jail in that trial—two of which were suspended—but has not actually spent time in prison yet, while his appeal is pending.

Talibanning Women From Rights (ABC News/NPR) Afghan women and girls are nearly half the country’s 40 million population, and Western nations have been clear in calling on the Taliban to respect women’s rights. But in just over a month, the policies being implemented are becoming ever more repressive. The group named an all-male Cabinet and prohibited women from returning to work, claiming security concerns. A handful of women-led protests against Taliban rules faced violent crackdowns in Kabul and other cities. Some 120,000 female educators and nearly 14,000 female health care workers haven’t been paid their salaries for the past two to three months, and 16,000 female teachers have been prohibited from teaching high school. Earlier this month, women were told they could continue their studies in universities; however, certain subjects were off limits, classrooms would be gender-segregated, and Islamic dress was compulsory. Then, on Tuesday, the Taliban-appointed 34-year-old chancellor of Kabul University started a fresh firestorm when he tweeted that until there is a safe Islamic environment, “women will not be allowed to come to universities or work.”

Ethiopia expels UN officials amid Tigray blockade pressure (AP) Ethiopia said Thursday it is kicking out seven United Nations officials whom it accused of “meddling” in the country’s internal affairs, as pressure grows on the government over its deadly blockade of the Tigray region. The expulsions are the government’s most dramatic move yet to restrict humanitarian access to the region of 6 million people after nearly a year of war. The U.N. has become increasingly outspoken as the flow of medical supplies, food and fuel has been brought to a near-halt. Ethiopia’s government has accused humanitarian workers of supporting the Tigray forces who have been fighting its soldiers and allied forces since November. Aid workers have denied it. Thousands of people have died in the conflict marked by gang rapes, mass expulsions and the destruction of health centers, with witnesses often blaming Ethiopian soldiers and those of neighboring Eritrea. The U.N.’s humanitarian chief, Martin Griffiths, this week told The Associated Press that the crisis in Ethiopia is a “stain on our conscience” as children and others starve to death in Tigray under what the U.N. calls a de facto government blockade. Just 10% of needed humanitarian supplies have been reaching Tigray in recent weeks, he said.

[statetalks]

How Should Republicans Vote In California

Sign Up For The Weeds Newsletter

California Primary 2020: Why independents can vote for Democrats, but not for Republicans

Voxs German Lopez is here to guide you through the Biden administrations burst of policymaking. .

A Republican win would havemajor implications for the states pandemic response policies over the next year . But the biggest consequence could be national: The United States Senate is divided 50-50, and the oldest senator is 88-year-old Dianne Feinstein of California. If she were to die in office, as , Californias governor would choose her replacement and a Republican governor could flip control of the Senate to Mitch McConnells GOP.

Democrats are optimistic that all of these challenges will be overcome, and that the fundamental partisan dynamics of California will reassert themselves and save Newsom. Most polls show Newsom narrowly leading on the recall question. But that outcome can hardly be taken for granted. In oddly-timed elections, weird things can happen, as Democrats learned when Scott Brown won a Massachusetts Senate seat in January 2010, or as Republicans learned from Doug Joness Alabama Senate seat victory in December 2017.

So there is a possible slow-motion disaster unfolding in California for Democrats but theres also still time for them to avert it, if they can communicate the stakes to their base voters.

What Happens After Sept 14

Counties can begin releasing results on election night at 8 p.m.;

Like other elections in California, the race may not be decided on election night if there are still a large number of outstanding mail-in ballots.;

Counties must finish counting ballots and certify their results by Oct. 14. The Secretary of State will certify the results on Oct. 22. If the governor is recalled, he will need to vacate the office by that date and the winning replacement candidate will be sworn in.;

If Newsom is recalled, his replacement will finish the rest of his term, which ends in early 2023. They would have to run for re-election in 2022 if they want to stay in office after that.

What Do Party Preferences Mean When Listed With Candidates’ Names On The Ballot What Are The Qualified Political Parties And Abbreviations Of Those Party Names

The term “party preference” is now used in place of the term “party affiliation.” A candidate must indicate his or her preference or lack of preference for a qualified political party. If the candidate has a qualified political party preference that qualified political party will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot. If a candidate does not have a qualified political party preference, “Party Preference: None” will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot.

Similarly, voters who were previously known as “decline-to-state” voters are now known as having “no party preference” or known as “NPP” voters.

Abbreviations for the qualified political parties are:

DEM = Democratic Party

You May Like: Who Controls The House Of Representatives Republicans Or Democrats

How Are Primary Elections Conducted In California

All candidates for voter-nominated offices are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election regardless of party preference – move on to the general election. Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can only run in the primary election. A write-in candidate will only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election.

Prior to the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, the top vote-getter from each qualified political party, as well as any write-in candidate who received a certain percentage of votes, moved on to the general election.

The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committee, or local office.

Who Can Run In A Recall

Candidates to replace the governor must be U.S. citizens registered to vote in California, and must pay a filing fee of about $4,000 or submit signatures from 7,000 supporters. They cannot be convicted of certain felonies, and they cannot be the governor up for recall. They have until 59 days before the election to file.

The ballot asks voters two questions: Should the governor be recalled? And if so, who should be the new governor? If the majority of voters say no to the first question, the second is moot. But if more than 50 percent vote yes, the challenger with the most votes becomes the next governor.Critics of the recall contend this is a major flaw because 49.9 percent of the voters could theoretically vote to keep Mr. Newsom, and he could still lose and be replaced by a challenger whose plurality makes up a far smaller sliver of voters. A legal challenge to this effect is pending in federal court in Los Angeles.

The 2003 winner, Mr. Schwarzenegger, had only 48.6 percent of the vote.

Don’t Miss: What Are The Views Of Republicans

Newsom Has Been Hit With A Perfect Storm Of Bad Timing

At any given moment, there are always recall petitions circulating against every California governor. But they generally fail to obtain the number needed to secure a ballot line in the limited time made available . The Republicans who began a recall drive against Newsom because of his generally progressive views got very lucky in two respects. First, a state judge gave them a four-month extension of the qualification deadline because of the difficulties in signature collection created by the COVID-19 pandemic, which was a bit ironic since Newsoms support for COVID-19 prevention policies soon became central to the recall campaign.

But what really sent the campaign into overdrive was a gaffe committed by the governor on November 6, 2020, when he violated his own policies restricting indoor gatherings by attending a birthday party for a wealthy lobbyist friend at one of the states most exclusive restaurants, the French Laundry, in the Napa wine region. Aside from Republicans, small-business owners and public-school parents who were already chafing at Newsoms stay-at-home orders and restrictions on in-person instruction exploded in anger at his apparent hypocrisy, and the petition campaign reached its goals with relative ease.

Why Isnt Californias Lieutenant Governor Automatically Made Governor After A Recall

In some states, such as Oregon and Michigan, if a governor is recalled by voters, the lieutenant governor automatically gets the job. But California law states that voters must choose who replaces the governor in an election.

Of the 19 states that allow recalls of state officials, most leave the choice of replacement in the hands of voters.

You May Like: What Is The Lapel Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

How Californias Gavin Newsom Could Lose His Job To A Republican In A Recall

How does a relatively popular Democratic governor in one of the bluest states in the country find himself at serious risk of losing his job to a Trump-supporting Republican?

The answer in the case of Californias Gavin Newsom is a mix of excitement among conservatives, apathy from everyone else, a confusing process and tensions heightened by the pandemic. Californians will vote by Sept. 14 on whether to kick Newsom out of office three years into his first term. If they do, the candidate currently most likely to replace him is an anti-mask-mandate conservative radio host who cuts against the states liberal slant.

Heres what you need to know to follow the California gubernatorial recall election.

Whos Running In Newsom Recall Politicians Activists Californians Of All Stripes

How Northern California Republican congressmen voted in Electoral College ballot certification

Larry Elder: A conservative talk radio host based in Los Angeles. Compared to other candidates, Elder jumped into the race late but has surged in fundraising, bringing in nearly $4.5 million in July. The longtime broadcaster is an ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump. He has said the minimum wage should start at $0 and be negotiated between workers and employers.

Kevin Faulconer: Before the recall, the former mayor of San Diego was widely seen as a Republican frontrunner to challenge Newsom in 2022. Faulconer has campaigned on his experience leading one of Californias largest cities and working with Democrats on the San Diego City Council. The Republican has proposed zeroing out income taxes for the first $50,000 in earnings. He also says he would increase funding for wildfire prevention.

John Cox: The San Diego businessman faced Newsom in the 2018 governors race and lost by a historic margin. Cox is self-funding his recall bid and has brought props on his statewide tour, including a live bear and an eight-foot ball of trash. Like Faulconer, the CPA and business owner has also proposed a large tax cut for Californians. In a recent debate, he advocated for the completion of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Former Congressman Doug Ose dropped out Aug. 17 after experiencing a heart attack.

Read Also: Who’s Winning The Democrats Or The Republicans

What Are The Key Issues Driving The Recall

Initially, the Republicans who started the recall disagreed with Mr. Newsom on issues like the death penaltyand his opposition to President Donald Trumps policies. The effort was widely viewed as a long shot.

Then two particular factors boosted the campaign: A judge allowed more time for leaders of the recall to gather signatures because of pandemic lockdowns. And growing frustration among some Californians over health restrictions came to a head when Mr. Newsom was seen dining maskless with lobbyists at an expensive, exclusive Napa Valley restaurant called the French Laundryafter asking Californians to wear masks and stay home.

As the pandemic dragged on, recall supporters focused their arguments on the governors response, criticizing it as overly restrictive. Prolonged school closuresdrew ire during the last school year, as did pandemic unemployment fraud.

More recently, proponents have argued that broader social ills such as homelessness have worsened during Mr. Newsoms tenure, that Democrats have de facto one-party rule in California and that the high cost of livingis driving Californians out.

Mr. Newsoms Democratic allies charge that the effort is an undemocratic far-right power grab by Trumpian extremists who would otherwise never see a Republican elected to Californias top state office.

Why Pick On Newsom

Mr. Newsom, 53, the former mayor of San Francisco, has long been a favorite target of Republicans.

His liberal pedigree and deep Democratic connections push an array of G.O.P. buttons. His aunt, for instance, was married for a time to Speaker Nancy Pelosis brother-in-law. Mr. Newsom, a wine merchant, got his start in politics and business with support from the wealthy Getty family. In 2004, he and his first wife, the cable news legal commentator Kimberly Guilfoyle, appeared in a spread for Harpers Bazaar shot at the Getty Villa and titled The New Kennedys.

As mayor, Mr. Newsom made headlines for sanctioning same-sex marriage licenses before they were legal. As governor, he has remained a progressive standard-bearer. He championed ballot initiatives that legalized recreational marijuana and outlawed possession of the high-capacity magazines often used in mass shootings. One of his first acts as governor was to declare a moratorium on executions.

Mr. Newsom is now married to Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker, and is the father of four small children. Ms. Guilfoyle is Donald Trump Jr.s girlfriend.

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Republicans Are In The Senate

Isnt It Hard To Recall A Democrat In California

California is less liberal in the aggregate than its reputation. Some six million Californians voted for Donald J. Trump in the 2020 election. Thats roughly quadruple the number of signatures proponents needed to put a recall onto the ballot, and those were the voters who were targeted.

And increasingly, California races have drawn national money and interest as both parties have come to view the Democratic-dominated state as a stand-in for liberal governance on the national level.

But Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2-1 in California. The math alone gives Democrats an advantage statewide.

And although Mr. Heatlie and his group describe themselves as mainstream, a significant portion of the energy behind the recall is coming from the fringes. Early rallies to promote it were heavily populated by Proud Boys and anti-vaccination activists. Backers of Mr. Heatlies campaign have made social media posts bashing immigrants and depicting the governor as Hitler.

Microchip all illegal immigrants. It works! Just ask Animal control, Mr. Heatlie himself wrote in a 2019 Facebook post. He now says that the remark was a conversation starter that he did not intend to be taken literally. Polls have shown Mr. Newsom holding his seat handily among all voters, but it is unclear who will vote in this unusual, off-year special election. Polls of likely voters show a far tighter race.

Should California Republicans Unite Behind Larry Elder

The radio host is leading GOP polls ahead of the recall election

California Republicans are not falling in line behind a single candidate in the recall against Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The California Republican party voted not to endorse any of the candidates running in the states upcoming recall during a Saturday morning online convention. The decision comes as right-wing firebrand Larry Elder has surged in recent polling, overshadowing the establishment favorite, former San Diego mayor Kevin Faulconer. The candidate who received the endorsement would have been given additional funding and campaign infrastructure. Instead, none of the candidates on the September 14 ballot will have the partys backing.

Originally, party delegates were set to choose between four candidates in different voting rounds where each candidate would be eliminated until the final round. To receive the state partys endorsement, the candidate must meet a 60 percent support threshold among the delegates. Twenty-four hours before the convention, however, party leaders began lobbying delegates to scrap the vote and issue no endorsement, GOP state officials told The Spectator.

Related Stories

Also Check: What Republicans Voted Against Tax Bill

The Mail Ballot Factor Is A Wild Card

Early on, California election authorities decided to proactively send mail ballots to all registered voters, just as they did in the pandemic general election of 2020. They can be returned via enclosed postage paid envelopes or dropped off at voting centers on September 14. So, if California Democrats do become motivated to vote, it wont be hard for them to do so. And you do have to wonder if Donald Trumps demonization of mail ballots during and after the 2020 presidential election might still inhibit Republicans from voting that way, even if there remains an option for turning in ballots in person.

Republicans Introduce 253 Bills To Restrict Voting Rights In States Across The Us

whatsapp icon

Republican lawmakers in 43 states have introduced a total of 253 bills aimed at restricting access to the ballot box for tens of millions of people. Republican-controlled states, including Southern states that employed lynch law terror to block African Americans from voting during the decades-long period of Jim Crow segregation, are flooding their legislatures with measures to effectively disenfranchise working class, poor and minority voters.

The laws largely focus on tightening voter ID requirements, purging voter rolls and restricting absentee and mail-in ballots.

In the United States, state governments have the authority to oversee elections and determine election procedures and rules, including for national elections. Within each state, individual counties have a great deal of latitude in the conduct of elections.

Republicans control both the lower and upper legislative houses in 36 of the 50 states, and both the legislatures and governorships in 23 states, making it very possible for far-reaching barriers to the ballot box to be imposed across much of the country.

Despite opening the door for a return to restrictive and discriminatory voting practices, the 2013 ruling met with little resistance on the part of the Democratic Party. Neither the Obama White House nor the congressional Democrats mounted any serious effort to reverse the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act by enacting new legislation in the years since the reactionary Shelby ruling.

Texas

Read Also: Is There Any Republicans Running For President Besides Trump

What If Governor Newsom Is Recalled But He Still Has More Support Than Any Challenger On The Ballot

It doesnt matter. The recall question is determined by majority vote. If more than 50 percent of the voters vote yes on the recall, Mr. Newsom must step down as governor.

The replacement question is determined by who gets the most votes among the challengers on the ballot. So 49.9 percent of the voters can back Mr. Newsom, and he can still lose to someone who is supported by only, say, 20 percent of the electorate. On the replacement question, the winner does not need a majority to be named the next governor.

What Parties And Others Are Saying

California Recall: How Democrats and Republicans are getting out the vote

California Democratic Party: The state’s Democrats urge you to vote “no” on Question 1 and leave Question 2 blank.

California Republican Party: The state’s Republicans want you to vote “yes” on Question 1, but it did not endorse a candidate to replace Newsom.

President Biden:Biden released a statement saying registered California voters should vote no on the recall election by September 14 and keep California moving forward.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:Pelosi said that recalling Newsom would “not good for children and other living things,” and urged Californians to vote “no” in the election.

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: The Times Editorial Board urged voters to say “no” to Question 1. The boards suggestion for a replacement? Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer “the least terrible of all … bad options.” The board, which is a group of opinion journalists who are not part of Times’ news coverage, said voters should not skip Question 2: Leaving it blank “would hand the decision-making power to others who do vote and those voters may be uninformed, irrationally angry and looking for someone to take a far-right turn on issues like climate change, environmental protection, civil rights, policing and vaccination. Thats too great a gamble. Were left to conclude that voters who oppose the recall should also vote for a replacement even if they have to hold their noses to do so.”

Recommended Reading: Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Names

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-should-republicans-vote-in-california/

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

de Adder

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 16, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 17, 2024

Early in the morning on June 17, 1972, Frank Wills, a 24-year-old security guard at the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C., noticed that a door lock had been taped open. He ripped off the tape and closed the door, but when he went on the next round, he found the door taped open again. He called the police, who found five burglars in the Democratic National Committee headquarters located in the building.

And so it began.

The U.S. president, Richard M. Nixon, was obsessed with the idea that opponents were trying to sink his campaign for reelection. The previous year, in June 1971, the New York Times had begun to publish what became known as the Pentagon Papers, a secret government study that detailed U.S. involvement in Vietnam from presidents Harry Truman to Lyndon Johnson. While the study ended before the Nixon administration, it showed that presidents had lied to the American people, and Nixon worried that the story would hurt his administration by souring the public on his approach to the Vietnam War. Worse, if anyone leaked similar information about his own administration—and there was plenty to leak—it would destroy his reelection campaign.  

To stop his enemies, Nixon put together in the White House a special investigations unit to stop leaks. And who stops leaks? Plumbers. 

These operatives burglarized the office of the psychiatrist who worked with the man who had leaked the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, to find damaging information about him. They sabotaged opponents by “ratf*cking” them, as they called it, planting fake letters in newspapers, hiring vendors for Democratic rallies and then running out on the unpaid bills, planting spies in Democrats’ campaigns and, finally, wiretapping. 

On June 17, 1972, they tried to tap the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington’s fashionable Watergate complex.

The White House denied all knowledge of what it called a “third-rate burglary attempt,” and most of the press took the denial at face value. But two young reporters for the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, followed the sloppy money trail behind the burglars directly to the White House.

The fallout from the burglary gained no traction before the election, which Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew won with an astonishing 60.7 percent of the vote. They took 520 electoral votes—49 states—while the Democratic nominees, South Dakota senator George McGovern and former Peace Corps director Sargent Shriver, won only 37.5% of the popular vote and the electoral votes of only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. 

But in March 1973, one of the burglars, James W. McCord Jr., wrote a letter to Judge John Sirica before his sentencing, saying that he had lied at his trial, under pressure to protect government officials. McCord had been the head of security for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, known as CREEP. Sirica was known for his stiff sentences—reporters called him “Maximum John”—and later said, “I had no intention of sitting on the bench like a nincompoop and watching the parade go by.” Sirica made the letter public, and White House counsel John Dean promptly began cooperating with prosecutors. In April, three of Nixon’s top advisors resigned, and in May the president was forced to appoint Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor to investigate the affair.

In May the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, informally known as the Senate Watergate Committee, began nationally televised hearings. The committee’s chair was Sam Ervin (D-NC), a conservative Democrat who would not run for reelection in 1974 and thus was expected to be able to do the job without political grandstanding.

The hearings turned up the explosive testimony of John Dean, who said he had talked to Nixon about covering up the burglary more than 30 times, but there the investigation sat during the hot summer of 1973 as the committee churned through witnesses. And then, on July 13, 1973, deputy assistant to the president Alexander Butterfield revealed that conversations and phone calls in the Oval Office had been taped since 1971.

Nixon refused to provide copies of the tapes either to Cox or to the Senate committee. When Cox subpoenaed a number of the tapes, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. In the October 20, 1973, “Saturday Night Massacre,” Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckleshaus, refused to execute Nixon’s order and resigned in protest; it was only the third man at the Justice Department—Solicitor General Robert Bork—who was willing to carry out the order firing Cox. 

Popular outrage at the resignations and firing forced Nixon to ask Bork—now acting attorney general—to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a Democrat who had voted for Nixon, on November 1. On November 17, Nixon assured the American people that “I am not a crook.” 

Like Cox before him, Jaworski was determined to hear the Oval Office tapes. He subpoenaed a number of them, and Nixon fought the subpoenas on the grounds of executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, in U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with the prosecutor, saying that executive privilege “must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that 'the twofold aim (of criminal justice) is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.'... The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts….” 

Their hand forced, Nixon’s people released transcripts of the tapes. They were damning, not just in content but also in style. Nixon had cultivated an image of himself as a clean family man, and the tapes revealed a mean-spirited, foul-mouthed bully. Aware that the tapes would damage his image, Nixon had his swearing redacted. “[Expletive deleted]” trended.

In late July 1974 the House Committee on the Judiciary passed articles of impeachment, charging the president with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. Each article ended with the same statement: “In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”

Still, Nixon insisted he was not guilty, saying he did not know his people were committing crimes on his watch. Then in early August a new tape, recorded days after the Watergate break-in, revealed Nixon and an aide plotting to invoke national security to protect the president. Even Republican senators, who had not wanted to convict their president, knew the game was over. A delegation went to the White House to deliver the news.

On August 9, 1974, Nixon became the first president in American history to resign.

Rather than admit guilt, though, he told the American people he had to step down because he no longer had the support he needed in Congress to advance the national interest. He blamed the press, whose “leaks and accusations and innuendo” had been designed to destroy him. His disappointed supporters embraced the idea that there was a “liberal” conspiracy, spearheaded by the press, to bring down any Republican president. 

When his replacement, Gerald Ford, issued a preemptive blanket pardon for any crimes the former president might have committed against the United States, he guaranteed that Nixon would never have to account for his illegal attempt to undermine his Democratic opponent, and that those who thought like Nixon could come to think they were above the law. 

On May 30, 2024, when a jury of twelve ordinary Americans found a former president guilty on 34 criminal counts, it reasserted the principle that no one is above the law. 

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[judgelonniecox-blog]

Lonnie Cox Judge is the judge of the 56th District Court in Galveston County. Before his legal career, Judge Cox worked for the Lubrizol Corporation, first as an operator and later working his way up to Customer Service Supervisor for two Texas plants. The duties of the 56th District Court are to promote justice and to facilitate the scheduling of trials and the disposal of cases through trials or agreements. He is also a member of numerous professional organizations. Judge Cox has been committed to serving his community with three goals; efficient justice, following the law, and keeping our community safe.

[lonniecox]

Justice, commitment towards society, and efficiency are what Judge Lonnie Cox is known for. He is the 56th judge of Galveston County in Texas, USA elected in the year 2004. His duties towards the people of the Galveston community are to facilitate the trials and promote justice among the community whose Judge he is being elected.

[veale2006-blog]

THIS DAY IN HISTORY

June 17, 1972

Watergate burglars arrested

In the early morning of June 17, 1972, five men are arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, an office-hotel-apartment complex in Washington, D.C. In their possession were burglary tools, cameras and film, and three pen-size tear gas guns. At the scene of the crime, and in rooms the men rented at the Watergate, sophisticated electronic bugging equipment was found. Three of the men were Cuban exiles, one was a Cuban American, and the fifth was James W. McCord, Jr., a former CIA agent. That day, the suspects, who said they were “anti-communists,” were charged with felonious burglary and possession of implements of crime.

On June 18, however, it was revealed that James McCord was the salaried security coordinator for President Richard Nixon’s reelection committee. The next day, E. Howard Hunt, Jr., a former White House aide, was linked to the five suspects. In July, G. Gordon Liddy, finance counsel for the Committee for the Re-election of the President, was also implicated as an accomplice. In August, President Nixon announced that a White House investigation of the Watergate break-in had concluded that administration officials were not involved. In September, Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and the four Cubans were indicted by a federal grand jury on eight counts of breaking into and illegally bugging the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

In September and October, reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of The Washington Post uncovered evidence of illegal political espionage carried out by the White House and the Committee for the Re-election of the President, including the existence of a secret fund kept for the purpose and the existence of political spies hired by the committee. Despite these reports, and a growing call for a Watergate investigation on Capitol Hill, Richard Nixon was reelected president in November 1972 in a landslide victory.

In January 1973, five of the Watergate burglars pleaded guilty, and two others, Liddy and McCord, were convicted. At their sentencing on March 23, U.S. District Court Judge John J. Sirica read a letter from McCord charging that the White House had conducted an extensive “cover-up” to conceal its connection with the break-in. In April, Attorney General Richard Kleindienst and two top White House advisers, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, resigned, and White House counsel John Dean was fired.

On May 17, 1973, the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, headed by Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, began televised proceedings on the rapidly escalating Watergate affair. One week later, Harvard Law professor Archibald Cox was sworn in as special Watergate prosecutor. During the Senate hearings, former White House legal counsel John Dean testified that the Watergate break-in had been approved by former Attorney General John Mitchell with the knowledge of White House advisers Ehrlichman and Haldeman, and that President Nixon had been aware of the cover-up. Meanwhile, Watergate prosecutor Cox and his staff began to uncover widespread evidence of political espionage by the Nixon re-election committee, illegal wiretapping of thousands of citizens by the administration, and contributions to the Republican Party in return for political favors.

In July, the existence of what were to be called the Watergate tapes–official recordings of White House conversations between Nixon and his staff–was revealed during the Senate hearings. Cox subpoenaed these tapes, and after three months of delay President Nixon agreed to send summaries of the recordings. Cox rejected the summaries, and Nixon fired him. His successor as special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, leveled indictments against several high-ranking administration officials, including Mitchell and Dean, who were duly convicted.

Public confidence in the president rapidly waned, and by the end of July 1974 the House Judiciary Committee had adopted three articles of impeachment against President Nixon: obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential powers, and hindrance of the impeachment process. On July 30, under coercion from the Supreme Court, Nixon finally released the Watergate tapes. On August 5, transcripts of the recordings were released, including a segment in which the president was heard instructing Haldeman to order the FBI to halt the Watergate investigation. Four days later, Nixon became the first president in U.S. history to resign. On September 8, his successor, President Gerald Ford, pardoned him from any criminal charges.

[glitterypeanutmugnickel]

June 14, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Jun 15

Comment

Share

Today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told radio personality Hugh Hewitt that it is “highly unlikely” that he would permit President Biden to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court if the Republicans win control of the Senate in 2022.

While it seems certain that, if returned to his leadership role in the Senate, McConnell would block any Biden nominee, the fact he said it right now suggests that he is hoping to keep evangelical voters firmly in the Republican camp. In 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, McConnell refused even to hold hearings for President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. McConnell’s justification for this unprecedented obstruction was that Obama’s March nomination was too close to an election—a rule he ignored four years later when he rushed through Amy Barrett’s appointment to the Court in late October when voting in the upcoming election was already underway—and yet the underlying reason for the 2016 delay was at least in part his recognition that hopes of pushing the Supreme Court to the right, especially on the issue of abortion, were likely to push evangelical voters to the polls.

McConnell’s stance was at least in part directed to the changing nature of the judiciary under President Biden. Last week, the Senate confirmed the first Muslim American federal judge in U.S. history, a truly astonishing first since Muslims have been part of the U.S. since the earliest days of African enslavement in the early 1600s. By a vote of 81 to 16, the Senate confirmed Zahid Quraishi, the son of Pakistani immigrants and veteran of two tours of duty in Iraq, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

More to the point, perhaps, for McConnell, is that the Senate today confirmed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Jackson takes the place of Merrick Garland, who is now the attorney general. This post is generally seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Biden has suggested he would appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court, and Jackson is widely thought to be a top contender.

Aside from its implications for the Supreme Court, McConnell’s stand makes a mockery of Senator Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) insistence on bipartisan support for legislation that protects voting rights. Manchin is demanding that bills protecting voting win bipartisan support because he says he fears that increasing partisanship will injure our democracy. McConnell’s flaunting of his manipulation of Senate rules to cement Republican control of our courts leaves Manchin twisting in the wind.

States, too, are passing voter suppression legislation along strictly partisan lines. The Brennan Center for Justice keeps tabs on voting legislation. It writes that “Republicans introduced and drove virtually all of the bills that impose new voting restrictions, and the harshest new laws were passed with almost exclusively Republican votes and signed into law by Republican governors.”

The Republican domination of the government over the past four years is on the table today as Democratic lawmakers try to get to the bottom of who authorized the FBI under former president Trump to spy on reporters, Democratic lawmakers and their families and staff members, and on White House Counsel Don McGahn and his wife. CNN chief congressional reporter Manu Raju tweeted that Adam Schiff (D-NY) who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, says after speaking with Garland that he still doesn’t know who started the investigation. “We discussed the need to really do a full scale review of what went on in the last four years, and make sure that steps are taken to re-establish the independence of the department,” he said.

While Attorney General Merrick Garland has referred the issue to the inspector general of the Justice Department, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), tonight announced the committee would open a formal investigation into the department’s secret seizure of data. “It is…possible that these cases are merely our first glimpse into a coordinated effort by the Trump Administration to target President Trump’s political opposition,” the committee members said in a statement. “If so, we must learn the full extent of this gross abuse of power, root out the individuals responsible, and hold those individuals accountable for their actions.”

In the midst of the uproar over the news that the Trump Department of Justice investigated Democratic lawmakers, the top national security official in the Justice Department, John Demers, a Trump appointee, has retired. Demers ran the department that had a say in each of the leak investigations.

Meanwhile, in Brussels, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, organized as a military alliance after WWII, met today. The heads of state of the 30 participating countries issued a communique reaffirming “our unity, solidarity, and cohesion,” and reiterating that, in case of attack, each nation would come to the aid of another. The members reiterated their commitment to a rules-based international order.

While the statement said NATO members remained open to a periodic, focused, and meaningful dialogue,” it singled out Russia as a threat and called for it to withdraw its forces from Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova. It condemned Russia’s “illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea.” It warned that NATO countries would, in certain circumstances, recognize a cyberattack as “amounting to an armed attack” and would treat it as such, rising to each other’s defense.

The statement was less strident against China, noting its “growing influence and international policies can present challenges.”

NATO leaders vowed to stand against terrorism and to continue to support Afghanistan despite the U.S. withdrawal. They reiterated that they did not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. In a reflection of the new era, the signatories’ statement called for addressing climate change. It also affirmed “the critical importance of women’s full, equal, and meaningful participation in all aspects of peace and stability, as well as the disproportionate impact that conflict has on women and girls, including conflict-related sexual violence.”

Biden says he promises to prove "that democracy and that our Alliance can still prevail against the challenges of our time and deliver for the needs and the needs of our people." With this strong statement of NATO solidarity in hand, Biden will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

[trekfm]

312: Gets the Two Sides Talking

Greg Cox: A Contest of Principles. The crew of the Enterprise face a challenge unlike any other when when they are called to a system with three different inhabited planets and are asked to observe a contentious election on the only planet in the system the Federation has a relationship with.

In this episode of Literary Treks, hosts Matthew Rushing and C Bryan Jones welcome Greg Cox back to the show to talk about his book A Contest of Principles. We discuss keeping it fresh, the ethics of news, story genesis, part of the story, responsibility, re-litigating the past, finding out something new, does the right thing, working with new Trek, what Greg has coming up and where to find him online.

In the news section we judge a book by it's cover, look at the recent as well as upcoming releases for 2021, then review the Year 5 comic issues 15 and 16. News Judge a Book by it's Cover (00:01:33) Upcoming Releases (00:05:03) Recent Releases (00:06:07) Year 5 Issues 15 and 16 Review (00:07:06)

Feature: Greg Cox Keeping it Fresh (00:14:58) The Ethics of News (00:23:20) Story Genesis (00:26:59) Part of the Story (00:31:34) Responsibility (00:35:27) Re-litigating the Past (00:40:39) Finding Out Something New (00:50:06) Does the Right Thing (00:56:07) Working in New Trek (00:59:10) What's Next for Greg (01:04:50) Greg Online (01:06:49) Final Thoughts (01:09:12) Hosts Matthew Rushing and C Bryan Jones

Guest Greg Cox

Production Matthew Rushing (Editor and Producer) C Bryan Jones (Executive Producer) Greg Rozier (Associate Producer) Casey Pettitt (Associate Producer)

New podcast episode!