Monthly Archives: January 2020

The College Republicans are worried partially about their Democratic peerson campus but also about other young people who call themselves Republican.

The more moderate among them saythey fear far-right students'antics will corrupt the party. Their counterparts argue the party is too stodgy to capture the attention of undecided voters. In California and Washington, the groups fractured over who should lead them.

Underlying the college conservatives fears: that the Republican Party as a whole is in trouble.

For young Republicans, embracing a conservative identity while enrolled in college is a decision to be an outsider. Many of them say theyfeel ostracized on their campus for their beliefs, whichfosters an us vs. them mentality.

Young voters in 2020: 'I think they will decide the race'

That might partially explain why they host events such as affirmative action bake sales, in which they sell treatsat different prices based on a persons race. These types of events are meant to rile collegecommunities, and they often succeed. Studentsboth broadcast their views againstaffirmative action and generate as much attention as they can.

At the University of Washingtonlast May, a group calling itself College Republicans hosted such a bake sale. The campus conservatives found themselves the subject of national headlines, and the statewide organization of College Republicans denounced what the group did. The state organization instead recognized a different group the Husky College Republicans.The original group declined to speak to USA TODAY unless memberswere offered anonymity. Memberssaid they feared for their safety.

Jack Pickett, the western vice chairman at the College Republican National Committee, was part of the College Republicans at the University of Washington and also led the statewide group.He was involved in the decision tostart over.

The chapter, he said, crossed the line a couple of times, and the bake sale was the final straw. Pickett recalled he was not happy when leaders brought Milo Yiannopoulos, a far-right speaker, to campus in 2017. Outside that event, a man protesting was shot by someone who had come to see Yiannopoulos.

Milo Yiannopoulos leads a "Straight Pride" parade in Boston on Aug. 31, 2019. Supporters of President Donald Trump and counterdemonstrators who called them homophobic extremists staged dueling rallies in Boston.(Photo: JOSEPH PREZIOSO, AFP/Getty Images)

Pickettconsiders himself a conservativebutsaidhedidnt initially support Donald Trump's campaign for president. (He now does.)He threwhis supportbehind businesswoman and politician Carly Fiorina in 2016.

He wasn't alone: Trump's 2016 candidacy produced unusual divide in College Republican clubs

His critics have seized upon what he described as a more traditional type of conservatism, calling him a Republican in Name Only. People have attacked him online for his weight and claim he doesnt deserve his position. The old group of college leaders he helped to ouststill meets.

Battling over the identity of a college group is vexing, Pickett said. It distracts from a larger, perhapsmore difficult goal: recruiting new conservatives.

It's very difficult to do that when you have a group who's misusing your nameand working almost intentionally, it often seems, to drive people away with their antics," Pickett said. "That's not something that anyone, even right-leaningstudents,want to be a part of.

The Republican National Committee doesn't appear worried about potential divisions in its youth movement. The party is running an effort to register voters called "Make Campus Great Again."

"When it comes to issues college students care about, like securing a job after graduation, the choice is clear: a booming economy under President Trump or a government takeover of every aspect of their lives under Democrat leadership," RNC spokeswomanMandi Merritt said in an email.

The split between conservative policy wonks and energized activists is one that Amy Binder, a sociologist at the University of California-San Diego, and Jeffrey Kidder, a sociologist at Northern Illinois University, have studied for years.They're writing a book on student activism.

They found individual students straddle those lines. They join the traditional College Republican groups because of the political connections they can build,but they might also join a group such asTurning Point USA. Founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012, when he was 18, the conservative group is known for its attention-grabbing tactics at colleges. It started the Professor Watchlist, a project meant to track, expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda. It hosts summits often attended by major figures in the Trump administration, including the president, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

President Donald Trump takes the stage at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in December 2019.(Photo: Andrew Harnik, AP)

Kidder said such groups probably do a better job of appealing to students interested in more than traditional, campaigning-style politics.

Conservative and liberal students tend to organize differently, Binder said. Students on the left may feel more comfortable within the university. Many have student affairs offices directed toward minority students, such as black or LBGTQ cultural centers.Conservative students may be drawn off campus to groups such as Turning Point, which have a lot of money and resources to help them organize.

JoaquinRomero, 21, a junior studying economicsat the University of New Mexico,chairs the New Mexico Federation of College Republicans. He has long been involved in state and city politics. In New Mexico, the state with thelargest percentage of Hispanics in the country,Democrats hold all seats in Congress, the governor's office and both the state House and Senate.

Romero said his goal is to shift the college Republicangroupawayfrom the incendiary approach somehave taken. In 2017, the UNMgroup invited Yiannopoulos to campus, and police intervened to break up protests. Romero said he understands some people appreciate watching things burn, but he sees those efforts as counterproductive.

"Things like the Milo event, where you have someone on stage that says inflammatory things that are in my opinion not even conservative," he said,"it not only drives people away, but it also ignites the wrong kind of people."

The goal, Romero said, should be to recruit people who want to carry on the"conservatism of (Ronald) Reagan." That lasts longer, he argued, thanthe furor generated over provocative speakers.

Infighting among conservative students in California prompted a majority of the state'scollege Republicans to start a new organization altogether. They split off from the California College Republicans about a year ago to create the California Federation of College Republicans. That groups chairman, Matt Ronnau, also headsthe chapter at University of California-Berkeley.

Initially, Ronnau said, the divide among College Republicans was between those eager to embrace President Trump and those who wanted to embrace a more traditional model of conservatism. The split came down to differences in how to run the organization. The new group, the federation, has 30 chapters and is recognized by the College Republican National Committee. The old group, the California College Republicans, didnt return a request for comment.

Ronnau describes himself as a member of the Trumpian camp but said many of the federations members are not. Some have swung far to the right. The San Diego State College Republicans, who belong to the federation, describe themselves as unapologetically Nationalist + America first in the groups Twitter profile. They have retweeted Michelle Malkin, a controversial figure who supports far-right writer NicholasFuentesand VDARE, an anti-immigration website popular among white nationalists.

The Facebook page of the San Diego State College Republicans tries to appeal to the younger generation online.(Photo: screenshot)

OliverKrvaric, president of the San Diego State group, said a split existsbetween establishment Republicans and the next generation.

Krvaric,21, asenior studying international security and conflict resolution, said he'd rather the group focus less on helping conservative students land political jobs, a traditional role for College Republican groups, and instead work to wagethe "culture war." For instance, although he wouldn't say where he stood on issues such as same-sex marriage, he said generally men and women are better suited for different roles. Many group members oppose abortion rights and hold hard-line views on immigration.

Ronnausaid he is unconcerned that the San Diego chapter's views could be seen as reflective of the federation as a whole.

We want to let clubs operate kind of more or less the way they see fit, Ronnau said. San Diego State is much farther to the right than other clubs in our state federation, but we all coexist together.

Ronnau doesnt expect a return to the era of Republicanism that would be familiar to the Mitt Romney- or John McCain-types. He said many young people support the president, and more young people will step up to push the right-wing populist agenda.

Editorial board: Forget Donald Trump, Republicans. Save the GOP for the sake of your party's future

Kirk and his fellow Republicans used to be some of themost vocal conservative voices on college campuses. But some young Republicans view him as too moderate.

Jeremiah Childs, vice president for the College Republican group at the University of Maine, pushes an America first agenda that's unabashedly Trumpian in support of strict immigration policies. The group often posts criticism of Democratic presidential hopefulsand support for gun rights and the military.

College conservatives at the University of Maine came under fire for online posts about Columbus Day and Native Americans.(Photo: Screenshot)

He said groups such asTurning Pointspend too much time talking about economic issues rather than cultural ones, such as the anti-abortion movement.Childs said he worries about the rise of concepts such asnontraditionalgender roles and third-wave feminism.

In October, the group posted a message on Facebook in support of Columbus Day, describing some Native American tribes as corrupted by rampant ritual sacrifice and cannibalism. The post generated backlash. Childs said that the intent was not to rileand thathe didn't think Native Americans in the area cared about the controversy over Columbus Day.

An indigenous student group protested the post, according to Inside Higher Education. Atribal ambassador of the Penobscot Nation told an NBC affiliate she was in favor of stripping Columbus' name from the holiday, calling him a "war criminal."

Childssaid the outrage was the result of "left-wing activists."

The College Republicans at the University of Maine recently also came under fire for their plans to bring in Malkin.The hotel hosting the eventpulled out, but the students found a new venue, Childs said.

The group's adviser resigned afterthe students invited Malkin.DanDemeritt, spokesman for the University of Maine, said the club isn't official without one. Childs said they have candidates lined up.

Malkin supports Nicholas Fuentes, a far-right writer.Though he said he is not a white nationalist, he attended the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, a gathering of white nationalists. Counterprotester Heather Heyer was killed after James Alex Field drovea car into a crowd of anti-racist demonstrators.

Fuentes has joked the Holocaust didnt happen. His fans have coordinated attempts to hecklespeakers from Turning Point USA and another conservative group, the Young America Foundation, according to the Daily Beast.

Childs said his group does not endorse Fuentes and is not associated with him.

The Maine group posted a poll featuring Kirk of Turning Point USA, whom Childs described as a Country Club Republican, and Fuentes.

The major question, the Maine students wrote, seems to be should the Republican Party move towards 'Nationalism/America First,' or towards 'Libertarianism' with a softer approach towards social issues and immigration? In the students poll, Fuentes represented the first option, Kirk the second. Eighty-two percent of the 5,200 who voted went with Fuentes, the rest for Kirk. (These types of internet polls can be easily gamed, especially by young digital natives.)

Childs said he doesnt think conservative critics understand the circumstances of poor and rural Americans. He said they probably come from prosperous backgrounds.

Childs' sentiment reiterates what many of these youngconservativessay abouteach other: Theyjust dont get it.

Education coverage at USA TODAYis made possible in part by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Foundation. The Gates Foundation does not provide editorial input.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/01/17/college-republicans-crnc-trump-republican-party-gop-turning-point-usa/4476649002/

Read the original post:

Nationalist 'antics' or the future of the GOP? College Republicans are at war - USA TODAY

The politics of impeachment are rapidly shifting, and not in Donald Trumps or Republicans favor.

That is not to say that he will not be let off the hook in the Republican-controlled Senate, where most GOP senators have pledged their loyalty to Trump and to the party and not to their office or to the voters. But it is to say that the political price for such weak-kneed, noodle-spined blind loyalty is becoming steeper by the day.

House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Trump chooses high-profile but controversial legal team Trump: Impeachment timing intended to hurt Sanders MOREs (D-Calif.) move to hold on to the articles of impeachment through the holidays started shifting the political tectonic plates. Counter to the commentary of the day, her effort to ensure more of a possibility that the Senate trial will include witnesses succeeded in providing time for more damning information to come into view. It also provided time for more potential witnesses to either express their willingness to testify or to publicly tell their story of a complicit Donald Trump.

Pelosi knew she was never going to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Senate GOP mulls speeding up Trump impeachment trial Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment MORE (R-Ky.) to do the right thing. He always had a stronger hand, and he was always going to do as little as he needed to do. He wanted a short trial with no witnesses.

It was also clear from McConnells own words that he was not going to be an impartial juror, and that he would run the trial to the benefit of Trump, even though that violates the oath he and the other 99 senators took at the beginning of the trial.

But Pelosi knew things would start changing.

It still may be a short trial. But the possibility that there will be witnesses grows stronger by the day.

In the time that Pelosi held the articles of impeachment, we learned that there were damning emails showing the aid to Ukraine was held up only 90 minutes after Trumps conversation with President Zelensky, and that the order came from the administration.

In that time, former National Security Advisor John Bolton declared he would be willing to testify if he received a subpoena from the Senate to do so.

In that time, we learned that Trumps own Government Accounting Office declared that the administration violated U.S. federal law in withholding the money that was congressionally mandated to go to Ukraine for military and security aid. The GAO stated that the President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law, and that the faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.

In that time we learned of the vicious details of a smear and persecution campaign against U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie YovanovitchMarie YovanovitchHouse Democrats release second batch of Parnas materials Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Pompeo to investigate charges of surveillance against Yovanovitch MORE, the specifics of which read like a Mario Puzo mafia novel, in which the intrigues, insults and surveillance all center on getting rid of a top U.S. diplomat committed to rooting out corruption in a foreign country

In that time we learned that the Ukraine government opened up an investigation of allies of Trump after reports that they were surveilling Ambassador Yovanovitch.

In that time we learned that indicted Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process House Democrats release second batch of Parnas materials Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment MORE associate Lev Parnas has firsthand knowledge of the conversations, actions and deliberations that took place in Ukraine, the quid pro quo, the squeeze Zelensky and Ukrainian officials felt from Trump on initiating an investigation against Biden in return for the aid and a White House meeting, and the smears and insidious tactics used to get rid of Yovanovitch

All of this new information has led to increased pressure on Republicans. They must ensure that the Senate trial is seen as somewhat objective and that Republican senators are not perceived as sticking their heads in the sand to avoid acknowledging additional damning evidence against Trump.

Indeed, most Americans believe the Senate trial should include witnesses. Sixty-six percent believe John BoltonJohn BoltonDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump beefs up impeachment defense with Dershowitz, Starr MORE should testify, and 57 percent (including 40 percent of Republicans) believe the Senate should call more witnesses.

GOP Senators who believe in fairness and the rule of law and who do not blindly side with Trump (Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Bring on the brokered convention GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff MORE (R-Utah), Lisa MurkowskiLisa Ann MurkowskiRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff Paul predicts no Republicans will vote to convict Trump MORE (R-Alaska)) and those who have tough re-election battles ahead in their swing states (Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump beefs up impeachment defense with Dershowitz, Starr The Hill's Morning Report President Trump on trial MORE (R-Maine), Cory GardnerCory Scott GardnerRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Koch network could target almost 200 races in 2020, official says Hickenlooper raised .8 million for Colorado Senate bid in fourth quarter of 2019 MORE (R-Colo.) and Thom TillisThomas (Thom) Roland TillisSenate GOP mulls speeding up Trump impeachment trial Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Koch network could target almost 200 races in 2020, official says MORE (R-N.C.), have said they would be open to more witnesses and may vote to get them. Democrats need only four Republicans to side with them to force more witnesses to be called.

This does not seem like an insurmountable number, especially given the new and damning evidence that continues to accumulate against Trump that paints a rancid picture of rampant corruption, abuse of power and political expediency.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is also a wild card in this process. He has proven to be allergic to politicization of our justice system, and he wants to protect the sanctity of the courts. Since all fair trials need witnesses, it may fall to Roberts to put his finger on the scales in the interest of fairness.

It is very unlikely that Trump will be forced out of office, even if most Americans believe he should be removed.

But if McConnell and his GOP colleagues in the Senate get their way and no witnesses are called, leading to a sham trial and subsequent Trump acquittal, the GOP will pay at the polls both in the Senate and the White House.

Maria Cardona is a principal at the Dewey Square Group, a Democratic strategist and a CNN/CNN Espaol political commentator. Follow her on Twitter@MariaTCardona.

Continue reading here:

Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment | TheHill - The Hill

Somehow, even though Roe v. Wade has been in place for 46 years, and even though the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal, and even though the data is clear that criminalizing abortion is not an effective and safe way to reduce abortions, we are still on the brink of witnessing abortion rights in America disappear.

Just last week, more than 200 mostly white male members of Congress submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court advocating for the reconsideration and repeal of Roe v. Wade.

This is because it never was, and never will be, about sound policy for them. Instead, it is about what keeps politicians in power. Abortion is simply the vehicle that gives Republican politicians what they crave control.

And right now, it is delivering.

As conservative states make increasingly brazen moves to ban abortion, the internet is flooded with heart-wrenching stories from women trying desperately to convey why abortion access is so important. Women who wanted a child but were told it would not live. Women who want to live but were told having a child would kill them.

Women who maintain what is becoming) a radical belief that they, not the government, are best suited to make decisions about their bodies. Advocates of reproductive rights work tirelessly to convey the nuance of the circumstances, the horrors of criminalization, the extremism of forced birth, all in hopes that the other side will come around.

They will not.

This is because, for the Republican party, abortion is not personal; its business. Republican politicians puff their chests and claim to be pro-life. Still, we know that not to be true because they have no interest in passing legislation to create programs that support life. The restrictive laws they do support does not improve the levels of care and safety for women.

They do not favor welfare for people out of a home, food stamps for people who are hungry, or health care for those without insurance. They scoff at subsidized prenatal care and universal free pre-school. Indeed, the states with the most restrictive abortion laws also have the highest infant mortality rates. Now and then, they even admit that anti-choice rhetoric is just business.

Republican politicians do not care about life; they care about power. To get the votes, they need to stay in control; they exploit an issue that costs them nothing abortion. Forcing women to have babies while ensuring that the state pays for no associated expenses is a win-win for them.

There are surely anti-choice voters who do care about supporting women and children, just as there are fiscal conservatives who believe in choice. Still, as long as both groups keep giving their votes to the party that wants to force women to give birth while at the same time railing on necessary social services, politicians have no incentive to change course.

Democrats need to understand that telling stories is not enough we must form and execute a political strategy to protect reproductive freedom. Unfortunately, were late to the game.

For the past decade, Republicans have been systematically taking over state legislatures, gerrymandering voting district lines to keep themselves in power, and then passing unconstitutional state laws prohibiting abortion to satisfy their base.

At the same time, they have stacked the judiciary with right-wing ideologues, including two on the Supreme Court, where the plan has always been to overturn Roe. We are witnessing the late stages of a strikingly effective Republican political strategy that has been in place for half a century.

So what can we do? We cant change the composition of the Court. We cant rely on our dysfunctional congress to pass even bipartisan legislation, let alone anything pertaining to the polarizing issue of womens rights. But we can elect progressive legislators in all 50 states to change the laws that are heading to the Supreme Court, all of which originate in the states.

The Supreme Court is poised to eliminate protections with breakneck speed, not just on abortion but on every policy issue from health care and voting rights to the environment and gun violence prevention. It is time for us to recognize what the GOP has known for a long time: state elections are the key turning the tide.

Next, we overwhelm with our voice. We must educate our communities with facts, put our stories front and center, and, most importantly, make clear that we are mobilizing to the ballot box.

If Democrats voted consistently, we would win every single election (not an exaggeration). Politicians rarely change their minds because of personal stories, but they do tend to have epiphanies when they think they are going to lose.

Finally, we fight like hell. There is no room for compromise: either we trust women, or we dont. We cannot let Republicans continue their assault on reproductive rights through policies, lawsuits, and organizations like Americans United for Life. Democrats can never resist when Republicans bait them to the middle, and then the conversation moves to the right.

Many have watched in anguish as Alabama scrambled to be the first (but not the last) state to pass a law essentially outlawing abortion, a position that was considered radically fringe just a few years ago.

Republicans dont just want to overturn Roe; they want a federal and constitutional ban prohibiting women from making decisions about their bodies. If we dont draw a bright red line, they will continue to move the goalposts.

Dont let this be our fate.

There is still time, and it starts in the states. Remember this: politicians don't care about the issues; they care about getting elected. So our job is to make sure that the way to get elected is to support reproductive freedom.

The irony, of course, is that there is nothing as personal as the decision about whether or not to have a child. But in politics, its just business, and Democrats need to get in the game.

Rita Bosworth is the founder and executive director of the Sister District Project, a women-led grassroots group that organizes volunteers to elect Democrats to state legislatures.

More here:

Abortion laws give Republican politicians what they crave control | TheHill - The Hill

These positions are so absolutist as to be a danger to the country, and Congress needs to respond forcefully.

On the spending power, there is substantial overlap among the branches: Congress has the power of the purse, and the president is responsible for running agencies and implementing programs. Rather than adhering to a strict separation of powers, in disagreements, the branches have traditionally engaged in a back-and-forth competition. As the G.A.O. points out in its decision, faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. Some amount of cooperation in addition to competition is needed to make the system work.

The real question going forward is whether Congress will act to protect its constitutional role. Reactions so far are not particularly encouraging. On Thursday, Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, dismissed the decision as a mere legalistic dispute between agencies.

The G.A.O. decision suggests a further deterioration of the separation of powers. The decision applies only to funds that were appropriated to the Defense Department and not the State Department, because the O.M.B. and the State Department have failed, as of yet, to provide the information we need to fulfill our duties under the Impoundment Control Act regarding State Department funds. In what was, for a nonpartisan agency like the G.A.O., a blistering conclusion, it states that its role is essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress constitutional power of the purse and pointedly reminds readers that all federal officials and employees take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and its core tenets, including the congressional power of the purse. The consequence of Congress abdicating its right to information about the spending power could have the effect of eliminating Congresss very control over that power.

Finally, the Senate must take seriously its role in the impeachment trial of President Trump. On Tuesday, when impeachment presentations start, these troves of new information will almost certainly begin to be aired in the chamber as senators listen to the presentation of the House managers. The Senate must demand and obtain all documents and testimony of those with knowledge of the presidents actions who refused to obey lawful subpoenas issued by the House in the impeachment inquiry, like the administration members Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey as well as documents and other information that is directly relevant to the decision before them.

Clearly some are feeling the heat. Asked by Manu Raju of CNN whether the Senate should consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial, Senator Martha McSally, Republican of Arizona, blithely responded: Manu, youre a liberal hack. Im not talking to you. Attacking reporters who ask fair questions wont solve their problem. Only a thorough and honest reckoning with the oaths they have taken as senators and as impeachment jurors will do that.

See the original post here:

The Real Risks of Republicans Burying Their Heads in the Sand - The New York Times