Connect with us

Politics

Trump’s deflating Tulsa turnout reveals a deeper problem for him

Published

on

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump was supposed to get a boost Saturday from his first campaign rally since late February. Instead, he got a bust.

After bragging earlier in the week that more than 1 million people had signed up to come see him, Trump found that he couldn’t fill a 19,000-seat arena in a state where he won by 36 percentage points and on a night that his aides had promoted as a major show of his strength.

The sparse crowd in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was more than just a humiliation for Trump. It weakened a key argument of his re-election narrative. To explain how he might be able to win despite poor polling numbers — and amid national crises — he has posited that a “silent majority” of Americans back him.

“The silent majority is stronger than ever before,” Trump said Saturday night.

But the poor turnout suggests just the opposite — that enthusiasm for him is weaker than it appears. That isn’t likely to sit well with Trump, who gambled that his backers were so loyal they would brave the risk of spreading coronavirus to see him in person.

His bet backfired. Rather than receiving a jolt of energy, Trump got a dose of reality. Worse yet, for the president, it was delivered at a time when he desperately needs to reset the frame of the election.

For most of the last four months, when Trump had expected to tour the country in service of his re-election, he has been running a Rose Garden campaign. Most Americans don’t approve of his handling of the coronavirus, his response to nationwide protests against systemic racism, or both. And his rival, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, has seized a sizable polling lead.

To get him out of the West Wing doldrums and back into fighting mode, his political team had planned a rally that would re-energize him by demonstrating the commitment of the Trump faithful. It was so important that he went forward with it despite having to move the date so that it wouldn’t conflict with Juneteenth.

Charlie Kirk, founder of the pro-Trump student group Turning Point USA, said afterward on Fox News that it had been “too long” since the president had held one of his signature events.

“It’s so refreshing to see the president back in front of his base,” Kirk said, channeling the thinking of many Trump allies. “Finally, he’s back on offense, putting the Democrats on defense.”

But while Trump delivered a series of broadsides to adversaries real and imagined — he devoted more than 10 minutes to enumerating excuses for why he had difficulty descending a ramp while at West Point last week — it was difficult, at times, to tell exactly which side he was taking.

“They want to demolish our heritage so they can impose their new oppressive regime in its place,” Trump said of the removal of statues to Confederate leaders in the wake of protests against police killings of Black men and women. A little bit later, he claimed to have “done more for the Black community in four years” than Biden ever has.

It was a boastful night for the president, who also praised himself for the federal response to coronavirus.

“I have done a phenomenal job with it,” he said. “I saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We don’t ever get a mention.”

Epidemiologists say that the U.S. death toll would have been much lower if the president and other government officials had pushed policies like social distancing sooner.

All in all, Trump’s hour-plus speech sounded familiar in its mix of grievance, self-congratulation and invective against political adversaries. But what was notably different from typical Trump rallies was the muted reaction from the audience. The one thing Trump needed more than anything, he didn’t get.

There were no deafening chants of “build the wall” or other crowd favorites. He wasn’t often forced to pause for applause. And, with his upper lip and cheek shining for most of the night, Trump appeared to be working hard to sustain the modest energy in the room.

That should have served as a reality check for him: right now, his supporters amount to less of a “silent majority” than an absent minority.



Source link

Politics

Why Mississippi voted to change its flag after decades of debate

Published

on

CORINTH, Miss. — State Rep. Robert Johnson, 61, who grew up in Natchez, Mississippi, remembers seeing Ku Klux Klan members flying Confederate flags while riding horses in the town’s Christmas parades until his early teenage years.

“It is a symbol of terror in the Black community,” he told NBC News. “It is a symbol of oppression in the Black community and it is a symbol of slavery. Everything that has been devastating to African Americans and to especially African Americans in the South, everything that has been a complete and utter disaster for us, that flag represents.”

So after Johnson witnessed Sunday’s historic vote in the Mississippi House of Representatives to remove the Confederate battle emblem from the state flag, he had one response: “It’s about damn time.”

The bill passed 37 to 14 in the state Senate and 91-23 in the House in favor of changing the flag. Gov. Tate Reeves signed the bill Tuesday evening, and now a commission will be assembled to design a new version.

The debate around Mississippi’s state flag is not new, but with the governor’s signature it finally reached a conclusion after many failed attempts to change it. The difference this year, according to Johnson, was the bipartisan leadership by first-term legislators.

“We’ve never had anything start in the Legislature that way, and then it just became a perfect storm,” Johnson said, referring to the protests across the country for police reform and against racism, spurred by George Floyd’s killing while in the custody of Minneapolis police. The demonstrations added to pressure from state business leaders and large religious groups, as well as national sports organizations including the NCAA and the Southeastern Conference to change the state flag.

“It’s surreal … but at the same time, it’s kind of like ‘why did it have to take this long?” said Taylor Turnage, 23, president of the Mississippi Youth and College NAACP and the co-organizer for Black Lives Matter Mississippi. “I’m very, very grateful that we’ve gotten to the point where we are now because this fight has been going on for a long time, but it shouldn’t have had to take that long.”

When the issue was put to Mississippians in a statewide referendum in 2001, voters by an almost 2-to-1 margin chose to keep the 1894 state flag. Even this year, some legislators pushed for sending the issue back to voters rather than take it up themselves.

Johnson said that when he started fighting to change the flag, he was full of hope, thinking that people would recognize the pain it has caused. But eventually that hope faded to numbness.

“It just makes it hard to get anything done in this state, it makes it hard to sit down and have a conversation,” he said. “And so that removal of that flag will be like somebody taking the bars off of our doors. It would be like taking the wall that’s between us, it would be torn down, and we’ll begin to be able to work together.”

Hope for change revived in 2015, after a mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, claimed the lives of nine African Americans. At the time, both of Mississippi’s U.S. senators, Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran, voiced support for changing the flag.

The Republican speaker of the Mississippi House, Philip Gunn, also supported its removal then and played a key part in the legislation passed this week.

Also in 2015, several universities across the state voted to stop flying the state flag. The following year, more than a dozen bills were brought to the state Legislature in support of changing it. Yet none made it out of committees to a vote.

In February 2016, Judge Carlos Moore, 43, an African American civil rights attorney and judge in Clarksdale, filed a lawsuit against the state, saying the flag violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This lawsuit continued until November 2017, with Moore filing appeals with both the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Moore said the suit was dismissed because he lacked the standing to file it.

In a tearful reflection after the state Senate vote, Moore said that he was glad his 9-year-old daughter does not have to come of age in a Mississippi under the symbol that the state flag represents.

The legal battles relating to the flag have further damaged Mississippi’s national reputation. The state already ranks near the bottom nationally on issues such as the economy, health care and education.

State Rep. Trey Lamar, 39, chair of the ways and means committee, pointed to the economic benefits of removing the symbol.

“I believe that changing, retiring our current flag, changing to a more unifying flag and banner on this stage, will show the world that Mississippi is a great place to do business,” he said. “It’s certainly going to be my goal to use this to help recruit businesses and jobs to our state.”

A recent poll by the Mississippi Economic Council said that 55 percent of Mississippians were in favor of changing the flag.

Mississippi was the last state in the country to fly a flag with a Confederate symbol. Campaigns for a new flag have circulated for several years, including one for The Hospitality Flag (previously called the Stennis Flag), designed in 2014 by Mississippi artist Laurin Stennis. The 1861 Magnolia Flag and The Bonnie Blue Flag could also be options, according to The Clarion-Ledger. The legislation states that the new flag must include the phrase, “In God We Trust,” and that the new design, “shall honor the past while embracing the promise of the future.

After a new design is proposed, Mississippians will vote on options in the November election.

“I was elected and all the people here were elected to do a job,” Johnson said. “And it’s our job to do exactly what they did in 1894. It wasn’t the people who gave us this terrible flag, it was the Legislature. It’s our job to take it away.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

With veto threat, Trump dares GOP to back Confederate military leaders or risk his wrath

Published

on

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump gave the Republicans in Congress a tough choice Tuesday night: vote to honor leaders of the Confederacy, or vote against him.

“I will Veto the Defense Authorization Bill if the Elizabeth…Warren (of all people!) Amendment, which will lead to the renaming (plus other bad things!) of Fort Bragg, Fort Robert E. Lee, and many other Military Bases from which we won Two World Wars, is in the Bill!” Trump wrote on Twitter late Tuesday night, referring to the Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

It was at least the second time Trump has addressed the idea of renaming Army bases named in honor of Confederate officers. In early June, amid widespread protests against police brutality and racial discrimination, the president said he would “not even consider” it. But it is the first time he has said specifically that he would veto the defense bill over the matter.

Recent polls show that many more Americans want to keep the names than scrap them — the vast majority of Republicans don’t want a change — and Trump has been running his re-election campaign almost exclusively as an exercise in firing up his political base.

The threat is implicit: Republicans in Congress who buck him risk his wrath.

But there’s a complicated political calculus for GOP lawmakers, some of whom are in tough re-election contests in states and districts where a vote for Confederate commanders could be toxic among swing voters and others who may worry about how the issue will be viewed in the future. Younger Americans are much more likely to approve of the removal of Confederate statues from public places.

Trump, who has shown little interest in broadening his coalition, is operating on a different timeline. He only has to worry about the political horizon of the four months before November’s election. What he sees as good for him right now doesn’t necessarily match the best interests of his Republican colleagues in Congress.

By threatening a veto, Trump is forcing them to choose, particularly Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. It’s McConnell who will have to decide whether to allow an amendment to strip out or alter Warren’s provision creating a commission to rename the bases.

McConnell has kept his cards close to his vest but indicated he could accept a change in nomenclature.

“If it’s appropriate to take another look at these names, I’m OK with that,” McConnell said, according to The Associated Press. “Whatever is ultimately decided, I don’t have a problem with.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee avoided a roll call vote when it adopted Warren’s provision by voice vote last month. In the House, Reps. Anthony Brown, D-Md., and Don Bacon, R-Neb., introduced a similar bill that is likely to be incorporated into their chamber’s version of the legislation.

“As the most diverse and integrated part of American society, it is only right that our installations bear the names of military heroes who represent the best ideals of our Republic,” Bacon, a retired Air Force brigadier general who represents a swing district, said in a statement. “We owe this to ourselves, to our military, our veterans, and to every American who will answer the call.”

With Mississippi deciding in the past few days to remove the Confederate emblem from its state flag, it seems unlikely that Congress will side with Trump on voting affirmatively to preserve the names of military bases that commemorate turncoats who fought to maintain the enslavement of Black people.

There may be a third option for lawmakers.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who opposes Warren’s effort, had drafted language that would weaken her mandate for the Department of Defense to change the names of certain military bases. His version would similarly establish a commission to review the names, but it would only be required to report to Congress on its findings, including both the costs of changes and input from the communities surrounding the bases.

“The reality though is that this was never about the Confederacy,” Hawley said in a statement when he released his proposal. “That’s what left-wing activists want us to believe. The events of the last few weeks where rioters have attacked American and religious landmarks tell us otherwise.”

The issue is so charged that any amendment designed to frustrate Warren’s purpose could create discomfort for some GOP lawmakers and their party leaders.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday he believes Warren’s provision will become law.

“This is nothing but the typical bluster from President Trump,” he said. “The [defense bill] will pass and we will scrub from our military bases the names of men who fought for the Confederacy, who took up arms against our country.”

But if Trump gets his way, that won’t happen without a high-profile and politically fraught fight for GOP lawmakers.



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Is it possible that no one told Trump about the alleged Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers?

Published

on

WASHINGTON — The CIA knew. The State Department knew. Senior congressional officials and the British government were briefed.

So how could it be that nobody told the president?

White House officials offered a new wrinkle Wednesday in their explanation of why President Donald Trump wasn’t informed about intelligence collected earlier this year that suggested the Russians were paying the Taliban to kill Americans, even though officials in both the U.S. and the U.K. were aware of the reporting.

It was the decision of the president’s intelligence briefer, White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said on Fox News.

The briefer, a career CIA analyst, “decided not to brief him because it was unverified intelligence,” said O’Brien. “And, by the way, she is an outstanding officer and knowing all the facts I know, I certainly support her decision.”

But intelligence is almost always “unverified.” And the idea that a career government bureaucrat made a unilateral decision to keep Trump out of the loop on the Russian bounty matter — even though he was in regular phone contact with Russian president Vladimir Putin — is not credible, current and former national security officials tell NBC News.

Beth Sanner, deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration.Office of DNI

Since April 2017, Trump’s lead briefer has been Beth Sanner, a career CIA officer detailed to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Her formal title is deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration

The reporting about possible Russian bounties was included in the president’s written intelligence briefing, officials have told NBC News. A senior administration official said it was not a significant portion of the President’s Daily Brief, or PDB, and a number of officials had assessed that the intelligence was not conclusive and could not be corroborated.

Current and former officials say that Trump usually doesn’t read his briefing material, so his advisers knew that if Sanner didn’t tell him, he wouldn’t know about it.

But Sanner doesn’t make these decisions alone, current and former officials say. CIA Director Gina Haspel is usually in the room with her, as is the director or acting director of national intelligence — first Dan Coats, then Joseph Maguire, then Richard Grenell, now John Ratcliffe. The national security adviser is often also present, officials say, and they decide together what to include in the verbal briefing.

The national security team often strategizes long and hard before the Oval Office sessions about what and what not to say, current and former officials say, because team members know that certain subjects can provoke an eruption that will send things off the rails.

“From what has been reported about the President’s Daily Brief process, choices have to be made about how best to engage the president on a limited number of high-priority topics,” said Nick Rasmussen, an NBC News contributor who headed the National Counterterrorism Center early in the Trump presidency.

“But if the material was in the PDB, then every senior national security official in the administration was aware of it, and I find it hard to understand why at least one of those individuals wouldn’t have felt compelled to engage the president.”

Staff directors at the National Security Council met in March to discuss the intelligence, officials told NBC News, but O’Brien opted not to inform Trump.

O’Brien said on Fox that the NSC began developing options to take to the president if the intelligence was “verified.”

He added that even though the intelligence was deemed uncorroborated, “We were concerned about it,” and U.S. forces and coalition forces in Afghanistan were briefed to “make sure they could have protection.”

Critics suggest a troubling scenario. “I believe…his staff was afraid to tell him about it for fear he would erupt and do something damaging, like calling Putin and tipping him off,” said Jeffrey Smith, a former general counsel to the CIA.

Officials at the White House and the ODNI disputed that assertion. But a few previous incidents have raised questions. In May 2017, Trump revealed highly classified information, apparently by accident, to Russia’s foreign minister during an Oval Office meeting, The Washington Post reported.

Also in May 2017, Trump told Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in a phone call that two nuclear submarines were somewhere in the waters near North Korea, according to a transcript obtained by The New York Times.

Last August, Trump tweeted a photograph of an Iranian missile site that some experts said was probably classified.

Former Trump administration officials have described Trump as extremely difficult to brief, prone to launching into tirades that derail the session.

“I didn’t think these briefings were terribly useful, and neither did the intelligence community, since much of the time was spent listening to Trump, rather than Trump listening to the briefers,” wrote former National Security Adviser John Bolton in his book, “The Room Where It Happened.”

Bolton added that Trump delivered “rambling lectures” at those briefings, which generally took place once or twice a week.

“He spoke at greater length than the briefers, often on matters completely unrelated to the subjects at hand,” Bolton wrote.

This is the second time in a few months that Trump or a White House official has cited the actions of Sanner. In response to criticism that Trump failed to act on warnings about coronavirus that were included in his intelligence briefing materials more than a dozen times in January and February, Trump tweeted that he was first briefed Jan. 23, and that his briefer portrayed the virus as “not a big deal.”

In a tweet Wednesday, Trump called the reports of Russians paying bounties to kill Americans a “made up Fake News Media Hoax started to slander me & the Republican Party.” He added. “I was never briefed because any info that they may have had did not rise to that level.”

Some Republican lawmakers briefed on the intelligence say that if proven true, it merits a strong response from the U.S.

By calling the intelligence “unverified allegations,” the White House is “hiding behind the language of law enforcement to justify their gross mishandling of the intelligence they were provided,” said former CIA lawyer Smith, a Trump critic.

He and other intelligence experts note that intelligence is rarely “verified.” Intelligence analysis calls upon professionals to make their best judgments often based on fragments of secret information. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden used to say, “If it was a fact, it wouldn’t be intelligence.”

The CIA never “verified” that Osama bin Laden was living in a compound in Pakistan — only the Navy SEALs did that, after they shot and killed him.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending