Joe Biden gets slammed
The case against him was ably made by his rivals. His case for himself was uneven.
By JOHN F. HARRIS
The case against Joe Biden’s presidential campaign got made Thursday night right out in the open — sound up, lights glaring — nothing blurred in a haze of euphemism, politesse, or indirection.
Arguments that have hovered around Biden for months, which he has mostly brushed aside in above-the-fray fashion that left his front-runner status secure, were made directly to his face on the Democratic debate stage in Miami. Sen. Kamala Harris played the most dramatic part, but most of Biden’s nine rivals, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, played some role in crafting a painful string of indictments.
Biden, the arguments went, is at age 76 from the wrong generation to lead Democrats in 2020. His paeans to the supposedly more civil Senate of his 30s, as well as his own record in those days, show racial insensitivity. He’s gotten big questions, like the 2002 Iraq War vote, wrong. He’s been played for a fool by Republicans in his efforts to show that he is a consummate doer and dealmaker.
Biden’s response to the barrage was decidedly uneven.
At his best, he gave spirited and plausible answers even while stumbling over a word here or there, inviting sympathizers to view him as he views himself — someone who’s made honest mistakes, but has proven himself one of the good guys over a long public life, fighting for civil rights and other progressive values in many arenas or over many years.
At his worst, the frontrunner seemed to shrink on the crowded stage, coming off as tired in his manner, soggy in words and argument in ways that sometimes unintentionally reinforced the criticism.
He offered some cringe-worthy moments that his obviously emboldened competitors will surely use as metaphors for dotage, in ways that will probably be unfair when stripped of context but could be potently damaging.
When a lesser-known candidate, Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, puckishly served up a quote about how it was time to pass the leadership torch to a new generation — supposedly delivered by Biden himself 32 years ago — the former vice president smiled as though to say good one and retorted: “I am still holding on to that torch. I want to make it clear to you.”
A generous interpretation of that line was that he was trying to convey good-natured defiance, but it could easily be framed for less charitable purposes as a man stubbornly clinging to ambition even as his moment passed.
“Anyway, my time is up,” Biden said, as he finished his dramatic exchange over racial history with Harris.
He meant his allotted time from NBC moderators literally was up. But the line was terrible symbolism as he finished an exchange over his interactions with segregationist senators and opposition to federally ordered busing in the 1970s.
Several questions flowed from the evening, starting with: What the hell was up with Biden Thursday night? Even beyond the clumsy phrase, since when does a famously garrulous politician voluntarily hit the brakes on his own words? Was the evening a fair picture of Biden’s political performance skills at this stage of his career?
One explanation could have been the setting. The stage was crowded and time limits were tight, making it harder to strike the more conversational and intimate tone which typically shows Biden at his best. The proceedings were loud and often rude, as NBC moderators struggled to maintain order, as candidates honked and stammered and talked over one another in desperate efforts to gain the floor. Even much younger candidates seemed to find the whole thing disorienting.
The larger question is how will the evening echo in the weeks ahead?
Any instinct to assume that an uncommanding performance inevitably introduces new fluidity into the race must be offset by the knowledge that earlier episodes — such as women complaining that Biden had made them uncomfortable by invading their personal space — quickly receded. It could be that Democrats who have put Biden atop polls — including plurality leads with women and racial minorities — feel they already have a fair picture of a very familiar politician and like him in spite of, or even because of, occasionally undisciplined performances.
His rivals definitely were showing discipline — and clear strategic purpose — in taking the fight directly to him.
“I do not believe you are a racist,” Harris told Biden, as she unveiled her attack, but quickly added that for her “it’s personal and it was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.”
Harris was referring to recent Biden remarks in which he praised himself for being able to work productively even with senators whose views he loathed, such as Dixiecrats James Eastland and Herman Talmadge. She also said she took offense at Biden’s opposition to busing, citing her own history as a “little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public school” through crosstown busing.
Biden became animated in response. “It’s a mischaracterization of my position across the board,” he said. “I did not praise racists. That is not true.” He said he got into politics because of civil rights and noted acerbically that as a young man he became a public defender, not a prosecutor like Harris.
On busing, he said he was opposed to federally mandated busing, but never objected to localities ordering it. Harris countered with the historically accurate argument that the federal government acted precisely because so many states and localities refused to desegregate after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision.
This was just one of several arresting moments. A normally mild-mannered senator, Michael Bennet of Colorado, got tough with Biden in attacking his claims that he drove hard bargains with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The episode Biden cited, getting Republicans to pass funds for financial recovery early in the Obama presidency, was actually a raw deal, Bennet said, since it allowed permanent extension of tax cuts begun in the George W. Bush presidency: “That was a great deal for Mitch McConnell and a terrible deal for America.”
Moderator Rachel Maddow pressed Biden on his early support for the Iraq War, which he has since recanted, and opened a window for Sanders to swoop in. “One of the differences that Joe and I have in our record is Joe voted for that war and I helped lead the opposition to that war, which was a total disaster," said Sanders, adding that, “I will do everything I can to prevent a war with Iran which would be far worse than the disastrous war with Iraq.”
Despite sometimes being annoying to listen to, because of so many candidates interrupting, the Thursday night debate was on balance a much more bracing and illuminating event than the first round of ten Democrats who debated the night before. The central question facing Democratic primary voters — who is best equipped to dethrone Trump — was engaged in a much more direct way, with repeated and impassioned denunciations of the president by name.
Democrats also engaged with each other in relevant ways. There were substantive discussions, such as whether to build on Obama’s Affordable Care Act in incremental ways, as Biden and several others want, or scrap it entirely in favor of mandatory “Medicare for All” in which private insurance is banned, as Sanders argues for.
There were also stylistic contrasts, such as Harris’s and Sanders’s more theatrical exhortations, versus the lower-volume and more expository style of Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, and Bennet.
Inevitably, though, the debate kept returning to Biden, and appropriately: There is likely no one other than Biden getting the nomination except if he or she manages to dethrone him. These exchanges offered reminders of two familiar realities: People who have been legislators, as Biden was for so long, sometimes find it hard to not talk like legislators. Also, 1972, when Biden first got elected senator just before his 30th birthday, was a long time ago.
When Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was promoting her plans for bringing the influence of big money in Washington to heel, Biden reached way back for a response. “The first constitutional amendment to do that,” he said, “was introduced by me when I was a young senator.”
June 28, 2019
Harris
Kamala Harris breaks out
The California senator dominated, ripping into Joe Biden on race and delivering some of the most memorable moments of the night.
By MARC CAPUTO and NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
For the first half of Thursday’s presidential debate, Joe Biden looked as if he would somehow be able to stand at center stage yet not be the center of the bullseye of other candidates’ attacks.
California Sen. Kamala Harris changed that, taking Biden to task for his opposition to busing and his working relationships decades ago as a U.S. senator.
The testy exchange, during which both raised their voices, highlighted a racial as well as a generational divide between the two candidates and solidified Harris as the buzziest candidate onstage. Earlier, she was the voice of reason when she quieted squabbling colleagues.
“Guys, you know what? America does not want to witness a food fight,” Harris said. “They wanna know how we’re gonna put food on their table.”
The debate hall erupted in applause.
Here are some of the debate's key moments:
Biden and Bernie and a little bit of Trump
The debate began with the top two candidates flexing their rhetorical muscle.
When asked about his comments that the wealthy would not be treated too differently under a Biden administration, the former vice president went right after his favorite target: President Trump.
“Donald Trump thinks Wall Street built America. Ordinary middle-class Americans built America,” Biden said. “My dad used to have an expression. He said, ‘Joe, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It's about your dignity. It’s about respect. It’s being able to look your kid in the eye and saying that everything is going to be okay.”
Sanders was asked about whether his proposals would result in higher taxes for the middle class and, after first explaining the need for Medicare For All and subsidized college debt relief, he said taxes would go up but healthcare costs would go down.
“We have a new vision for America. And at a time when we have three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of America, while 500,000 people are sleeping out on the streets today, we think it is time for change. Real change,” Sanders said. “By that, I mean health care in my view is a human right.”
Harris tears into Biden over busing
One of Joe Biden’s biggest potential liabilities heading into the debate was his long-ago opposition to federal involvement in busing to solve segregation problems and his working relationship, bragged about on the campaign trail, with noted segregationists.
Harris, the only black woman on stage, took the chance to turn directly to Biden and challenge him on the issue during a discussion that started with the shooting of a black man in Buttigieg’s city of South Bend.
“I do not believe you are a racist and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground,” Harris told him, “but I also believe and it is personal and it was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.”
Biden, the former vice president to the first black president in history, bristled at her criticism and denied he “praised” segregationists, even though Harris didn’t use the word. He said busing was a local issue and he did not oppose it, just federal involvement in it.
Harris then asked him: “But do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then? Do you agree?”
Biden: “I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed was busing ordered by the Department of Education. That’s what I opposed.”
Harris then replied that the federal government was needed because “there was a failure of the states” to integrate schools and pointed out she was in the second class of students integrated into schools while he was a U.S. senator.
Harris then began raising her voice: “There are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.”
Biden began to speak loudly as well.
“I have supported the ERA from the very beginning! I’m the guy who extended the Voting Rights Act for 25 years,” he said. “And I argued very strongly that we in fact deal with the notion of denying people access to the ballot box.”
Biden then ran out of steam: “I agree that everybody wants that in fact -- anyway, my time is up.”
Bernie Sanders embraces socialist label — his opponents are eager to use it against him.
Bernie Sanders and John Hickenlooper debate democratic socialism during debate
Republicans want to frame Democrats as socialists and Sanders is usually open to the label. Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper was eager to criticize him for it.
“I think that the bottom line is if we don't clearly define that we are not socialists, the Republicans are going to come at us every way we can and call us socialists,” Hickenlooper said. “If you look at the Green New Deal, which I admire the sense of urgency and how important it is to do climate change ... but we can't promise every American a government job. I believe health care is a right and not a privilege, but you can't expect to eliminate private experience for 180 million people, many of whom don't want to give it up.”
Sanders, given a chance to reply, went right to the polls and right at President Trump.
“Well, I think the response is that the polls ... have us 10 points ahead of Donald Trump because the American people understand that Trump is a phony, that Trump is a pathological liar and a racist and that he lied to the American people during his campaign,” Sanders said.
Harris ends ‘food fight’ over generational change
Rep. Eric Swalwell recalled that he was 6 years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic convention with a message of passing the torch to a new generation.
“That candidate was then-Senator Joe Biden,” Swalwell said. “Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago. He’s still right today. … Pass the torch.”
The crowd laughed. Even Biden himself smiled before he was given a chance to respond. “I’m still holding on to that torch,” he shot back. “I wanna make it clear to you.”
Then the pile-on began. South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg chimed in, arguing that “as the youngest guy on the stage, I should contribute.” But Sanders also wanted to interject. “As part of Joe’s generation—,” Sanders began, as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand also fought for airtime.
Moments later, Sen. Kamala Harris pounced. “Guys, you know what? America does not want to witness a food fight,” she said. “They wanna know how we’re gonna put on their table.”
The audience roared.
Democrats go after Trump on immigration
The Democrats on stage were united against President Trump’s zero-tolerance policy for border-crossers that has led to mass family separations, but each attacked him in a slightly different way.
Harris asked the crowd to consider how desperate mothers have sent their kids on international journeys for a reason: “She has decided for that child to remain where they are is worse. But what does Donald Trump do? He says go back to where you came from. That is not reflective of our America and our values and it's got to end.”
Marianne Williamson: “What Donald Trump has done to these children... it is kidnapping and it's important for us to realize that, if you forcibly take a child from their parents' arms, you are kidnapping them. If you take a lot of children and you put them in detainment centers thus inflicting trauma upon them, that’s called child abuse ... these are state-sponsored crimes.”
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: “One of the worst things about President Trump [has] done to this country, is he’s torn apart the moral fabric of who we are. When he started separating children at the border from their parents, the fact that seven children have died in his custody, the fact that dozens of children have been separated from their parents and they have no plan to reunite them.”
Buttigieg focused what he said was religious hypocrisy of those who say they’re Christians, yet support Trump’s immigration proposals: “To suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages, has lost all claim to ever use religion language again.”
Buttigieg accepts failure on police diversity
Buttigieg conceded he had failed during his tenure as mayor to diversify South Bend’s police force, which is overwhelmingly white despite his city’s population being more than 25 percent black.
“I couldn’t get it done,” Buttigieg said. He also acknowledged the recent officer-involved shooting of a black man that has gripped the community in South Bend and taken Buttigieg off the campaign trail.
“It’s a mess, and we’re hurting,” he said. “I could walk you through all of the things that we have done as a community, all of the steps that we took… but it didn’t save the life of Eric Logan,” a black man who was shot by a white police officer. “And when I look into his mother’s eyes, I have to face the fact that nothing I say will bring him back.”
Buttigieg added that the situation in South Bend is not unique to the rest of the country, which has seen people of color killed by police turned into hashtags as activists call for justice and more police accountability.
“I am determined to bring about a day when a white person driving a vehicle and a black person driving a vehicle, when they see a police officer approaching, feels the exact same thing: a feeling not of fear but of safety,” he said.
The California senator dominated, ripping into Joe Biden on race and delivering some of the most memorable moments of the night.
By MARC CAPUTO and NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
For the first half of Thursday’s presidential debate, Joe Biden looked as if he would somehow be able to stand at center stage yet not be the center of the bullseye of other candidates’ attacks.
California Sen. Kamala Harris changed that, taking Biden to task for his opposition to busing and his working relationships decades ago as a U.S. senator.
The testy exchange, during which both raised their voices, highlighted a racial as well as a generational divide between the two candidates and solidified Harris as the buzziest candidate onstage. Earlier, she was the voice of reason when she quieted squabbling colleagues.
“Guys, you know what? America does not want to witness a food fight,” Harris said. “They wanna know how we’re gonna put food on their table.”
The debate hall erupted in applause.
Here are some of the debate's key moments:
Biden and Bernie and a little bit of Trump
The debate began with the top two candidates flexing their rhetorical muscle.
When asked about his comments that the wealthy would not be treated too differently under a Biden administration, the former vice president went right after his favorite target: President Trump.
“Donald Trump thinks Wall Street built America. Ordinary middle-class Americans built America,” Biden said. “My dad used to have an expression. He said, ‘Joe, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It's about your dignity. It’s about respect. It’s being able to look your kid in the eye and saying that everything is going to be okay.”
Sanders was asked about whether his proposals would result in higher taxes for the middle class and, after first explaining the need for Medicare For All and subsidized college debt relief, he said taxes would go up but healthcare costs would go down.
“We have a new vision for America. And at a time when we have three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of America, while 500,000 people are sleeping out on the streets today, we think it is time for change. Real change,” Sanders said. “By that, I mean health care in my view is a human right.”
Harris tears into Biden over busing
One of Joe Biden’s biggest potential liabilities heading into the debate was his long-ago opposition to federal involvement in busing to solve segregation problems and his working relationship, bragged about on the campaign trail, with noted segregationists.
Harris, the only black woman on stage, took the chance to turn directly to Biden and challenge him on the issue during a discussion that started with the shooting of a black man in Buttigieg’s city of South Bend.
“I do not believe you are a racist and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground,” Harris told him, “but I also believe and it is personal and it was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.”
Biden, the former vice president to the first black president in history, bristled at her criticism and denied he “praised” segregationists, even though Harris didn’t use the word. He said busing was a local issue and he did not oppose it, just federal involvement in it.
Harris then asked him: “But do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then? Do you agree?”
Biden: “I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed was busing ordered by the Department of Education. That’s what I opposed.”
Harris then replied that the federal government was needed because “there was a failure of the states” to integrate schools and pointed out she was in the second class of students integrated into schools while he was a U.S. senator.
Harris then began raising her voice: “There are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.”
Biden began to speak loudly as well.
“I have supported the ERA from the very beginning! I’m the guy who extended the Voting Rights Act for 25 years,” he said. “And I argued very strongly that we in fact deal with the notion of denying people access to the ballot box.”
Biden then ran out of steam: “I agree that everybody wants that in fact -- anyway, my time is up.”
Bernie Sanders embraces socialist label — his opponents are eager to use it against him.
Bernie Sanders and John Hickenlooper debate democratic socialism during debate
Republicans want to frame Democrats as socialists and Sanders is usually open to the label. Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper was eager to criticize him for it.
“I think that the bottom line is if we don't clearly define that we are not socialists, the Republicans are going to come at us every way we can and call us socialists,” Hickenlooper said. “If you look at the Green New Deal, which I admire the sense of urgency and how important it is to do climate change ... but we can't promise every American a government job. I believe health care is a right and not a privilege, but you can't expect to eliminate private experience for 180 million people, many of whom don't want to give it up.”
Sanders, given a chance to reply, went right to the polls and right at President Trump.
“Well, I think the response is that the polls ... have us 10 points ahead of Donald Trump because the American people understand that Trump is a phony, that Trump is a pathological liar and a racist and that he lied to the American people during his campaign,” Sanders said.
Harris ends ‘food fight’ over generational change
Rep. Eric Swalwell recalled that he was 6 years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic convention with a message of passing the torch to a new generation.
“That candidate was then-Senator Joe Biden,” Swalwell said. “Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago. He’s still right today. … Pass the torch.”
The crowd laughed. Even Biden himself smiled before he was given a chance to respond. “I’m still holding on to that torch,” he shot back. “I wanna make it clear to you.”
Then the pile-on began. South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg chimed in, arguing that “as the youngest guy on the stage, I should contribute.” But Sanders also wanted to interject. “As part of Joe’s generation—,” Sanders began, as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand also fought for airtime.
Moments later, Sen. Kamala Harris pounced. “Guys, you know what? America does not want to witness a food fight,” she said. “They wanna know how we’re gonna put on their table.”
The audience roared.
Democrats go after Trump on immigration
The Democrats on stage were united against President Trump’s zero-tolerance policy for border-crossers that has led to mass family separations, but each attacked him in a slightly different way.
Harris asked the crowd to consider how desperate mothers have sent their kids on international journeys for a reason: “She has decided for that child to remain where they are is worse. But what does Donald Trump do? He says go back to where you came from. That is not reflective of our America and our values and it's got to end.”
Marianne Williamson: “What Donald Trump has done to these children... it is kidnapping and it's important for us to realize that, if you forcibly take a child from their parents' arms, you are kidnapping them. If you take a lot of children and you put them in detainment centers thus inflicting trauma upon them, that’s called child abuse ... these are state-sponsored crimes.”
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: “One of the worst things about President Trump [has] done to this country, is he’s torn apart the moral fabric of who we are. When he started separating children at the border from their parents, the fact that seven children have died in his custody, the fact that dozens of children have been separated from their parents and they have no plan to reunite them.”
Buttigieg focused what he said was religious hypocrisy of those who say they’re Christians, yet support Trump’s immigration proposals: “To suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages, has lost all claim to ever use religion language again.”
Buttigieg accepts failure on police diversity
Buttigieg conceded he had failed during his tenure as mayor to diversify South Bend’s police force, which is overwhelmingly white despite his city’s population being more than 25 percent black.
“I couldn’t get it done,” Buttigieg said. He also acknowledged the recent officer-involved shooting of a black man that has gripped the community in South Bend and taken Buttigieg off the campaign trail.
“It’s a mess, and we’re hurting,” he said. “I could walk you through all of the things that we have done as a community, all of the steps that we took… but it didn’t save the life of Eric Logan,” a black man who was shot by a white police officer. “And when I look into his mother’s eyes, I have to face the fact that nothing I say will bring him back.”
Buttigieg added that the situation in South Bend is not unique to the rest of the country, which has seen people of color killed by police turned into hashtags as activists call for justice and more police accountability.
“I am determined to bring about a day when a white person driving a vehicle and a black person driving a vehicle, when they see a police officer approaching, feels the exact same thing: a feeling not of fear but of safety,” he said.
Who??????
Marianne Williamson brings love, peace and a distaste for 'plans' to the debate stage
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
The Democratic field’s heavy hitters dominated the debate stage Thursday night, but it was a spiritual, self-help guru who got a nitro shot of national attention.
Marianne Williamson, a fringe candidate who previously served as a spiritual adviser to Oprah, brought a whole new dimension to the presidential primary as she railed against the idea of “plans” and spoke of harnessing love for political purposes.
She quickly became the most searched candidate in the debate, according to data from Google.
Williamson, who had been cast as a punchline for pundits who pointed out that she bumped a red-state governor and a sitting congressman off the debate stage, stayed silent for the first half hour of the debate before a question was finally directed her way. But her soft spokenness coupled with several well-placed one-liners set Twitter ablaze every time she did speak up.
When asked about her plan to lower the cost of prescription drugs, she knocked Big Pharma and then veered to a theme she would return to throughout the night.
“I’ll tell you one thing, it’s really nice if we’ve got all these plans, but if you think we’re going to beat Donald Trump by just having all these plans, you’ve got another thing coming,” she argued. “Because he didn’t win by saying he had a plan. He won by simply saying Make America Great Again. We’ve got to get deeper than just these superficial fixes, as important as they are.”
She later pointed out that John F. Kennedy “ did not say, ‘I have a plan to get a man to the moon and so we're going to do it and I think we can all work and maybe we can get a man on the moon.’ John Kennedy said, ‘By the end of this decade, we are going to put a man on the moon.’”
(She later clarified that she viewed plans as the domain of a president's Cabinet.)
Williamson found her footing in a line of attack on the conditions of migrant detention centers along the border, accusing the Trump administration of carrying out “state-sponsored” kidnapping and abuse of migrant children. She also drew laughter for dinging the youngest candidates on stage over their push for generational change.
“The fact that somebody has a younger body doesn't mean you don't have old ideas,” she objected.
And when the candidates were polled on the first thing they would do as president, Williamson broke from the rest of the field by offering an unexpected answer.
“My first call is to the prime minister of New Zealand, who said that her goal is to make New Zealand the place where it's the best place in the world for a child to grow up,” she said, interjecting before former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper finished his response. “And I would tell her, ‘Girlfriend, you are so wrong.’ Because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up.”
The offbeat nature of her answers and her general presence on stage set off a race to unearth her prior tweets, which she’s been sending to her 2.6-million-plus followers.
“You're a lamp; God is the electricity. You're a faucet; God is the water. You're a human; God is the divine within you. ALLOW the flow. #fb,” Williamson tweeted in March 2010.
“God is BIG, swine flu SMALL. See every cell of your body filled with divine light. Pour God's love on our immune systems. Truth protects,” she wrote in April 2009.
“All the films were good but AVATAR has changed the world. He didn't win an Oscar tonight, but James Cameron deserves a Nobel Peace Price #fb,” she sent in March 2010.
During her closing statement on Thursday, while lamenting that “I’m sorry we haven’t talked more,” she made her case against plans once again in a moment that sealed her viral status online.
“Donald Trump is not going to be beaten just by insider politics talk. He's not going to be beaten just somebody who has plans,” Williamson said.
“He's going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what this man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes. So, Mr. President, if you're listening, I want you to hear me, please. You have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out,” she continued.
“So I, sir, I have a feeling you know what you're doing. I'm going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field. And, sir, love will win.”
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
The Democratic field’s heavy hitters dominated the debate stage Thursday night, but it was a spiritual, self-help guru who got a nitro shot of national attention.
Marianne Williamson, a fringe candidate who previously served as a spiritual adviser to Oprah, brought a whole new dimension to the presidential primary as she railed against the idea of “plans” and spoke of harnessing love for political purposes.
She quickly became the most searched candidate in the debate, according to data from Google.
Williamson, who had been cast as a punchline for pundits who pointed out that she bumped a red-state governor and a sitting congressman off the debate stage, stayed silent for the first half hour of the debate before a question was finally directed her way. But her soft spokenness coupled with several well-placed one-liners set Twitter ablaze every time she did speak up.
When asked about her plan to lower the cost of prescription drugs, she knocked Big Pharma and then veered to a theme she would return to throughout the night.
“I’ll tell you one thing, it’s really nice if we’ve got all these plans, but if you think we’re going to beat Donald Trump by just having all these plans, you’ve got another thing coming,” she argued. “Because he didn’t win by saying he had a plan. He won by simply saying Make America Great Again. We’ve got to get deeper than just these superficial fixes, as important as they are.”
She later pointed out that John F. Kennedy “ did not say, ‘I have a plan to get a man to the moon and so we're going to do it and I think we can all work and maybe we can get a man on the moon.’ John Kennedy said, ‘By the end of this decade, we are going to put a man on the moon.’”
(She later clarified that she viewed plans as the domain of a president's Cabinet.)
Williamson found her footing in a line of attack on the conditions of migrant detention centers along the border, accusing the Trump administration of carrying out “state-sponsored” kidnapping and abuse of migrant children. She also drew laughter for dinging the youngest candidates on stage over their push for generational change.
“The fact that somebody has a younger body doesn't mean you don't have old ideas,” she objected.
And when the candidates were polled on the first thing they would do as president, Williamson broke from the rest of the field by offering an unexpected answer.
“My first call is to the prime minister of New Zealand, who said that her goal is to make New Zealand the place where it's the best place in the world for a child to grow up,” she said, interjecting before former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper finished his response. “And I would tell her, ‘Girlfriend, you are so wrong.’ Because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up.”
The offbeat nature of her answers and her general presence on stage set off a race to unearth her prior tweets, which she’s been sending to her 2.6-million-plus followers.
“You're a lamp; God is the electricity. You're a faucet; God is the water. You're a human; God is the divine within you. ALLOW the flow. #fb,” Williamson tweeted in March 2010.
“God is BIG, swine flu SMALL. See every cell of your body filled with divine light. Pour God's love on our immune systems. Truth protects,” she wrote in April 2009.
“All the films were good but AVATAR has changed the world. He didn't win an Oscar tonight, but James Cameron deserves a Nobel Peace Price #fb,” she sent in March 2010.
During her closing statement on Thursday, while lamenting that “I’m sorry we haven’t talked more,” she made her case against plans once again in a moment that sealed her viral status online.
“Donald Trump is not going to be beaten just by insider politics talk. He's not going to be beaten just somebody who has plans,” Williamson said.
“He's going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what this man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes. So, Mr. President, if you're listening, I want you to hear me, please. You have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out,” she continued.
“So I, sir, I have a feeling you know what you're doing. I'm going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field. And, sir, love will win.”
Generational attacks
Sanders says generational attacks on him and Biden amount to 'ageism'
By PIA DESHPANDE
Sen. Bernie Sanders chafed at generational attacks against the older Democratic candidates on the debate stage on Thursday night, saying the digs struck him as "ageism."
“I think that's kind of ageism to tell you the truth,” Sanders, who is 77, responded when a journalist asked about the "generational argument being made by one of your younger rivals."
Sanders went on to say that what all the Democratic candidates are trying to do is “to end discrimination in this country against women, against minorities, against the LGBT community, and I think on ageism as well.”
Sanders’ accusation came after a striking exchange earlier in the evening between former Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Eric Swalwell, who was the second-youngest candidate on the debate stage at 38. (South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg was the youngest at 37.)
“I was six years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic Convention and said, ‘It’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.’” Swalwell said, pausing for effect. “That candidate was then-Sen. Joe Biden.”
Biden, who is 76, wasted no time in responding, telling the young presidential hopeful that he was “still holding on to that torch.”
A free-for-all followed, with multiple candidates trying to weigh in on the issue of which generation should next lead the country.
Sanders, for his part, said the pressing problems in the nation are "not generational."
"The issue is, who has the guts to take on Wall Street, to take on the fossil fuel industry, to take on the big money interests who have unbelievable influence over the economic and political life of this country?" Sanders shot back on stage.
By PIA DESHPANDE
Sen. Bernie Sanders chafed at generational attacks against the older Democratic candidates on the debate stage on Thursday night, saying the digs struck him as "ageism."
“I think that's kind of ageism to tell you the truth,” Sanders, who is 77, responded when a journalist asked about the "generational argument being made by one of your younger rivals."
Sanders went on to say that what all the Democratic candidates are trying to do is “to end discrimination in this country against women, against minorities, against the LGBT community, and I think on ageism as well.”
Sanders’ accusation came after a striking exchange earlier in the evening between former Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Eric Swalwell, who was the second-youngest candidate on the debate stage at 38. (South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg was the youngest at 37.)
“I was six years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic Convention and said, ‘It’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.’” Swalwell said, pausing for effect. “That candidate was then-Sen. Joe Biden.”
Biden, who is 76, wasted no time in responding, telling the young presidential hopeful that he was “still holding on to that torch.”
A free-for-all followed, with multiple candidates trying to weigh in on the issue of which generation should next lead the country.
Sanders, for his part, said the pressing problems in the nation are "not generational."
"The issue is, who has the guts to take on Wall Street, to take on the fossil fuel industry, to take on the big money interests who have unbelievable influence over the economic and political life of this country?" Sanders shot back on stage.
Harris owned Biden
The five long minutes when Harris owned Biden
The California senator jumped into a conversation about race and took on the front-runner in a moment that could change the 2020 race.
By ELENA SCHNEIDER
Sen. Kamala Harris started carefully, working the edges of a policy difference to set herself apart from Joe Biden. Gesturing to the former vice president during Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate, Harris noted that deportations were “one of the very few issues with which I disagreed” with the Obama administration.
But not 15 minutes later, Harris lit into Biden on the issue of race, delivering a personal, political and generational critique that left Biden stumbling to explain his record on busing and defend previous comments about working with segregationist senators. Eventually, Biden simply cut himself off and offered to move the debate along.
“Anyway, my time is up,” Biden said, letting his hands fall. “I’m sorry.”
The exchange between Harris and Biden demonstrated the California senator’s sheer political skill, which could refocus attention on her this summer as the Democratic primary begins to heat up. Harris has been among the top-five polling Democratic presidential candidates for most of the year, but after making a splash at the beginning of her campaign, she has had a quieter spring. All at once, Harris put herself at the center of the presidential race while driving home the turn-the-page argument a few other candidates had briefly pressed against Biden earlier in the evening.
Harris seized her starring moment out of nothing about halfway through Thursday’s debate, validating supporters who believe her debating prowess would be a powerful weapon against President Donald Trump in a general election. As questions to other Democrats about race and policing devolved into cross-talk, Harris raised her voice over the crowd: “As the only black person on this stage, I’d like to speak on the issue of race.”
Taken aback, the moderators granted Harris 30 seconds after cheers and applause from the audience died down. Then, after a few words of introduction, she turned that time on Biden.
“I do not believe you are a racist,” Harris said, referring to Biden’s recent comments about his ability to work across the aisle, including with segregationist senators. “And I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground. But I also believe, and it’s personal — it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.”
Harris said it was personal as she started her soundbite; then, she made it personal by hearkening back to her youth.
“And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing,” Harris continued, the debate hall quiet. “And you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”
With Harris’ plan now in motion, her campaign shared on social media a picture of Harris as a girl with the caption “that little girl was me.” The photo is now emblazoned on black t-shirts for sale on the senator’s campaign website.
Biden rejected Harris’ criticism, casting her attack as a “mischaracterization” and touting his own civil rights record with an implicit punch at Harris’ resume as a district attorney and state attorney general, which has come under criticism from criminal justice reformers.
“If we want to have this campaign litigated on who supports civil rights and whether I did or not, I'm happy to do that,” Biden said. “I was a public defender. I did not become a prosecutor.”
But Biden’s defense of his position on busing opened him back up to Harris. A young Harris, Biden said, “would have been able to go to school the same exact way because it was a local decision made by your City Council. That’s fine,” Biden said. He continued: “That's one of the things I argued for, that we should be breaking down these lines.”
But Harris pressed Biden: “Do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then? Do you agree?”
The former vice president, appearing exasperated, insisted that he didn’t oppose busing throughout America, rather opposing “busing ordered by the Department of Education.” Biden wanted to keep it a local decision, he said.
But Harris reminded viewers that her hometown of Berkeley, Calif. didn’t fully integrate until “almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education.”
“And that’s where the federal government must step in,” Harris said, pressing home a broader civil rights argument. “That’s why we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. That’s why we need to pass the Equality Act. That’s why we need to pass the ERA. There are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.”
Biden began a frustrated rebuttal, before cutting himself off and letting the debate move on.
After the debate, Biden shook hands and smiled at supporters from the stage. When asked about the exchange with Harris, Biden repeated that she mischaracterized his record, declaring that he broke “down barriers that exist in institutional racism” when he was in public office.
Pivoting to a litany of policy ideas, including major criminal justice reforms, Biden tried to turn the page. “It should be about the future,” Biden said.
But for five long minutes, Harris pinned Biden to his past.
The California senator jumped into a conversation about race and took on the front-runner in a moment that could change the 2020 race.
By ELENA SCHNEIDER
Sen. Kamala Harris started carefully, working the edges of a policy difference to set herself apart from Joe Biden. Gesturing to the former vice president during Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate, Harris noted that deportations were “one of the very few issues with which I disagreed” with the Obama administration.
But not 15 minutes later, Harris lit into Biden on the issue of race, delivering a personal, political and generational critique that left Biden stumbling to explain his record on busing and defend previous comments about working with segregationist senators. Eventually, Biden simply cut himself off and offered to move the debate along.
“Anyway, my time is up,” Biden said, letting his hands fall. “I’m sorry.”
The exchange between Harris and Biden demonstrated the California senator’s sheer political skill, which could refocus attention on her this summer as the Democratic primary begins to heat up. Harris has been among the top-five polling Democratic presidential candidates for most of the year, but after making a splash at the beginning of her campaign, she has had a quieter spring. All at once, Harris put herself at the center of the presidential race while driving home the turn-the-page argument a few other candidates had briefly pressed against Biden earlier in the evening.
Harris seized her starring moment out of nothing about halfway through Thursday’s debate, validating supporters who believe her debating prowess would be a powerful weapon against President Donald Trump in a general election. As questions to other Democrats about race and policing devolved into cross-talk, Harris raised her voice over the crowd: “As the only black person on this stage, I’d like to speak on the issue of race.”
Taken aback, the moderators granted Harris 30 seconds after cheers and applause from the audience died down. Then, after a few words of introduction, she turned that time on Biden.
“I do not believe you are a racist,” Harris said, referring to Biden’s recent comments about his ability to work across the aisle, including with segregationist senators. “And I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground. But I also believe, and it’s personal — it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.”
Harris said it was personal as she started her soundbite; then, she made it personal by hearkening back to her youth.
“And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing,” Harris continued, the debate hall quiet. “And you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”
With Harris’ plan now in motion, her campaign shared on social media a picture of Harris as a girl with the caption “that little girl was me.” The photo is now emblazoned on black t-shirts for sale on the senator’s campaign website.
Biden rejected Harris’ criticism, casting her attack as a “mischaracterization” and touting his own civil rights record with an implicit punch at Harris’ resume as a district attorney and state attorney general, which has come under criticism from criminal justice reformers.
“If we want to have this campaign litigated on who supports civil rights and whether I did or not, I'm happy to do that,” Biden said. “I was a public defender. I did not become a prosecutor.”
But Biden’s defense of his position on busing opened him back up to Harris. A young Harris, Biden said, “would have been able to go to school the same exact way because it was a local decision made by your City Council. That’s fine,” Biden said. He continued: “That's one of the things I argued for, that we should be breaking down these lines.”
But Harris pressed Biden: “Do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then? Do you agree?”
The former vice president, appearing exasperated, insisted that he didn’t oppose busing throughout America, rather opposing “busing ordered by the Department of Education.” Biden wanted to keep it a local decision, he said.
But Harris reminded viewers that her hometown of Berkeley, Calif. didn’t fully integrate until “almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education.”
“And that’s where the federal government must step in,” Harris said, pressing home a broader civil rights argument. “That’s why we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. That’s why we need to pass the Equality Act. That’s why we need to pass the ERA. There are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.”
Biden began a frustrated rebuttal, before cutting himself off and letting the debate move on.
After the debate, Biden shook hands and smiled at supporters from the stage. When asked about the exchange with Harris, Biden repeated that she mischaracterized his record, declaring that he broke “down barriers that exist in institutional racism” when he was in public office.
Pivoting to a litany of policy ideas, including major criminal justice reforms, Biden tried to turn the page. “It should be about the future,” Biden said.
But for five long minutes, Harris pinned Biden to his past.
Play it safe????
Buttigieg warns Dems not to 'play it safe' in picking 2020 candidate
By SARAH CAMMARATA
Pete Buttigeig warned the Democratic party Friday against seeking a return to the pre-President Donald Trump status quo as it picks a 2020 presidential candidate, telling MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that such thinking is a "dangerous message" because "normal didn't work."
The South Bend, Ind., mayor cautioned in particular against prioritizing electability over all else, suggesting that such thinking could lead Democrats toward a candidate who will be unable to persuade voters to unseat Trump and move in a fresh direction. The remark at least appeared to be a veiled shot at former Vice President Joe Biden, the septuagenarian 2020 primary front-runner who has faced criticism that he is out of touch with the current Democratic Party.
"The challenge we have at the moment like this, there's a temptation to play it safe in the Democratic Party. That's almost always been self-defeating but that temptation is there because we know how important it is to defeat Donald Trump," he said. "Out of that is arising the message that what we we're going to offer as a party is we're going to go back to normal. We're going to return to what we were doing before."
"That's a very dangerous message for us to adopt because normal didn't work. Not in the industrial midwest where I live," he continued. "If we look like we're trying to promise that we'll go back to the 2000s or 1990s, even if that's just kind of the implied in our messaging, then I think we're gonna lose a lot of people."
Buttigieg, the youngest of the 2020 Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination, has run on a relatively moderate platform compared to the further-left proposals of his fellow front-runners, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. He has relied on calling for a generational change in Democratic leadership, pitching himself as a fresh face for a party that has struggled at times to find a voice that can match Trump's.
While Buttigieg has surged in the polls, Biden has sat atop them since he entered the campaign earlier this year, installing him as the early favorite. But the former vice president faced withering criticism on the debate stage Thursday night over his past opposition to federally mandated school busing that would better integrate schools as well as his warm recollection of working with senators who supported segregation.
Buttigieg said he’s a “champion of generational change” but added that “a person of any age could be a great candidate,” when asked if Biden’s “time is up" as a leader in the Democratic Party.
By SARAH CAMMARATA
Pete Buttigeig warned the Democratic party Friday against seeking a return to the pre-President Donald Trump status quo as it picks a 2020 presidential candidate, telling MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that such thinking is a "dangerous message" because "normal didn't work."
The South Bend, Ind., mayor cautioned in particular against prioritizing electability over all else, suggesting that such thinking could lead Democrats toward a candidate who will be unable to persuade voters to unseat Trump and move in a fresh direction. The remark at least appeared to be a veiled shot at former Vice President Joe Biden, the septuagenarian 2020 primary front-runner who has faced criticism that he is out of touch with the current Democratic Party.
"The challenge we have at the moment like this, there's a temptation to play it safe in the Democratic Party. That's almost always been self-defeating but that temptation is there because we know how important it is to defeat Donald Trump," he said. "Out of that is arising the message that what we we're going to offer as a party is we're going to go back to normal. We're going to return to what we were doing before."
"That's a very dangerous message for us to adopt because normal didn't work. Not in the industrial midwest where I live," he continued. "If we look like we're trying to promise that we'll go back to the 2000s or 1990s, even if that's just kind of the implied in our messaging, then I think we're gonna lose a lot of people."
Buttigieg, the youngest of the 2020 Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination, has run on a relatively moderate platform compared to the further-left proposals of his fellow front-runners, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. He has relied on calling for a generational change in Democratic leadership, pitching himself as a fresh face for a party that has struggled at times to find a voice that can match Trump's.
While Buttigieg has surged in the polls, Biden has sat atop them since he entered the campaign earlier this year, installing him as the early favorite. But the former vice president faced withering criticism on the debate stage Thursday night over his past opposition to federally mandated school busing that would better integrate schools as well as his warm recollection of working with senators who supported segregation.
Buttigieg said he’s a “champion of generational change” but added that “a person of any age could be a great candidate,” when asked if Biden’s “time is up" as a leader in the Democratic Party.
Sparks speculation
Harris takedown sparks speculation over Biden's black support
No one disputed the busing moment was big for Harris. But allies and rivals differed over how it would affect Biden.
By NATASHA KORECKI
Kamala Harris’ takedown of Joe Biden on the debate stage Thursday night raised fresh questions about the durability of the frontrunner’s candidacy and about his standing with an African-American electorate that’s been a key component to his coalition.
It was too early to say whether or to what extent there was sustainable damage to Biden’s top-of-the-leaderboard status. But the night seemed to mark a moment when the contours of the field began taking on a different shape, exposing Biden’s vulnerabilities and elevating Harris as a viable top-tier contender.
Biden’s team, however, would have none of it. Voters “still know Joe,” his people said, even as opposing campaigns quietly savored the night.
In Miami, three of Biden’s top aides — Anita Dunn, Kate Bedingfield and Symone Sanders— spent 30 minutes batting away questions from skeptical reporters after the debate. They insisted that Biden performed well and made his case to the American people, and acknowledged no mistakes.
“Disappointing when the stakes are so high (as the Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering reminded us today) that candidates are going down the personal attack road,” Dunn told POLITICO. “He chose not to, as you saw. Voters know Joe Biden and they can make their own judgments on this stuff.”
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a Biden backer and former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, offered a similar defense.
“I think people are wishing it does but it doesn’t,” Richmond said of questions whether Biden’s performance might hurt him with black voters. “I don’t think that transfers to people in barbershops and schools and in Little League and playgrounds. I really don’t think that African-American people are going to judge the vice president based on 30-seconds to respond to a two-minute question.”
“In a campaign you punch as hard as you can in the counterattack and he didn’t,” Richmond continued. “He didn’t want to engage like that and he stuck to his word.”
The mood in the spin room — among other campaigns, Democratic National Committee consultants, reporters and pundits— was that Harris dominated and tapped into Biden’s weaknesses.
“She exposes the cracks in Biden,” said one DNC consultant. “She brought it. Hard.”
Another aide to an opposing campaign alluded to the moment when Biden cut himself off from his own answer on stage, gleefully parroting his words: “My time is up.”
Harris interrogated Biden on race, which is viewed as his largest vulnerability given his recent comments about how he worked with segregationist senators and his decades-old opposition to federally-mandated school busing.
“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me,” Harris said.
After telling Biden that “I do not believe you are a racist," Harris went on: "It's personal and it was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.”
Biden went into the nitty-gritty on his record, trying to explain that he did not oppose locally instituted school busing, just mandates to do so from the federal government. Biden’s debate specialists had coached him to not punch down and his team said he stayed true to that.
Still, David Axelrod, the former strategist to Barack Obama, opined on CNN that the clash could hurt Biden with African Americans. He cited a recent poll showing Biden walloping the field with the highest African-American vote share while Harris had 12 percent.
“These kinds of exchanges can have an impact on that number, and that number is one of the reasons why he is sitting in such a strong position nationally,” Axelrod said. “So this has some perilous implications for him in this regard. On the other end of the equation, the question still remains if not him, who?”
Others viewed it as a moment for Harris at Biden’s expense, but nowhere near a deathblow.
“I don’t think it was damaging so much for Biden so much as it was strong for Kamala,” said Matt Littman, a former speechwriter to Biden, who now supports Harris for president. “I got Kamala’s point. [But] Biden did get into politics because of civil rights, that is accurate. That one-on-one exchange between the two of them, I didn’t think Biden looked bad so much as Kamala looked good.”
“I think he had a different level of pressure and expectation than the other candidates, because he walked into this as the frontrunner,” said Antjuan Seawright, a South Carolina-based consultant. “You have to understand that Kamala Harris is a hell of a prosecutor … You can’t downplay that. But I don’t think that it changes the hearts and minds of people on Joe Biden.”
No one disputed the busing moment was big for Harris. But allies and rivals differed over how it would affect Biden.
By NATASHA KORECKI
Kamala Harris’ takedown of Joe Biden on the debate stage Thursday night raised fresh questions about the durability of the frontrunner’s candidacy and about his standing with an African-American electorate that’s been a key component to his coalition.
It was too early to say whether or to what extent there was sustainable damage to Biden’s top-of-the-leaderboard status. But the night seemed to mark a moment when the contours of the field began taking on a different shape, exposing Biden’s vulnerabilities and elevating Harris as a viable top-tier contender.
Biden’s team, however, would have none of it. Voters “still know Joe,” his people said, even as opposing campaigns quietly savored the night.
In Miami, three of Biden’s top aides — Anita Dunn, Kate Bedingfield and Symone Sanders— spent 30 minutes batting away questions from skeptical reporters after the debate. They insisted that Biden performed well and made his case to the American people, and acknowledged no mistakes.
“Disappointing when the stakes are so high (as the Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering reminded us today) that candidates are going down the personal attack road,” Dunn told POLITICO. “He chose not to, as you saw. Voters know Joe Biden and they can make their own judgments on this stuff.”
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a Biden backer and former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, offered a similar defense.
“I think people are wishing it does but it doesn’t,” Richmond said of questions whether Biden’s performance might hurt him with black voters. “I don’t think that transfers to people in barbershops and schools and in Little League and playgrounds. I really don’t think that African-American people are going to judge the vice president based on 30-seconds to respond to a two-minute question.”
“In a campaign you punch as hard as you can in the counterattack and he didn’t,” Richmond continued. “He didn’t want to engage like that and he stuck to his word.”
The mood in the spin room — among other campaigns, Democratic National Committee consultants, reporters and pundits— was that Harris dominated and tapped into Biden’s weaknesses.
“She exposes the cracks in Biden,” said one DNC consultant. “She brought it. Hard.”
Another aide to an opposing campaign alluded to the moment when Biden cut himself off from his own answer on stage, gleefully parroting his words: “My time is up.”
Harris interrogated Biden on race, which is viewed as his largest vulnerability given his recent comments about how he worked with segregationist senators and his decades-old opposition to federally-mandated school busing.
“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me,” Harris said.
After telling Biden that “I do not believe you are a racist," Harris went on: "It's personal and it was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.”
Biden went into the nitty-gritty on his record, trying to explain that he did not oppose locally instituted school busing, just mandates to do so from the federal government. Biden’s debate specialists had coached him to not punch down and his team said he stayed true to that.
Still, David Axelrod, the former strategist to Barack Obama, opined on CNN that the clash could hurt Biden with African Americans. He cited a recent poll showing Biden walloping the field with the highest African-American vote share while Harris had 12 percent.
“These kinds of exchanges can have an impact on that number, and that number is one of the reasons why he is sitting in such a strong position nationally,” Axelrod said. “So this has some perilous implications for him in this regard. On the other end of the equation, the question still remains if not him, who?”
Others viewed it as a moment for Harris at Biden’s expense, but nowhere near a deathblow.
“I don’t think it was damaging so much for Biden so much as it was strong for Kamala,” said Matt Littman, a former speechwriter to Biden, who now supports Harris for president. “I got Kamala’s point. [But] Biden did get into politics because of civil rights, that is accurate. That one-on-one exchange between the two of them, I didn’t think Biden looked bad so much as Kamala looked good.”
“I think he had a different level of pressure and expectation than the other candidates, because he walked into this as the frontrunner,” said Antjuan Seawright, a South Carolina-based consultant. “You have to understand that Kamala Harris is a hell of a prosecutor … You can’t downplay that. But I don’t think that it changes the hearts and minds of people on Joe Biden.”
And... We're off......
Harris stops playing it safe, and 5 other takeaways from a raucous debate
The biggest question mark surrounding Harris was whether she's too cautious. After two hours, no one is asking that anymore.
By DAVID SIDERS and CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO
You know it’s a bad night for a Democrat in the 21st century when he’s on stage explaining what parts of school busing, exactly, he opposed several decades ago.
But there was Joe Biden, telling Kamala Harris that what he opposed was “busing ordered by the Department of Education.”
Biden had entered Thursday’s presidential debate prepared to avoid conflict. Instead, he got clobbered by Harris, a lower-polling contender.
So let’s call it: Biden is a damaged frontrunner, and he left his first primary debate of the year weaker than when he arrived.
Here are six takeaways from the second round of the first debates of the 2020 Democratic primary:
Harris is for real
One of the biggest questions about Harris heading into her first presidential debate was whether she’s too cautious. After two hours, no one is asking that anymore.
In crisp answers that cut to the core of issues, Harris’ goal was to allow viewers to envision her on the debate stage with Donald Trump. She managed to do more than that, taking a shot at Biden on the topic of race as she tries to chip away at his support among black voters.
Harris started off the night assailing Trump and the GOP over their tax cut for the rich. She also threw herself into a squabble between other candidates: “America does not want a food fight. They want to know how we put food on their table.”
But it was her direct questioning of Biden that stole the night, vaulting her name into the most-searched term on Google and giving her the clear victory. She came into the debate with a plan to hit the frontrunner over race and she executed it flawlessly, leaving Biden looking stunned.
Turning to the politician decades her senior — and whose allies have suggested should pick her as his running-mate — Harris allowed that she doesn’t think he’s a racist. But his comments about his amiable dealings with segregationist senators were “hurtful.”
Then she turned to school busing.
“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bussed to school every day,” she said. “And that little girl was me.”
By the end, Biden stopped himself, acknowledging that “anyway, my time is up.”
Later, on MSNBC, Harris twisted the knife, turning again to the “dark and dangerous” time when segregationists roamed the Senate. “We have to speak the truth in this country,” she said, adding “the consequences are painful and emotional.
"I would like to hear him acknowledge what was wrong about a perspective on busing.”
(Some) old people are doing fine
Weeks of thinly-veiled references to “generational change” and warnings about going back to the “old ways” were starting to get tired.
Want to really make your rivals look out of date? Stand next to them. Viewers on Thursday saw the two Democratic frontrunners — Biden and Bernie Sanders (white, male and with a combined age of more than 150) flanked by a 54-year-old African-American female senator and the gay, 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind.
But it wasn’t Biden’s advanced age that did him in. It was a pointed attack on his record. The weaker critique was the crasser one.
Eric Swalwell (presidential candidate, 38, often interrupts conversations) drew groans when he told Biden it was time to “pass the torch to a new generation.”
After Biden was through swatting Swalwell away, Buttigieg offered to interject “as the youngest guy on this stage.” But Sanders proved the sprier candidate, muscling away the microphone.
“The issue,” Sanders said, “is not generational … The issue is who has the guts to take on Wall Street, to take on the fossil fuel industry, to take on the big money interests who have unbelievable influence over the economic and political life of this country.”
Sanders emerged from the debate unscathed, with no cracks in his progressive base.
He benefited from the outset from an extended conversation about health care, his signature issue. And John Hickenlooper’s socialism critique didn’t land.
The exchanges shed light on the best way for younger candidates to hit the age issue: Direct criticism of candidates for how old they are can backfire, while sharp examinations of the decades-long records of those candidates are fair game.
Mayor Pete owns up, but highlights his inexperience
While Pete Buttigieg avoided the kind of lashing that another young candidate, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, experienced on Wednesday night, he also lacked a breakout moment.
Wearing a 5 o’clock shadow, perhaps to shade his considerable youth, Buttigieg at turns showed why he’s earned his way into the middle tier of the field, offering a critique of Republicans that’s designed to appeal to religious voters and those outside the coasts.
He talked about he and his husband’s student loan debt, but even there he took a middle ground, arguing that making college free was tantamount to asking the working-class families to subsidize the children of billionaires.
Same for his “Medicare for all who want it” approach.
But if the next few weeks were going to be a big test for the young mayor, Buttigieg did little to dig himself out of the biggest political challenge of his life.
Buttigieg came into the debate hobbled by a shooting in his city of South Bend, Ind. Buttigieg decided to take a direct approach—indicating that the buck stopped with him.
It was a risky approach: “I couldn't get it done,” he said, later adding, “It's a mess.”
It allowed him to avoid looking defensive. Yet it may have confirmed the fears of skeptics who believe the small town leader simply isn’t ready to take on the biggest job in the world.
Trump returns to the conversation
Let’s face it. Wednesday’s debate looked like backup night in the rookie leagues compared to what we just saw Thursday.
Part of that was luck of the draw. Four of five top-polling candidates were on the Thursday stage. But the other part was that these competitors remembered what Democrats care about more than anything else: defeating President Donald Trump.
It turns out that, for all of his other struggles, this is one thing Biden is very good at.
Biden invoked Trump three times in his first response of the night. The president “thinks Wall Street built America,” he put America in a “horrible situation,” and gave handouts to the wealthy that Biden promised to undo. Harris quickly followed suit, then Sanders, who called Trump a “phony” and “a pathological liar and a racist.”
This is what Democratic voters live for. And for high-polling candidates, it is the safest bet to focus on him. Even lower-tier candidates have support bases that the frontrunners will be fighting over once those candidates start dropping out. The common denominator for all of them is Trump.
Obama is not off limits — at least according to Harris
Go to the tape for Harris’ direct confrontation with Biden. But stick around for the riskier, more subtle point of separation she drew with him.
Biden’s go-to play for weeks has been to invoke Barack Obama and his relationship with a former president beloved by Democrats. That was no different on Thursday night. On health care, he urged voters to finish “the work we started with Obamacare.” When Harris smacked him on segregation and busing, Biden reminded the audience that he “worked with a man … we dealt with the issues in a major, major way.”
Most Democrats see this from Biden, nod and move on. He was the vice president, and this is his card to play. But Harris suggested an avenue that is open to Democratic presidential candidates who believe the voters they are courting might harbor some frustration with eight years of Obama.
On immigration — and the large number of immigrants deported on Obama’s watch — Harris said people should not be deported if their only offense is living in the United States without documents.
The timing could not have been better, with immigration at the forefront of many Democrats’ minds.
“On this issue,” Harris said, “I disagreed with my president.”
The critique didn’t flop. And now any other Democrat who wants to make a similar case can plow ahead.
So many candidates, so little likely movement
Six months from now, you’ll be recalling those pivotal first debates of 2020, right? Yeah, not so much. Julian Castro got a bump on night one, but it would be surprising to see a seismic shift in the race coming out of these two nights.
Truth is, Biden is still the frontrunner, and there’s only so much room for a low-polling candidates to move up.
Andrew Yang fell flat. Marianne Williamson was confusing, and Kirsten Gillibrand did not produce a memorable moment. The one contender who did, Harris, was already polling in the top tier.
The end of the next fundraising quarter is just around the corner. The news cycle moves quickly, and with the exception of Harris — and arguable Castro — it’s hard to imagine any individual performance altering the race a week from now.
The biggest question mark surrounding Harris was whether she's too cautious. After two hours, no one is asking that anymore.
By DAVID SIDERS and CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO
You know it’s a bad night for a Democrat in the 21st century when he’s on stage explaining what parts of school busing, exactly, he opposed several decades ago.
But there was Joe Biden, telling Kamala Harris that what he opposed was “busing ordered by the Department of Education.”
Biden had entered Thursday’s presidential debate prepared to avoid conflict. Instead, he got clobbered by Harris, a lower-polling contender.
So let’s call it: Biden is a damaged frontrunner, and he left his first primary debate of the year weaker than when he arrived.
Here are six takeaways from the second round of the first debates of the 2020 Democratic primary:
Harris is for real
One of the biggest questions about Harris heading into her first presidential debate was whether she’s too cautious. After two hours, no one is asking that anymore.
In crisp answers that cut to the core of issues, Harris’ goal was to allow viewers to envision her on the debate stage with Donald Trump. She managed to do more than that, taking a shot at Biden on the topic of race as she tries to chip away at his support among black voters.
Harris started off the night assailing Trump and the GOP over their tax cut for the rich. She also threw herself into a squabble between other candidates: “America does not want a food fight. They want to know how we put food on their table.”
But it was her direct questioning of Biden that stole the night, vaulting her name into the most-searched term on Google and giving her the clear victory. She came into the debate with a plan to hit the frontrunner over race and she executed it flawlessly, leaving Biden looking stunned.
Turning to the politician decades her senior — and whose allies have suggested should pick her as his running-mate — Harris allowed that she doesn’t think he’s a racist. But his comments about his amiable dealings with segregationist senators were “hurtful.”
Then she turned to school busing.
“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bussed to school every day,” she said. “And that little girl was me.”
By the end, Biden stopped himself, acknowledging that “anyway, my time is up.”
Later, on MSNBC, Harris twisted the knife, turning again to the “dark and dangerous” time when segregationists roamed the Senate. “We have to speak the truth in this country,” she said, adding “the consequences are painful and emotional.
"I would like to hear him acknowledge what was wrong about a perspective on busing.”
(Some) old people are doing fine
Weeks of thinly-veiled references to “generational change” and warnings about going back to the “old ways” were starting to get tired.
Want to really make your rivals look out of date? Stand next to them. Viewers on Thursday saw the two Democratic frontrunners — Biden and Bernie Sanders (white, male and with a combined age of more than 150) flanked by a 54-year-old African-American female senator and the gay, 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind.
But it wasn’t Biden’s advanced age that did him in. It was a pointed attack on his record. The weaker critique was the crasser one.
Eric Swalwell (presidential candidate, 38, often interrupts conversations) drew groans when he told Biden it was time to “pass the torch to a new generation.”
After Biden was through swatting Swalwell away, Buttigieg offered to interject “as the youngest guy on this stage.” But Sanders proved the sprier candidate, muscling away the microphone.
“The issue,” Sanders said, “is not generational … The issue is who has the guts to take on Wall Street, to take on the fossil fuel industry, to take on the big money interests who have unbelievable influence over the economic and political life of this country.”
Sanders emerged from the debate unscathed, with no cracks in his progressive base.
He benefited from the outset from an extended conversation about health care, his signature issue. And John Hickenlooper’s socialism critique didn’t land.
The exchanges shed light on the best way for younger candidates to hit the age issue: Direct criticism of candidates for how old they are can backfire, while sharp examinations of the decades-long records of those candidates are fair game.
Mayor Pete owns up, but highlights his inexperience
While Pete Buttigieg avoided the kind of lashing that another young candidate, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, experienced on Wednesday night, he also lacked a breakout moment.
Wearing a 5 o’clock shadow, perhaps to shade his considerable youth, Buttigieg at turns showed why he’s earned his way into the middle tier of the field, offering a critique of Republicans that’s designed to appeal to religious voters and those outside the coasts.
He talked about he and his husband’s student loan debt, but even there he took a middle ground, arguing that making college free was tantamount to asking the working-class families to subsidize the children of billionaires.
Same for his “Medicare for all who want it” approach.
But if the next few weeks were going to be a big test for the young mayor, Buttigieg did little to dig himself out of the biggest political challenge of his life.
Buttigieg came into the debate hobbled by a shooting in his city of South Bend, Ind. Buttigieg decided to take a direct approach—indicating that the buck stopped with him.
It was a risky approach: “I couldn't get it done,” he said, later adding, “It's a mess.”
It allowed him to avoid looking defensive. Yet it may have confirmed the fears of skeptics who believe the small town leader simply isn’t ready to take on the biggest job in the world.
Trump returns to the conversation
Let’s face it. Wednesday’s debate looked like backup night in the rookie leagues compared to what we just saw Thursday.
Part of that was luck of the draw. Four of five top-polling candidates were on the Thursday stage. But the other part was that these competitors remembered what Democrats care about more than anything else: defeating President Donald Trump.
It turns out that, for all of his other struggles, this is one thing Biden is very good at.
Biden invoked Trump three times in his first response of the night. The president “thinks Wall Street built America,” he put America in a “horrible situation,” and gave handouts to the wealthy that Biden promised to undo. Harris quickly followed suit, then Sanders, who called Trump a “phony” and “a pathological liar and a racist.”
This is what Democratic voters live for. And for high-polling candidates, it is the safest bet to focus on him. Even lower-tier candidates have support bases that the frontrunners will be fighting over once those candidates start dropping out. The common denominator for all of them is Trump.
Obama is not off limits — at least according to Harris
Go to the tape for Harris’ direct confrontation with Biden. But stick around for the riskier, more subtle point of separation she drew with him.
Biden’s go-to play for weeks has been to invoke Barack Obama and his relationship with a former president beloved by Democrats. That was no different on Thursday night. On health care, he urged voters to finish “the work we started with Obamacare.” When Harris smacked him on segregation and busing, Biden reminded the audience that he “worked with a man … we dealt with the issues in a major, major way.”
Most Democrats see this from Biden, nod and move on. He was the vice president, and this is his card to play. But Harris suggested an avenue that is open to Democratic presidential candidates who believe the voters they are courting might harbor some frustration with eight years of Obama.
On immigration — and the large number of immigrants deported on Obama’s watch — Harris said people should not be deported if their only offense is living in the United States without documents.
The timing could not have been better, with immigration at the forefront of many Democrats’ minds.
“On this issue,” Harris said, “I disagreed with my president.”
The critique didn’t flop. And now any other Democrat who wants to make a similar case can plow ahead.
So many candidates, so little likely movement
Six months from now, you’ll be recalling those pivotal first debates of 2020, right? Yeah, not so much. Julian Castro got a bump on night one, but it would be surprising to see a seismic shift in the race coming out of these two nights.
Truth is, Biden is still the frontrunner, and there’s only so much room for a low-polling candidates to move up.
Andrew Yang fell flat. Marianne Williamson was confusing, and Kirsten Gillibrand did not produce a memorable moment. The one contender who did, Harris, was already polling in the top tier.
The end of the next fundraising quarter is just around the corner. The news cycle moves quickly, and with the exception of Harris — and arguable Castro — it’s hard to imagine any individual performance altering the race a week from now.
June 27, 2019
Another attack on our Constitution...
Supreme Court Affirms Police Can Order Blood Drawn From Unconscious DUI Suspects
By NINA TOTENBERG and BILL CHAPPELL
The Supreme Court has ruled that police may, without a warrant, order blood drawn from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.
The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to obtain a warrant for a blood draw. But in a 5-4 vote on Thursday, the court upheld a Wisconsin law that says people driving on a public road have impliedly consented to having their blood drawn if police suspect them of driving under the influence. It also said that "exigent circumstances" permit police to obtain a blood sample without a warrant.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority vote.
The decision conflicts with previous court rulings in which the justices ruled that a blood draw is a significant bodily intrusion into a person's privacy and that there are less intrusive ways of enforcing drunken driving laws against unconscious motorists — getting a warrant, for instance, which in these tech-savvy days can be done relatively easily and quickly.
In 2013, for instance, the high court ruled that police violated the Constitution when they ordered a nonconsensual blood draw without a warrant in a routine DUI case. The vote then was 5-4, but two of the justices in that majority, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, are no longer on the court.
The constitutional rights case produced four opinions — two concurring and two in dissent. In a break with his conservatives benchmates, one of those dissents came from Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The opinions reflect a deep divide over an essential question: whether the Wisconsin case should be decided on the basis of implied consent or on the question of what kind of emergencies allow for an exception to Fourth Amendment protections.
In his concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that because the evidence of alcohol in drivers' blood will dissipate over time, states can invoke the "exigent-circumstances doctrine" on that basis alone to allow police to order a blood test without a warrant. Explaining why he took a stand apart from Alito's plurality opinion, Thomas wrote that it "adopts a rule more likely to confuse than clarify."
Alito's concurring opinion agreed that speed is vital in obtaining blood-alcohol evidence. But he also said that the demands on police officers' time contribute to creating exigent circumstances that allow an exception to warrant requirements — especially if an unconscious motorist has caused a crash. And he noted that police usually take such drivers to the emergency room — removing their chance of administering a breath test at the police station.
"Indeed, not only is the link to pressing interests here tighter; the interests themselves are greater: Drivers who are drunk enough to pass out at the wheel or soon afterward pose a much greater risk," Alito wrote. "It would be perverse if the more wanton behavior were rewarded — if the more harrowing threat were harder to punish."
Discussing the emergency conditions created by unconscious drivers, Alito said that "forcing police to put off other tasks for even a relatively short period of time may have terrible collateral costs. That is just what it means for these situations to be emergencies," he wrote, in an opinion that was joined by Breyer, Kavanaugh and Roberts.
Twenty-eight states have laws similar to Wisconsin's. The case, Mitchell v. Wisconsin, was accepted by the court at the start of this year, amid sharp divisions among state appellate courts over whether the blood draws violate motorists' Fourth Amendment rights.
By NINA TOTENBERG and BILL CHAPPELL
The Supreme Court has ruled that police may, without a warrant, order blood drawn from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.
The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to obtain a warrant for a blood draw. But in a 5-4 vote on Thursday, the court upheld a Wisconsin law that says people driving on a public road have impliedly consented to having their blood drawn if police suspect them of driving under the influence. It also said that "exigent circumstances" permit police to obtain a blood sample without a warrant.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority vote.
The decision conflicts with previous court rulings in which the justices ruled that a blood draw is a significant bodily intrusion into a person's privacy and that there are less intrusive ways of enforcing drunken driving laws against unconscious motorists — getting a warrant, for instance, which in these tech-savvy days can be done relatively easily and quickly.
In 2013, for instance, the high court ruled that police violated the Constitution when they ordered a nonconsensual blood draw without a warrant in a routine DUI case. The vote then was 5-4, but two of the justices in that majority, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, are no longer on the court.
The constitutional rights case produced four opinions — two concurring and two in dissent. In a break with his conservatives benchmates, one of those dissents came from Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The opinions reflect a deep divide over an essential question: whether the Wisconsin case should be decided on the basis of implied consent or on the question of what kind of emergencies allow for an exception to Fourth Amendment protections.
In his concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that because the evidence of alcohol in drivers' blood will dissipate over time, states can invoke the "exigent-circumstances doctrine" on that basis alone to allow police to order a blood test without a warrant. Explaining why he took a stand apart from Alito's plurality opinion, Thomas wrote that it "adopts a rule more likely to confuse than clarify."
Alito's concurring opinion agreed that speed is vital in obtaining blood-alcohol evidence. But he also said that the demands on police officers' time contribute to creating exigent circumstances that allow an exception to warrant requirements — especially if an unconscious motorist has caused a crash. And he noted that police usually take such drivers to the emergency room — removing their chance of administering a breath test at the police station.
"Indeed, not only is the link to pressing interests here tighter; the interests themselves are greater: Drivers who are drunk enough to pass out at the wheel or soon afterward pose a much greater risk," Alito wrote. "It would be perverse if the more wanton behavior were rewarded — if the more harrowing threat were harder to punish."
Discussing the emergency conditions created by unconscious drivers, Alito said that "forcing police to put off other tasks for even a relatively short period of time may have terrible collateral costs. That is just what it means for these situations to be emergencies," he wrote, in an opinion that was joined by Breyer, Kavanaugh and Roberts.
Twenty-eight states have laws similar to Wisconsin's. The case, Mitchell v. Wisconsin, was accepted by the court at the start of this year, amid sharp divisions among state appellate courts over whether the blood draws violate motorists' Fourth Amendment rights.
Republican turn against democracy!
The Supreme Court, gerrymandering, and the Republican turn against democracy
A bigger threat to American democracy than Donald Trump.
By Zack Beauchamp
The Supreme Court’s Thursday morning ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause amounts to a blank check for partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion holds that federal courts should not have the power to declare particular maps unconstitutional, as doing so would be “unprecedented expansion of judicial power ... into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”
What this means, in practice, is that local authorities get to decide on the shape of House and state legislative districts. Parties that control statehouses will be freer to not only to cement their own hold on power, but ensure that their party will be sending more representatives to Washington as well.
While Republicans and Democrats both gerrymander, there is no doubt that Republicans do it more and more shamelessly. North Carolina Rep. David Lewis, who helped draw one of the maps at issue in Rucho, was admirably honest about his motives in a 2016 statehouse speech.
“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” he explained. “So I drew this map in a way to help foster what I think is better for the country.”
This principle — that Republicans believe their rule is better, and are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure they take and hold power — does not merely lead to gerrymandering. It has produced a whole host of different undemocratic actions, at both state and federal levels, that amount to a systematic threat to American democracy. Indeed, some of the best scholarship we have on American democracy suggests that this is even more alarming than it sounds; that it fits historical patterns of democratic backsliding both in the United States and abroad.
In her dissent to Roberts’s ruling, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government.” I’d take it a step further.
The Court’s ruling in Rucho reveals that there’s a threat to American democracy more subtle and yet greater than the Trump presidency: The Republican Party’s drift toward being institutionally hostile to democracy.
The Court’s ruling permits a systematic attack on democracy
Partisan gerrymandering is, on its face, an obviously anti-democratic practice. State legislators pack large numbers of voters from the opposing party into a handful of legislative districts, thus ensuring their voters dominate the bulk of districts and hand them a majority. It gives their supporters’ votes more weight, a direct violation of the core democratic principles relating to equal citizenship and representation.
Historically, both parties have engaged in partisan gerrymandering: Rucho itself concerned both the Republican map in North Carolina and a Democratic map in Maryland. But the GOP has embraced the fashion in a far more systematic and troubling fashion.
In 2010, Republican strategist Karl Rove wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal advocating a significant Republican push to gerrymander legislative districts after that year’s midterm elections. Rove’s idea manifested as Project REDMAP, a dark-money campaign to support Republican candidates for state legislature and then help them redraw House districts after the 2010 census.
We first saw the results of this process in 2012, when Republicans held the House despite more Americans voting for Democratic House candidates than Republican ones. The consequences persist, making it significantly harder for Democrats to win office in places around the country.
In the 2018 election, Republicans won about 50 percent of the US House vote in North Carolina. That translated into 70 percent of House seats due to heavily gerrymandered districts. Wisconsin Democrats won every statewide election in 2018 but did not win majorities in either chamber of the state legislature. Once again, gerrymanders are to blame.
The Rucho ruling allows Republicans to continue this campaign and even escalate it, as they don’t have to worry about outrageous maps getting rolled back by federal courts. “John Roberts....gave the Republicans a green light to gerrymander to their hearts content,” UC-Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen writes in Slate.
The national Republican campaign to cement their control over state legislatures and congressional delegations is not only harder to fight back, but could very well get worse.
The Republican drift against democracy — and the Court’s role in it
But gerrymandering is just one piece of a much broader GOP offensive to rig the system in their favor. This isn’t some kind of master plan to destroy democracy so much as a series of discrete tactics, each a power grab in their own right, that add up to imperil American democracy itself.
Voter ID laws pushed in Republican states have created not-insignificant barriers to voting for many black and Hispanic voters. Republican state governments have conducted voter purges that disproportionately clear minority voters from the rolls. After two elections where Republicans lost control of the governorship, North Carolina in 2016 and Wisconsin in 2018, the state legislatures stripped power from new Democratic governors before they could take office. Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature just defanged a ballot initiative passed in 2018 that would allow ex-felons to vote, literally denying the franchise to a heavily black (and thus heavily Democratic) constituency.
While these examples come from the state level, as that’s where electoral law is primarily set in the US system, they’ve been either directly supported by the national party or tacitly approved.
Meanwhile, the federal GOP has engaged in its own forms of anti-democratic politics, the most infamous example being Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s blockade of Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination. Republicans in Congress have refused to consider statehood proposals for DC and Puerto Rico, essentially denying Senate and House representation for millions of US citizens. The party depends on undemocratic institutions like the Electoral College and Senate — ones that give disproportionate weight to voters in Republican-dominated states — to maintain power, and thus needs to prevent reforms that would move the country towards a truer form of one person, one vote.
The GOP dominance of the Supreme Court has played an important role in this overall democracy-threatening drift. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has struck down Voting Rights Act provisions that attempted to curtail gerrymanders along racial lines in the Shelby County case and removed restrictions on dark money contributions in the infamous Citizens United ruling. Under Roberts, the Court is systematically removing judicial constraints on the nationwide GOP’s corrosions of democratic institutions.
“All of this talk about Roberts being the swing vote, or worried about appearances of being political: not on the issues he cares about the most, which are politics, race and power,” Hasen writes. “See Shelby County, Citizens United, and now ... Rucho.”
This GOP turn didn’t arise because the party is ideologically opposed to democracy in the way that, say, fascists and Islamists are. It’s that they care more about power than they do about basic democratic principles and are willing to run roughshod over the latter if it helps them win the former. This Republican attitude is more democracy-indifferent than anti-democratic, reflecting a party so caught up in partisan combat that it can’t recognize the authoritarian road it’s traveling down.
This is part and parcel of extreme political polarization. In their book How Democracies Die, Harvard’s Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky argue that extreme polarization produces a sense among elected officials that the other party is a fundamental threat to the country’s survival, and that the consequences of allowing them to wield power will be catastrophic. This allows the party leaders to justify taking steps to undermine democracy in the name of saving the nation which, they argue, is what the current Republican Party is doing through legislatures and the courts. Indeed, that’s essentially what Lewis, the North Carolina state representative, openly admitted.
This is much more fundamentally threatening to American democracy than the Trump presidency. Trump could do serious damage to the system, maybe even induce a constitutional crisis, but he is, on his own, neither competent enough nor institutionally powerful enough to outright destroy American democracy.
But the Republican Party’s democracy-indifferent attitude preceded the Trump presidency, and will likely survive beyond it. With Trump in power, the backing of a partisan court majority, and an electoral system that intrinsically advantages the GOP, it’s possible to imagine the party subtly rewriting the rules over time to make American democracy less-and-less competitive. This may even seem like a natural response, in the Republican mind, to the rise of a younger, more diverse, more progressive electorate.
A kind of quietly undemocratic America is not all that hard to imagine. In Paths out of Dixie, Michigan political scientist Robert Mickey argues that a large swath of the United States — the entire South — was an authoritarian nation within a national democracy from the end of Reconstruction right up until the 1970s.
Jim Crow wasn’t just racially discriminatory; it was anti-democratic, rigging the system so racist whites couldn’t lose their grip on power. The transition to southern democracy, Mickey argues, wasn’t easy and it wasn’t clean — the attitudes underpinning Southern authoritarianism have not gone away.
America is not yet on the brink. Democrats hold the House, and have a decent shot at both the White House and the Senate in 2020. This is not an authoritarian system or anything close to it — yet.
But the long-term threat of democratic backsliding, of a major party undermining the small-d democratic system from within over the course of time, is very real. And it explains why so many knowledgable people are so worried about the Court’s ruling in Rucho.
“The Court’s gerrymandering decision seems to lock-in an essentially non-democratic feature of American politics. Elected representatives can rig the system to remain in power indefinitely and this cannot be challenged,” writes Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos. “Combine this with the other increasingly consequential non-democratic features of the American system...and the longterm stability of the system seems worryingly compromised.”
A bigger threat to American democracy than Donald Trump.
By Zack Beauchamp
The Supreme Court’s Thursday morning ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause amounts to a blank check for partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion holds that federal courts should not have the power to declare particular maps unconstitutional, as doing so would be “unprecedented expansion of judicial power ... into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”
What this means, in practice, is that local authorities get to decide on the shape of House and state legislative districts. Parties that control statehouses will be freer to not only to cement their own hold on power, but ensure that their party will be sending more representatives to Washington as well.
While Republicans and Democrats both gerrymander, there is no doubt that Republicans do it more and more shamelessly. North Carolina Rep. David Lewis, who helped draw one of the maps at issue in Rucho, was admirably honest about his motives in a 2016 statehouse speech.
“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” he explained. “So I drew this map in a way to help foster what I think is better for the country.”
This principle — that Republicans believe their rule is better, and are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure they take and hold power — does not merely lead to gerrymandering. It has produced a whole host of different undemocratic actions, at both state and federal levels, that amount to a systematic threat to American democracy. Indeed, some of the best scholarship we have on American democracy suggests that this is even more alarming than it sounds; that it fits historical patterns of democratic backsliding both in the United States and abroad.
In her dissent to Roberts’s ruling, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government.” I’d take it a step further.
The Court’s ruling in Rucho reveals that there’s a threat to American democracy more subtle and yet greater than the Trump presidency: The Republican Party’s drift toward being institutionally hostile to democracy.
The Court’s ruling permits a systematic attack on democracy
Partisan gerrymandering is, on its face, an obviously anti-democratic practice. State legislators pack large numbers of voters from the opposing party into a handful of legislative districts, thus ensuring their voters dominate the bulk of districts and hand them a majority. It gives their supporters’ votes more weight, a direct violation of the core democratic principles relating to equal citizenship and representation.
Historically, both parties have engaged in partisan gerrymandering: Rucho itself concerned both the Republican map in North Carolina and a Democratic map in Maryland. But the GOP has embraced the fashion in a far more systematic and troubling fashion.
In 2010, Republican strategist Karl Rove wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal advocating a significant Republican push to gerrymander legislative districts after that year’s midterm elections. Rove’s idea manifested as Project REDMAP, a dark-money campaign to support Republican candidates for state legislature and then help them redraw House districts after the 2010 census.
We first saw the results of this process in 2012, when Republicans held the House despite more Americans voting for Democratic House candidates than Republican ones. The consequences persist, making it significantly harder for Democrats to win office in places around the country.
In the 2018 election, Republicans won about 50 percent of the US House vote in North Carolina. That translated into 70 percent of House seats due to heavily gerrymandered districts. Wisconsin Democrats won every statewide election in 2018 but did not win majorities in either chamber of the state legislature. Once again, gerrymanders are to blame.
The Rucho ruling allows Republicans to continue this campaign and even escalate it, as they don’t have to worry about outrageous maps getting rolled back by federal courts. “John Roberts....gave the Republicans a green light to gerrymander to their hearts content,” UC-Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen writes in Slate.
The national Republican campaign to cement their control over state legislatures and congressional delegations is not only harder to fight back, but could very well get worse.
The Republican drift against democracy — and the Court’s role in it
But gerrymandering is just one piece of a much broader GOP offensive to rig the system in their favor. This isn’t some kind of master plan to destroy democracy so much as a series of discrete tactics, each a power grab in their own right, that add up to imperil American democracy itself.
Voter ID laws pushed in Republican states have created not-insignificant barriers to voting for many black and Hispanic voters. Republican state governments have conducted voter purges that disproportionately clear minority voters from the rolls. After two elections where Republicans lost control of the governorship, North Carolina in 2016 and Wisconsin in 2018, the state legislatures stripped power from new Democratic governors before they could take office. Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature just defanged a ballot initiative passed in 2018 that would allow ex-felons to vote, literally denying the franchise to a heavily black (and thus heavily Democratic) constituency.
While these examples come from the state level, as that’s where electoral law is primarily set in the US system, they’ve been either directly supported by the national party or tacitly approved.
Meanwhile, the federal GOP has engaged in its own forms of anti-democratic politics, the most infamous example being Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s blockade of Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination. Republicans in Congress have refused to consider statehood proposals for DC and Puerto Rico, essentially denying Senate and House representation for millions of US citizens. The party depends on undemocratic institutions like the Electoral College and Senate — ones that give disproportionate weight to voters in Republican-dominated states — to maintain power, and thus needs to prevent reforms that would move the country towards a truer form of one person, one vote.
The GOP dominance of the Supreme Court has played an important role in this overall democracy-threatening drift. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has struck down Voting Rights Act provisions that attempted to curtail gerrymanders along racial lines in the Shelby County case and removed restrictions on dark money contributions in the infamous Citizens United ruling. Under Roberts, the Court is systematically removing judicial constraints on the nationwide GOP’s corrosions of democratic institutions.
“All of this talk about Roberts being the swing vote, or worried about appearances of being political: not on the issues he cares about the most, which are politics, race and power,” Hasen writes. “See Shelby County, Citizens United, and now ... Rucho.”
This GOP turn didn’t arise because the party is ideologically opposed to democracy in the way that, say, fascists and Islamists are. It’s that they care more about power than they do about basic democratic principles and are willing to run roughshod over the latter if it helps them win the former. This Republican attitude is more democracy-indifferent than anti-democratic, reflecting a party so caught up in partisan combat that it can’t recognize the authoritarian road it’s traveling down.
This is part and parcel of extreme political polarization. In their book How Democracies Die, Harvard’s Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky argue that extreme polarization produces a sense among elected officials that the other party is a fundamental threat to the country’s survival, and that the consequences of allowing them to wield power will be catastrophic. This allows the party leaders to justify taking steps to undermine democracy in the name of saving the nation which, they argue, is what the current Republican Party is doing through legislatures and the courts. Indeed, that’s essentially what Lewis, the North Carolina state representative, openly admitted.
This is much more fundamentally threatening to American democracy than the Trump presidency. Trump could do serious damage to the system, maybe even induce a constitutional crisis, but he is, on his own, neither competent enough nor institutionally powerful enough to outright destroy American democracy.
But the Republican Party’s democracy-indifferent attitude preceded the Trump presidency, and will likely survive beyond it. With Trump in power, the backing of a partisan court majority, and an electoral system that intrinsically advantages the GOP, it’s possible to imagine the party subtly rewriting the rules over time to make American democracy less-and-less competitive. This may even seem like a natural response, in the Republican mind, to the rise of a younger, more diverse, more progressive electorate.
A kind of quietly undemocratic America is not all that hard to imagine. In Paths out of Dixie, Michigan political scientist Robert Mickey argues that a large swath of the United States — the entire South — was an authoritarian nation within a national democracy from the end of Reconstruction right up until the 1970s.
Jim Crow wasn’t just racially discriminatory; it was anti-democratic, rigging the system so racist whites couldn’t lose their grip on power. The transition to southern democracy, Mickey argues, wasn’t easy and it wasn’t clean — the attitudes underpinning Southern authoritarianism have not gone away.
America is not yet on the brink. Democrats hold the House, and have a decent shot at both the White House and the Senate in 2020. This is not an authoritarian system or anything close to it — yet.
But the long-term threat of democratic backsliding, of a major party undermining the small-d democratic system from within over the course of time, is very real. And it explains why so many knowledgable people are so worried about the Court’s ruling in Rucho.
“The Court’s gerrymandering decision seems to lock-in an essentially non-democratic feature of American politics. Elected representatives can rig the system to remain in power indefinitely and this cannot be challenged,” writes Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos. “Combine this with the other increasingly consequential non-democratic features of the American system...and the longterm stability of the system seems worryingly compromised.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)