Republican Representative Martha McSally commented on the Congressional dress code on the House floor on Wednesday. The debate over the dress code, which is not clearly stated and irregularly enforced, was reignited last week after a female reporter was turned away from the Speaker’s Lobby outside of the House chamber. Reporters congregate in that area to grab lawmakers for quick interviews and the dress code rules are stricter there than in other parts of the Capitol Building.

On Wednesday, when speaking on the House floor, McSally ended her speech by saying, “Before I yield back, I want to point out I’m standing here in my professional attire, which happens to be a sleeveless dress and open-toed shoes.”

Here’s @RepMcSally on the House floor wearing a sleeveless dress, which chamber security says violates dress code (rule doesn’t exist). pic.twitter.com/RCjOeYE3wd

— Rebecca Shabad (@RebeccaShabad) July 12, 2017

The dress code is actually not specifically written out, which is why it has been interpreted differently at different times. Right now, women are expected to not wear sleeveless blouses or dresses or shoes with open toes. Men are supposed to wear suit jackets and ties. But the only written specifics are contained in Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives.

In the 2015 edition of that manual, it says that Tip O’Neill, who was Speaker of the House from 1977 – 1986, thought that proper attire should be “customary and traditional,” and elaborated by saying that meant a coat and tie for men and “appropriate” clothing for women. “Appropriate” is not very specific. The manual then states that the House Speaker should determine what is proper attire. In June, Speaker Paul Ryan reiterated that all House members should wear “appropriate business attire.”

.@SpeakerRyan: “Members should wear appropriate business attire…” pic.twitter.com/a4f1Oy5ifT

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 23, 2017

After the female reporter was turned away, a lot of people reacted to the outdated dress code, especially since it is so irregularly enforced. Moreover, many female lawmakers wear sleeveless clothes, particularly given the oppressively hot weather in Washington D.C. during the summer. And former First Lady Michelle Obama often wore sleeveless dresses in an official capacity.

The Speaker’s Lobby has one of the most ridiculous and backwards dress codes around. Did when I covered Congress. Still does. https://t.co/88yv6YSuz1

— Lizzie O’Leary (@lizzieohreally) July 6, 2017

This is not the first time McSally has put her foot down when it comes to men making rules about what women wear. Back in 2002, she sued then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over a military rule that required female soldiers to wear an abaya when off-base in Saudi Arabia.

At the time, McSally was the highest ranking female fighter-pilot in the U.S. She said the rule was unconstitutional, as male soldiers weren’t required to wear any particular clothes when off-base. Women also had to be accompanied by a man at all times when off duty. The rules were changed, and while the military said they had been under review for a while and had nothing to do with the lawsuit, McSally’s tenacity went down in history. And while it’s unclear whether her speech played any role in this decision, Paul Ryan just announced that the dress code will be “modernized.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Supposed House Dress Code appeared first on Law Street.

Like most Americans, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wanted to spend his July 4 weekend enjoying the nice weather and spending time with his family. After he shut down 11 miles of shoreline, many were frustrated that they wouldn’t be able to visit spots on the Jersey shoreline. But Christie decided that his job title gave him the privilege to hang out on the beach while barring taxpayers from doing the same.

Despite angrily closing the beaches, and other public services, over a budget disagreement with New Jersey Democrats, Christie spent July 2 calmly sunbathing with family when a photographer caught him.

Andy Mills, a photographer for The Star-Ledger, captured the pictures of Christie and his family members from a helicopter. After getting in a helicopter that morning to snap pictures of the long stretches of empty beach, Mills observed a large group set up on the beach in front of the governor’s beachside mansion, he said.

“As we came back up, I’m looking, I’m like, ‘That’s him,’ there’s no doubt in my mind that’s him,” Mills said. “When you make eye contact with someone, both you know and he knows what’s going on.”

At first, Christie chose to deny anything uncouth happened. “I didn’t get any sun,” he said.

Then, he chose to defend his actions. He responded that if people wanted to criticize his decision not to cancel his plans, they could run for governor and enjoy the same perks.

After Christie’s team was confronted with the evidence that contradicted Christie’s blatant lies, his office decided it was the right moment to make a dumb joke.

“He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on,” was the official statement from Christie’s spokesman, Brian Murray.

But people were unamused, especially since Christie’s antics began when he became governor in 2010. Residents who had to modify their July 4 plans were upset with their governor, and even Kim Guadagno, New Jersey’s lieutenant governor and the Republican nominee vying to replace Christie in November, lashed out.

It’s beyond words. If I were gov, sure wouldn’t be sitting on beach if taxpayers didn’t have access to state beaches https://t.co/VBtBpoUUkv

— Kim Guadagno (@KimGuadagnoNJ) July 3, 2017

One person who was bemused by the incident was author Brad Thor. When the 47-year-old author looked at Mills’ pictures he noticed something that very few others would have.

I think I’m the only one in America not mad at #ChrisChristie pic.twitter.com/PXPvjPUepn

— Brad Thor (@BradThor) July 3, 2017

Of course, this isn’t the first time Christie has been publicly shamed and mocked on the internet. There was “Bridgegate,” when the governor’s team intentionally created traffic problems on the George Washington Bridge to send a political message. And then there was the time he took a helicopter to his son’s baseball game.

And, most recently, there were the relentless memes after Christie stood behind President Donald Trump during the presidential election.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

 

Chris Christie has Resting Hostage Face. pic.twitter.com/A6JxR99Fiw

— Caitlin S(cientist) (@Paleophile) March 2, 2016

Christie, who is finishing up his final term in office, already has a terrible approval rating, so this incident won’t ultimately have much of an impact. After reaching great highs during his reelection in 2012, only 15 percent of New Jerseyans currently view his performance positively, according to the Washington Post–and that was before his trip to the beach. Even his own party has turned on him, with fewer than half of Republicans viewing Christie positively.

Christie is already slated to go down as one of the least liked governors in American history, according to the Washington Post. So, his latest faux pas can’t lower his approval rating much more, and frankly it doesn’t matter since he’s out of office soon regardless. But for Christie, who was once a rising star for the GOP, and a potential presidential candidate, this is just another indication that his political career is going nowhere fast.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With “Beachgate,” Chris Christie’s Approval Ratings Take a Plunge appeared first on Law Street.

North Korea is Firing Missiles Again

Yesterday, North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach the U.S. The U.S. then carried out a joint military exercise with South Korea to show off its power and send a warning message to North Korea. But the North just replied by saying that it would not stop developing its nuclear abilities as long as America’s “hostile policy” and “nuclear threat” persist. The missile traveled 578 miles, according to the South Korean military. It stayed in the air for about 37 minutes. That means that it could potentially reach Alaska.

The North’s plan is to mount a nuclear warhead on the missile. The timing of the launch was also significant. “The American bastards must be quite unhappy after closely watching our strategic decision,” a North Korean state media agency quoted its leader Kim Jong Un as saying. “I guess they are not too happy with the gift package we sent them for the occasion of their Independence Day. We should often send them gift packages so they won’t be too bored.”

North Korea’s state media claims the country now has the power to strike the United States with a nuclear warhead https://t.co/UQ9uGZ2Ebc pic.twitter.com/m9c4phzFm7

— CNN (@CNN) July 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential election was noteworthy not just because of its outcome, but also for the extent to which both parties used technical data collection behind-the-scenes to secure victories in swing states. Just last week, a cyber risk analyst stumbled onto a trove of that gathered data, collected on 198 million Americans, on an unprotected server.

The analyst, Chris Vickery, an employee of the cyber security startup UpGuard, came across the 1.1 terabytes of data on an Amazon cloud server, which wasn’t password protected and was accessible to anyone with the URL address. According to UpGuard, it took Vickery several days to download the extensive dataset, which may have been left open and exposed for 10 to 14 days.

UpGuard is calling this leak the “largest known data exposure of its kind,” and confirmed that the discovered content includes names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and indications of individuals’ ethnicities and religions. Voters’ political views on hot-button campaign issues such as fossil fuels and taxes were also minutely recorded, likely for future micro-targeted campaigns.

Currently downloading what is, basically, the home address of every Trump supporter.

Understand the cloud before you upload to it. pic.twitter.com/nRPb98jwoP

— Chris Vickery (@VickerySec) June 13, 2017

The information was collected by GOP data firm Deep Root Analytics, one of three data firms hired by the RNC to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.

The firm acknowledged that the data was theirs on Friday and released a statement apologizing for the breach.

Deep Root Analytics CEO Brent McGoldrick said the company takes “full responsibility” for the leak. He added that the mistake was likely due to “a recent change in asset access settings since June 1.”

Although much of the data collected by Deep Root Analytics is available online through more innocuous sources, many have been quick to analyze the leak’s potential cyber security ramifications.

“That such an enormous national database could be created and hosted online, missing even the simplest of protections against the data being publicly accessible, is troubling,” UpGuard said on their website.

This leak also comes at a time when the U.S. elections and elections in other western nations have been the targets of increasingly aggressive cyber attacks.

“This is deeply troubling,” Privacy International’s policy officer Frederike Kaltheuner told BBC News. “This is not just sensitive, it’s intimate information, predictions about people’s behavior, opinions, and beliefs that people have never decided to disclose to anyone.”

While this leak could have been much more damaging and revealed more secretive information, experts say this should be a cautionary warning. If companies don’t make cyber security a priority, individuals may have to worry a lot more the next time a leak occurs.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accidental Data Leak Exposes 198 Million Americans’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year in the spotlight as an important member of Donald Trump’s family, son-in-law Jared Kushner has finally made his first public remarks since becoming an adviser to his father-in-law. So, after plenty of speculation, the world now knows what his voice sounds like.

Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband, has gained unprecedented access to the White House for an in-law. Since President Donald Trump took office, Kushner has been given access to the National Security Council and confidential information. He has also been tasked with brokering a peace deal in the Middle East and acting as a diplomat in talks with Mexico, according to the Washington Post.

Yet America was still left wondering what Kushner sounded like. Even “SNL” made fun of Kushner’s silence in this clip from April.

Comedian John Oliver joined the fun on one of his shows: “For someone with the amount of power that he has, have you ever heard him speak? Seriously, what does his voice sound like? You don’t know, do you?”

On Monday, Kushner made his first recent public speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Behind a podium, Kushner spoke about the Trump Administration’s commitment to technological modernization. Two months ago Kushner was tapped to head the Office of American Innovation, which attempts to use the private sector to modernize government, according to the Washington Post.

As Kushner spoke on technological modernization, some people on Twitter joked that Kushner’s voice itself should be a bit more futuristic.

Kind of disappointed. Jared Kushner’s making his first public remarks and he hasn’t been hiding a cool Darth Vader voice. At all.

— Karen DaltonBeninato (@kbeninato) June 19, 2017

Others on Twitter compared his voice to actor Michael Cera, who is often mocked for his young, high-pitched voice.

In the tragicomedy film version of the Trump era, Jared Kushner will be played by Michael Cera.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 19, 2017

Many had fun at his expense, but others took note that the disparaging comments about Kushner’s voice may come from him not fitting a “masculine” ideal. There was plenty of fodder to criticize as people mocked Kushner’s “feminine” voice on Twitter.

There is so much that’s fair to critique Kushner on that’s fair. But, making fun of his voice hurts so many men and boys for no reason.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) June 19, 2017

But does how Kushner’s voice sound actually matter? In the first few months of his presidency, Trump has incorporated his family into more power positions than prior administrations, so Kushner’s actions matter more than his voice. What really matters is how Kushner can use his powerful platform to influence his wife and father-in-law when it comes to technological advancement or whatever other important issue he’s tasked with.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The World Finally Gets to Hear Jared Kushner’s Voice appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Congressman Steve Scalise Shot at GOP Baseball Practice

This morning, a gunman armed with a rifle opened fire at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, where the Republican congressional baseball team was practicing. The House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and at least four others were injured–including one congressional aide and two law enforcement officers. Reportedly, the gunman, who has been identified as James T. Hodgkinson, was standing outside the fence and aimed at the only exit. He fired multiple shots, at least 50, according to eyewitnesses. Bullets also hit a nearby YMCA.

Active shooter situation during this mornings trip to the Y. Terrifying. Am ok. Sheltered in place & under lockdown. pic.twitter.com/iJs6fZpjiK

— Joseph Miscavige (@JoeMiscavige) June 14, 2017

Scalise was shot in the hip and is in stable condition. Capitol police officers were right there and shot the gunman, who was wounded and taken to the hospital. “Nobody would have survived without the Capitol Hill police. It would have been a massacre without them,” said Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

Congressional baseball field shooting went on for 10 minutes. @SenRandPauI says w/out police presence would be “killing field” “a massacre”

— Valerie (@valonfox) June 14, 2017

According to a press conference held by President Donald Trump, the shooter has died as a result of his injuries.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As former FBI Director James Comey prepares to speak on Thursday before a Senate committee on recent events surrounding Russia, President Donald Trump, and the 2016 election, many are preparing their watch parties.

First off, not only will C-SPAN and PBS be broadcasting the feed but ABC, NBC, and CBS all plan to replace their normally scheduled daytime programing with a live feed of his testimony, according to CNN.

And some bars in the nation’s capital are changing things up to show the testimony on their flat-screen televisions.

Shaw’s Tavern plans to open at 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning in preparation for Comey’s 10 a.m. testimony, according to The Washington Post. The bar is calling its viewing party a “Comey Hearing Covfefe,” nicknamed after Trump’s mysterious tweet last week.

They will be offering $5 vodka drinks along with $10 “FBI” sandwiches, according to CNN.

A bar fittingly named The Partisan will also be opening at 10 a.m. to offer food and beverages.

Other bars are running with the “covfefe” theme. Duffy’s Irish Pub, normally a Washington Nationals bar, will tune into the testimony instead of baseball. The pub is offering a “Covfefe Cocktail,” an orange drink with unknown ingredients.

Duffy’s getting in on the Comey watch party action pic.twitter.com/HvDT35YMHR

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) June 6, 2017

“…It is like drinking Kool Aid but only a small group of people know what’s in it,” the advertisement says.

“Covfefe” is quite clearly another joke on the administration. In the aftermath of Trump’s strange tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained that “the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” according to CNN.

Comey’s testimony on Thursday has the potential to be an interesting morning in Washington so television networks and bars are looking to capitalize. Cheers to what may be a momentous day in American history.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Television Stations (and Bars) Prep for the Comey Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, House Republican leaders introduced their new health care plan, the American Health Care Act. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and on March 24 the bill was withdrawn, largely because of Republican infighting. Republican moderates worried that the bill was too extreme, and would be harmful for their constituents. But Republicans further to the right disagreed, arguing that the bill actually didn’t go far enough. Those right-wing Republicans were led by the House Freedom Caucus, a caucus that has only been in existence for two years, but in the Trump era, has made quite a name for itself. Read on to learn more about the inception of the House Freedom Caucus, its ideology, and its members.

History of the House Freedom Caucus

The formation of the House Freedom Caucus was announced in January 2015. Its founding members were all hardline Republican representatives: Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida, and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. The nine founders reportedly planned their new caucus at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a few weeks before they announced its formation.

According to a statement that offices of the members released:

The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable, and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.

The House Freedom Caucus is notably more conservative than the rest of the House, and Americans in general. According to Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone:

The Freedom Caucus acts like a third party in Washington because the political fates of its members are not yoked to the national GOP. Their districts rate R+13, according to Cook Political Report data crunched by Rolling Stone. This means their districts vote 13 percent more Republican than the nation as a whole — and are nearly a third more partisan than the median GOP seat (R+10).

The Split from the Republican Study Committee 

The House Freedom Caucus was an offshoot of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a much larger, but traditionally very conservative, caucus. However, in 2015, the year the House Freedom Caucus was founded, some conservative Republicans thought the RSC had become too centrist. The RSC had also become quite clunky and large–it currently has over 170 members.

Reports on whether the House Freedom Caucus’s split from the RSC was amicable have differed. The founding members tactfully told the press that they believed a smaller, more mobile organization was needed to pull the party to the right. Some members of the House Freedom Caucus remained as RSC members, while others left the larger group.

The House Freedom Caucus and House Speaker John Boehner

Congressman John Boehner announced that he would step down from the position of Speaker of the House in September of 2015. He had held the post since 2011, when Republicans gained majority control of the House.

It was reported that Boehner stepped down, at least in part, due to pressure from the House Freedom Caucus. If all of the 30-odd members of the caucus had refused to support him, he would not have had enough votes to remain the House leader. The House Freedom Caucus members wanted Boehner to push harder on some far-right issues, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

Who are the Current Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

No one is completely sure. The invite-only group isn’t public with its roster. However, a number of media outlets have identified the members who have been open about their relationship to the caucus. Here are the congressmen who are believed to currently be part of the House Freedom Caucus:

• House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows, North Carolina
• Alex Mooney, West Virginia
• Andy Harris, Maryland
• Bill Posey, Florida
• Brian Babin, Texas
• Dave Brat, Iowa
• David Schweikert, Arizona
• Gary Palmer, Alabama
• Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
• Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
• Jim Jordan, Ohio
• Jody Hice, Georgia
• Joe Barton, Texas
• Justin Amash, Michigan
• Ken Buck, Colorado
• Mark Sanford, South Carolina
• Mo Brooks, Alabama
• Morgan Griffith, Virginia
• Paul Gosar, Arizona
• Rand Weber, Texas
• Raul Labrador, Idaho
• Rod Blum, Texas
• Ron DeSantis, Florida
• Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
• Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
• Steve Pearce, New Mexico
• Ted Yoho, Florida
• Tom Garrett Jr., Virginia
• Trent Franks, Arizona
• Warren Davidson, Ohio

Who are the Former Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

There are also some former members associated with the caucus. These include congressmen who lost re-election bids in 2016, including founding member Scott Garrett of Florida and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Former Congressmen John Fleming of Louisiana and Marlin Stutzman of Indiana ran for other positions and were defeated.

Retired Congressmen Curt Clawson of Florida, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Matt Salmon of Arizona also used to be counted among the members. Lummis seems to be the only female member ever associated with the caucus, so as it currently stands, the caucus appears to be entirely male. One founding member, Mick Mulvaney, was appointed by President Donald Trump as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore is no longer in the House of Representatives.

There were some members who decided to remove themselves from House Freedom Caucus membership. Congressmen Tom McClintock of California and Reid Ribble of Wisconsin quit after the group’s role in forcing Boehner out of the Speaker of the House position. After he quit, McClintock said: “I feel that the HFC’s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it.” And Ribble took his complaints a step farther, saying:

I was a member of the Freedom Caucus in the very beginning because we were focused on making the process reforms to get every Member’s voice heard and advance conservative policy. When the Speaker resigned and they pivoted to focusing on the leadership race, I withdrew.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania resigned from the caucus last winter, saying that although his ideology still matched the group’s, he wanted to focus on “substantive policy work rather than procedural mechanisms the group uses to exert influence.” Representative Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, also quit quietly, saying that he just didn’t have the “bandwith” to be in the group.

Most recently, Representative Ted Poe, from Texas, quit the House Freedom Caucus after the group’s role in the health care bill failure at the end of March. Poe said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” that he felt as though the caucus was saying “no” too much:

The president, Speaker Ryan, came to the Freedom Caucus and made some changes that we wanted several times. But no matter what changes were made, the goal post kept getting moved and at the end of the day, ‘no’ was the answer. And sometimes you’re going to have to say yes.

Poe chose to resign, saying that, “at some time we’re going to have to say ‘yes.’ We are in power. We need to lead.”

The Freedom Caucus in the News

Since its inception, the two most news-worthy events involving the House Freedom Caucus were its founding, and its role in John Boehner’s resignation. But the Freedom Caucus was recently vaulted into the spotlight with the AHCA controversy.

The American Health Care Act

Regardless of whether the assessment is fair or not, the House Freedom Caucus has been largely blamed by the media, President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and others, for the bill’s failure.

The big sticking point with the AHCA for many of the members was that it wasn’t conservative enough, and didn’t provide for a full repeal. At one point, it was reported that the Trump Administration was negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus to secure the needed votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. The Trump Administration offered to get rid of “essential health benefits” that were guaranteed under Obamacare. These essential health benefits included maternity care, emergency room visits, and mental health services. But, the Freedom Caucus still claimed that the bill didn’t go far enough, and on March 24, the bill was pulled.

Trump’s Attack 

In the wake of the AHCA withdrawal, President Donald Trump started criticizing the House Freedom Caucus. On March 27, Trump tweeted: “The Republican House Freedom Caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” He followed that up on March 30, by tweeting: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” The verified Twitter account for the House Freedom Caucus responded to Trump’s criticism on March 31, saying that the group wants to hold true to its promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and arguing that only 17 percent of Americans supported the AHCA.

Conclusion

The House Freedom Caucus is relatively new, having just been founded in 2015, and best known for being involved in Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resignation. But in the Trump era, with both the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by the Republican Party, the House Freedom Caucus has become an increasingly influential part of GOP House dynamics. What the group will do with that newfound power remains to be seen.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the House Freedom Caucus? appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has become known for defying climate research and trying to prove that global warming is a hoax. In 2014 he brought a snowball to the Senate floor. Back then, 2014 was the hottest year on record and Inhofe asked the chair, “You know what this is?” before throwing the snowball. On Thursday, he appeared in an interview on CNN’s “New Day” and accused the Environmental Protection Agency of brainwashing American kids with propaganda.

It is not clear whether he really doesn’t believe in science, or if he doesn’t understand it, or if he’s just trying to make a political point. But he actually said, without providing any examples or proof: “we are going to take all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that is brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren’t true, allegations.” Inhofe was referring to Donald Trump’s new budget proposal, which shows huge cuts in the funding for the EPA.

A lot of people were outraged by Inhofe’s comments.

The deniers have taken over. Future generations will despise these people for their recklessness and selfishness. https://t.co/TBR6kmuoBx

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 15, 2017

Lunatics like this are one of the main reasons your clean water is at risk https://t.co/esoPQErEpB

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) March 16, 2017

When interviewer Poppy Harlow asked Inhofe to explain his remarks about brainwashing, he avoided the question and instead started praising Scott Pruitt, the new head of the EPA, who sued the agency when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma.

Inhofe has made this allegation before; in July he made similar comments to radio host Eric Metaxas. He told Metaxas he “was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that.” Then he told an anecdote in which his granddaughter asked him why he doesn’t understand global warming. Inhofe told the radio host, “I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out.”

In 2010, Inhofe took his grandchildren to build an igloo on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and named it “Al Gore’s New Home.” He has called global warming the “the greatest hoax” ever imposed on Americans. Now, given the GOP’s control of the government, he has a chance to do some real damage. “Now he and his cronies have far more reach and are far more dangerous than they’ve ever been… That’s good news for the polluters but horrible news for public health,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator James Inhofe Claims the EPA is Brainwashing Our Kids appeared first on Law Street.

GOP Health Plan Will Leave 14 Million Without Coverage in First Year

The Congressional Budget Office has released its analysis of the Republican healthcare plan, and the results don’t look very good. According to the CBO, 24 million people will be without coverage by 2026, and 14 million would lose their insurance in just the first year. While the plan would save about $337 billion in the coming decade, it would come largely at the expense of the poorest Americans–as the savings would mostly come from cutting Medicaid.

Democrats say that this should be enough to stop the bill. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, says that the media is trying to make Obamacare look great so that people will look back on it positively, but that “’17 will be the very worst year.” The Trump Administration has tried to downplay the importance of the CBO over the past few days and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said, “We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out.”

CBO report on GOP health plan:
-24 MILLION fewer insured
-$880 billion cut from Medicaid
-Premiums 20% higher by 2018

Is this “winning?”

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 13, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jeff Sessions: Introduce Us to Your Russian Friends!

Yesterday it came to light that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two meetings with the same Russian diplomat that Michael Flynn had talked to during the transition period. ICYMI, those meetings led to Flynn’s firing from the Trump Administration.

Sessions did not mention these meetings at his confirmation hearing–in fact, he said that he didn’t know anything about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. Now Democrats are calling for Sessions’ resignation, but Republicans say he didn’t do anything wrong, as he was only asked about the Trump campaign’s alleged communications with Russia, not his own communication. The Russian ambassador in question, Sergey Kislyak, is considered to be one of Russia’s top spies and spy-recruiters. Sessions reportedly met with him on two occasions; once in July during the Republican convention and then again in September. Sessions was on the Senate Armed Services Committee during both of these time periods.

Jeff Sessions lied under oath about his contacts with a country that’s actively trying to undermine our democracy. So yes, he should resign.

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, has been going on just outside of D.C. all week and on Friday the president took the stage. President Donald Trump spent the first half of his speech bashing the media, saying that “the dishonest press” and “fake news” are “the enemy of the people.” He went on to say that he doesn’t oppose negative stories about himself, but that the media is just making things up. Then, Trump explained how he is going to follow through on his campaign promises such as the dismantling of Obamacare, the construction of the border wall, the deportation of “bad dudes,” and the creation of more jobs.

Trump also claimed that there were so many people who wanted to see him speak that the line outside the Gaylord Hotel and Convention Center where the event is taking place went for six blocks. “There are lines that go back six blocks. I tell you that because you won’t read about it,” he said.

Reporters at Jezebel decided to look into it, and concluded that the reason you won’t read about it is because it didn’t happen; they couldn’t find any evidence of long lines. Volunteers who were stationed by the doors to check peoples’ tickets denied seeing any long lines, and the only big crowds of people to arrive simultaneously came from buses. Jezebel also pointed out that the area where the hotel is located doesn’t even stretch for six blocks.

At one point, several attendees started waving Russian flags with Trump’s name on them.

Someone handed out Trump Russian flags on the #CPAC2017 floor before Trump’s speech pic.twitter.com/uf1ADMt6ZL

— Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) February 24, 2017

When staffers saw the flags they hurriedly confiscated them.

Crowd at CPAC waving these little pro-Trump flags that look exactly like the Russian flag. Staffers quickly come around to confiscate them. pic.twitter.com/YhPpkwFCNc

— Peter Hamby (@PeterHamby) February 24, 2017

It’s unknown who made or handed out the flags and why. It’s also unclear whether people even realized it was the Russian flag they were waving, or if they just thought it was just a flag with the American red, white, and blue colors. But according to journalist Sarah Posner, there was at least one attendee who wore a t-shirt that said “Make Russia Great Again.” Prank or not, the incident gave rise to some laughs.

@PeterHamby @mkraju “Excuse me Sir, your Russia is showing. Let me hide that for you. Carry on.”

— MichelleK (@Michelle_In_AR) February 24, 2017

Well played, anonymous CPAC monkeywrencher. https://t.co/ZXElPROsKx

— Angus Johnston (@studentactivism) February 24, 2017

Are Russian flags the Right’s answer to #pussyhats? #CPAC #TRUMP https://t.co/FM74Irzwg4

— lnmassaro (@liddabird) February 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Up at CPAC?: Attacks on “Fake News” and Russian-Themed Trump Flags appeared first on Law Street.

Until Wednesday, Republican State Representative Beth Fukumoto was the youngest female caucus leader in the United States, as House minority leader in Hawaii. But after breaking from her party on President Donald Trump, the young Hawaiian Republican may now leave the GOP.

At age 33, Fukumoto represents a younger and more moderate faction of the Republican Party. Trump’s comments about women and minorities did not appeal to her, and she chose to express her concern with the direction her party is heading by joining the Women’s March in Honolulu on January 21.

While giving a speech at the event, she talked about how she tried to explain to her eight-year-old niece why a room full of grown-ups were yelling insults at her, after she said at the Republican convention last summer that she thought Trump was being sexist and racist. She said,

It doesn’t matter to me who you voted for. People cast their votes for a lot of different reasons. But, no matter who your choice was, the fact remains the same. A man won the White House with anger and hate, and our kids watched it happen.

But the same words that generated cheers at the women’s event made her Republican colleagues so upset that they ousted her from her position. Fukumoto said that within 24 hours of her speech, party members were calling her, asking her to resign for speaking out against the president. On Wednesday all but one, State Rep. Cynthia Thielen, voted for her to be removed. “God, I’m sorry to lose our Minority Leader, someone I so deeply deeply respect. She’s the face of Republicanism as it should be, but won’t be anymore,” Thielen said after the vote. Thielen also spoke at the Women’s March in Honolulu.

Fukumoto said the party had told her that if she wanted to stay on, she would have to promise not to criticize Trump for the rest of his time in the White House. “And with what we’ve been seeing in the news with the different executive orders coming out every day, I didn’t believe I could make that commitment,” she said. She believes the Republican Party as it stands doesn’t tolerate people who speak up. “It seems to be punishing dissent, and when you have a political party, you need dialogue,” she said.

Now Fukumoto feels ready to leave the GOP and is considering joining the Democratic Party instead, but wanted to ask her constituents first, as they were the ones who voted for her. In a letter sent this week, she is asking for their opinions before making an official decision. She is not the only young Republican to switch parties. Her predecessor, Rep. Aaron Ling Johanson, left because he felt that the party had become too narrow in its “demands for ideological purity.”

And according to a new study by political scientist Gary C. Jacobson, young Republicans are much less conservative than older ones. Not only do younger Americans tend to be more liberal generally, but Jacobson also found a significant split between young and old Republicans on almost all topics. He also found that fewer young Republicans than ever before are willing to identify as conservative. This could help change the Republican Party and decrease the growing ideological divide between the parties. But on the other hand, many young people who identify as liberal choose to join the Democratic Party instead, meaning it could be harder to actually change the GOP if there is only the older, white, conservative base left.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hawaiian Republican Leader Ousted for Opposing Trump, Now May Leave the GOP appeared first on Law Street.

House Speaker Paul Ryan confirmed many women’s fears when he said that the Republican Party will defund Planned Parenthood, as part of a bill that aims to repeal Obamacare. The GOP is planning a “reconciliation bill,” which means that Democrats will be prevented from filibustering. Ryan spoke at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday, but didn’t provide any further details.

This is an important step for many Republicans as conservatives have tried for years to completely defund Planned Parenthood because it offers abortions. But, the organization also offers education, birth control, breast cancer screenings, STD tests, and more. This move could prove a challenge for some more moderate Republicans who previously have voted against defunding the organization. Many people reacted strongly to the news:

Ryan says that defunding Planned Parenthood will be included in ACA repeal. Because, let’s take away healthcare from as many as possible.

— Dante Atkins (@DanteAtkins) January 5, 2017

Some pointed out that it’s not a question of cutting off direct federal funding to Planned Parenthood. “Defunding” Planned Parenthood means cutting off reimbursement for the care it provides people who rely on Medicaid–a hard blow for low-income people.

Please pay attention to what “defunding” Planned Parenthood means: refusing to reimburse for their care offered to poor folks. https://t.co/muci1CSAGb

— Sarah Seltzer (@sarahmseltzer) January 5, 2017

Planned Parenthood launched a campaign Thursday to counteract the effort, and has planned protests, letters, and other actions over the coming months.

There’s no line item in a budget that goes to Planned Parenthood — simply reimbursement for care rendered, like other health providers. pic.twitter.com/SaTIpE9PUh

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 5, 2017

The President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said that it was no coincidence that the announcement came “the day after Vice President-elect Mike Pence, a long-time opponent of Planned Parenthood, held a closed-door meeting with Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership.” If the bill passes, Planned Parenthood would lose about $400 million in Medicaid money in the first year, and it would cut off care access for 400,000 women, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

House Pro-Choice Caucus on why #ACA is essential for repro health care. Co-Chair @RepDianaDeGette at podium. pic.twitter.com/JFXPzJA3mq

— Christine Grimaldi (@chgrimaldi) January 5, 2017

Richards said:

Defunding Planned Parenthood is dangerous to people’s health, it’s unpopular, and it would leave people across the country without care. They cannot afford to have basic reproductive health care attacked. Planned Parenthood has been here for 100 years and we’re going to be here for 100 more.

Though conservative Republicans have fought Planned Parenthood for years, it seems like a majority of Americans view Planned Parenthood positively—59 percent according to a Gallup poll from 2015. President-elect Donald Trump himself has changed his opinion a couple of times. After saying that the organization has helped millions of women, he later encouraged efforts to defund it. He also used to call himself “very pro-choice,” but is now against abortion. What is certain, is that Democrats, Planned Parenthood and many, many women will not give up without a fight.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paul Ryan: The GOP Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, here’s the first RantCrush of 2017! Hope you had a good New Year’s Eve and are prepared to tackle the new year. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Arrests Have Been Made in Turkey Nightclub Attack

On the night of New Year’s Eve, a gunman dressed as Santa entered an internationally popular nightclub in Istanbul and started a shooting spree. Thirty-nine people died, and many more were injured. Yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. Twelve people have been arrested, but it’s still unclear whether the actual perpetrator is among them. The suspect has been identified as a man from Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. Police are also investigating whether the unnamed suspect is connected to the same ISIS-affiliated group that carried out the attack on Istanbul’s Ataturk airport in June.

Turkey nightclub attack: Manhunt for gunman intensifies https://t.co/3SYL7yKMKm

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 2, 2017

The attack is believed to be retaliation against Turkey for its involvement in the conflict in Syria, where Turkish forces have been fighting against ISIS. Approximately 25 of the victims were foreign. One American man was among the injured and survived by playing dead. This was a tragic way to end 2016 and ring in the new year, but Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is determined to fight terrorism. “As a nation, we will fight to the end against not just the armed attacks of terror groups and the forces behind them, but also against their economic, political, and social attacks,” he said in a statement.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ohio Governor John Kasich just vetoed a bill that would have limited the state’s renewable energy laws and made certain restrictions voluntary for two years. House Bill 554 was one of many bills that Kasich vetoed on Tuesday, along with one that would allow a $264 million tax break for the oil and gas industry.

The bill would affect rules that require electricity utilities to meet certain standards when it comes to environmental sustainability. These laws have already been frozen for two years, and if passed, House Bill 554 would have made it voluntary for companies to follow the standards. Instead, they will now go back into effect. Though the Republican-controlled House and Senate passed the bill, enough representatives voted against it that it could still be vetoed. But many disagreed with Kasich’s actions. Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) who was in support of the bill, stated:

It is apparent that Gov. Kasich cares more about appeasing his coastal elite friends in the renewable-energy business than he does about the millions of Ohioans who decisively rejected this ideology when they voted for President-elect Trump.

Another Republican, Bill Coley, said requiring energy to be renewable is the same thing as forcing people to eat kale.

Kasich evidently not persuaded by State Senator’s argument that an RES is same as making people eat kale. https://t.co/pc0RYuRuW4

— Jason Bordoff (@JasonBordoff) December 28, 2016

The renewable energy standards were frozen in 2014 because opponents criticized them as leading to increased costs for electric companies. A special committee was set up to come up with another solution, and concluded that the freeze should be indefinite. The House and Senate passed House Bill 554 earlier this month in response.

Kasich said in a statement about the veto that passing the bill would make Ohio less attractive for businesses that are likely to generate a lot of jobs in the near future, “such as high-technology firms.” Many tech companies put the environment and sustainability high on their list of priorities; for example Amazon has invested a lot of money in Ohio and supports renewable energy policies.

The GOP has called for two extra sessions on Wednesday and Thursday and might try to override the governor’s veto. They are expected to bring up the disputed so-called heartbeat abortion bill, which Kasich also vetoed.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Kasich Vetoes GOP Bill That Would Limit Renewable Energy Efforts appeared first on Law Street.

A GOP office in Hillsborough, North Carolina, was vandalized and later destroyed by an apparent act of arson.

The Orange County Republican headquarters suffered damages caused by a substance thrown through one of the building’s front windows. The flammable material damaged the building’s interior before going out. The firebombing occurred at some point between Saturday night and Sunday morning. Graffiti and threatening words also marked the territory. An adjacent building was graffitied “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” accompanied by a swastika.  No one was injured.

Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens released a statement and reminded people that elections should be an opportunity to become more democratic, rather than moving into acts of violence.

“This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety via fire, and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation,” Stevens said. “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of people who make Hillsborough their home: Acts like this have no place in our community. Our law enforcement officials are responding quickly and thoroughly to investigate this reprehensible act and prosecute the perpetrators.”

According to the town, “no damage estimates are available yet, and Hillsborough police are continuing to investigate the incident with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

Governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory declared he will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in the investigation. McCrory’s staff helped deliver new campaign materials to Orange County hours after the bombing.

“The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy,” McCrory said in a statement. “Violence has no place in our society – but especially in our elections. … I will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in this investigation.”

The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy. pic.twitter.com/fr9FWGQUoG

— Pat McCrory (@PatMcCroryNC) October 16, 2016

Thank you for your thoughts & prayers, Sec. @HillaryClinton.

— NCGOP (@NCGOP) October 16, 2016

Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina GOP Office Firebombed: Trump Blames Democrats appeared first on Law Street.

Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and former congresswoman, has said that voting for Hillary Clinton in November will lead to more sexual assaults. According to Bachmann’s opinion, the Democrats are using Trump’s comments about women–and now sexual assaults–to make women vote for Clinton. But she says if they do, the country would apparently become way worse for women.

“I believe that Hillary Clinton will set a standard in this country that will lead to more sexual assaults against women because she will be setting an anti-biblical agenda,” she said in a radio interview on Tuesday on the Christian show “Stand In The Gap.”

The utter moral bankruptcy of the allegedly Christian Right has never been more hilariously blatant. https://t.co/UzRJzqceWB

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) October 13, 2016

When asked about a report that states that the recent revelations about Trump’s behavior in the past have created a gender divide among voters, she said it was made up of lies, and was a conspiracy theory funded by George Soros. She also claimed that Trump’s alleged assaults were nothing in comparison to Bill Clinton’s past actions, and accused him of criminally assaulting women.

Bachmann’s recent statements about Trump in the wake of the 2005 audio recording of Trump have left many people upset…

Michele Bachmann called #TrumpTapes “bad boy 11 year old locker room talk.” I teach 11 year olds. Pretty sure they don’t brag a/b assault.

— De Elizabeth (@deelizabeth_) October 8, 2016

Michele Bachmann is trending. This is proof we all died in the predicted rapture of 2011 and THIS is hell.

— Dorianna Gray (@blurbette) October 8, 2016

…and some just speechless.

Dear @CNN, I have NO INTEREST in anything @MicheleBachmann has to say about anything till the end of time, ad finitum, yada yada. Thank you.

— Girls Really Rule. (@girlsreallyrule) October 11, 2016

The man who interviewed Bachmann, Sam Rohrer, agreed that trying to make women vote for anyone else than Trump is a satanic effort to divide Evangelical homes. Bachmann also said:

This is an effort by Hillary Clinton supporters and George Soros, through Sojourners and other so-called Christian organizations, to divide us. These are lies and we, as Christians, need to recognize that this is a lie and a deception and we need to wake up and resist these lies

Michele Bachmann used to run a gay conversion center with her husband in Minnesota and has previously made headlines with bizarre statements like claiming that the Lion King is gay propaganda, that visiting Iraq was like to going to the Mall of America because there was marble and water everywhere, and that God picked Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michele Bachmann Claims Voting For Hillary Will Lead to a Rise in Sexual Assaults appeared first on Law Street.

The “Today Show’s” Billy Bush faced extreme backlash from network executives and the public after an audio recording surfaced of the television host having a lewd conversation with Donald J. Trump.

The compromising recording from 2005–in which Trump brags about groping women–quickly became the business mogul’s most pressing issue to date as Republican officials unendorsed their party’s nominee. The GOP presidential nominee posted a statement on social media, telling voters that he is not a “perfect person” and that the words captured in 2005 “don’t reflect who I am.”

In the recording, Bush also exchanged lewd and misogynistic remarks about women. Bush, known as the nephew of former President George H. W. Bush and the cousin of former President George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, worked for Access Hollywood at the time.

Bush issued a statement on Friday evening saying, “Obviously I’m embarrassed and ashamed. It’s no excuse, but this happened 11 years ago–I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry.”

Everyone hasn’t been so quick to accept the apology.

Noah Oppenheim, the NBC executive in charge of “Today,” wrote in a memo to his staff members on Sunday that “I know we’ve all been deeply troubled by the revelations of the past 48 hours.”

“Let me be clear–there is simply no excuse for Billy’s language and behavior on that tape,” he said. “NBC has decided to suspend Billy, pending further review of this matter.”

Bush co-hosts the third hour of the “Today Show” and has remained off-air since Monday. This isn’t his first time coming under fire during his brief stint on the show. Bush, was the first to report the debunked Ryan Lochte robbery scandal and it led to questions about his journalistic approach.

The leak leads to larger questions about journalism ethics. The 44-year-old television host withheld knowledge of a presidential nominee admitting to sexual assault.

“Late Night” TV host Seth Meyers unleashed on Donald Trump and his performance in Sunday night’s debate. Meyers referred to him as “the pervert on the bus” and said that there is “currently a higher standard for the third hour of the “Today Show” than there is for the Republican nominee for president.”

Bush’s future remains unclear. A variety of media sources have speculated that his official departure is only a matter of time.

Sources: Billy Bush’s departure from NBC matter of “when,” not “if” — @brianstelter reports https://t.co/d9B2PW78Hohttps://t.co/lO8dviqF9n

— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) October 12, 2016

Bush worked on “Access Hollywood,” NBC’s entertainment news show, for nearly 15 years before being promoted to “Today” in August, after contributing to the network’s coverage of the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBC’s “Today” Show Has Higher Standards Than the GOP appeared first on Law Street.

After a compromising audio recording from 2005–in which Donald Trump brags about groping women–was revealed last week, Trump had no other option than to apologize. But it nevertheless made several Republicans withdraw their support for him. After hearing the recording, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that he hopes Trump “works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests,” which made John Oliver burst out in a wordy monolog on Sunday, barely stopping to take a breath.

“It is too late in absolutely every way,” John Oliver said of the recent round of un-endorsements. “First, it’s October of an election year, and second, he’s fucking 70.”

He went on to show clips of different Republicans revoking their support of the Republican nominee after hearing the tape. Many did so with words like, “I have five daughters,” or, “I have a wife, I have a daughter, I have a mother, and I have five sisters.”

It should not be necessary to have to go through, as Oliver says, “such an elaborate six-degrees-of-separation exercise to arrive at someone with a Y chromosome that you can feel sorry for,” to think it’s not okay to talk like that about other human beings.

Here’s the full clip:

John McCain wrote in a statement on Saturday that he will not vote for Trump. In an earlier statement, he said: “He alone bears the burden of his conduct and alone should suffer the consequences.” For that, John Oliver called him out. “He alone does not bear the burden of his conduct because he alone did not make himself your party’s nominee,” he said to Republicans who’ve supported Trump up until now. “All of you have consistently supported him through some absolutely heinous shit.”

He added:

In his very first campaign speech, he called Mexicans ‘rapists’–and that was just the beginning. Because since then, he’s proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants; advocated for killing terrorists’ families, which is, by the way, a war crime; argued for waterboarding even if it doesn’t obtain information because, and I quote: ‘they deserve it anyway;’ and just this week he stood by his claims that the Central Park Five were guilty despite the fact that DNA evidence has since exonerated them.

At this point, no one can pretend to be shocked by Donald Trump’s behavior, especially not the people that have stood by him despite wildly offensive comments that have all but become the signature of his campaign.

He ended by saying that this is essentially the logical conclusion of the election cycle:

The first female presidential nominee versus the human embodiment of every backward, condescending, ‘Mad Men’-esque boys’ club attitude that has ever existed, rolled into one giant, salivating, dick size–referencing, pussy-grabbing warthog in a red power tie.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Rips Republicans Who Waited Until Now to Un-Endorse Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Without explicitly withdrawing his support for his party’s presidential candidate, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan instructed House members on Monday to shift their focus to their own races. “You all need to do what’s best for you in your district,” Ryan said in a conference call with House lawmakers, according to an anonymous member on the call.

In light of a video from 2005 that emerged last week in which Trump made crass remarks regarding women, the Speaker of the House also said he will not defend Trump moving forward, nor will he campaign with him, according to lawmakers and congressional staff.

According to the anonymous source who participated in the call, Ryan said he was “willing to endure political pressure to help protect our majority.” He expressed, with urgency, the need to prevent Hillary Clinton from governing with a Democrat-controlled Congress. With many Senate and House seats up for grabs in November, Ryan wishes for his party to focus on maintaining their majority in the Senate, a rockier prospect than holding on to the House, where the GOP holds a 246 to 186 advantage.

Before Sunday night’s debate, and following the release of the damaging 2005 video, Republican politicians reneged on their support of Trump, the most notable of which was Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Rumors began to spread that Trump’s running mate, Governor Mike Pence (R-IN), would drop himself from the ticket. Pence clarified his position on Monday: “This is a choice between two futures,” he said in an interview on CNN. “I’m honored to be standing with him.”

After the House conference call on Monday, Ryan’s support is murkier. His office did deny that he is ceding the race to Clinton, however. Pro-Trump House members felt Ryan was doing just that; some called Ryan and other conservatives who have disavowed Trump “cowards.”

Ryan, it seems, is aiming for the best of both worlds: distancing himself and his party from the tarnish of Trump, while not abandoning him entirely, perhaps in the hopes his supporters will remain loyal to the party. How that strategy will turn out remains to be seen. It could be a cold winter for Paul Ryan.

For more of Law Street’s debate coverage, head over here.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paul Ryan Shifts Focus to Congress, Won’t Defend Donald Trump Anymore appeared first on Law Street.

Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and well-known white supremacist David Duke started robocalling people urging them to vote for both him and Donald Trump in November, an effort to tie himself to Trump’s appeal. Duke is currently running for a Senate position in Louisiana.

Prior to his endorsement in February, Duke was reluctant to support Trump because he is too friendly with “the Jews” and might not do anything about the “Jewish elite” that he claims is running the United States. In August 2015 he said, “Trump has made it very clear that he’s 1,000 percent dedicated to Israel, so how much is left over for America?”

But in February Duke set aside his reservations and formally endorsed Trump. He told NBC News that he had to make a political decision and that he agrees with Trump on “a lot of other issues.”

Duke has since supported the idea of a Trump presidency, encouraging listeners of his radio show and visitors of his website—where he goes by Dr. Duke—to vote for Trump in November. Despite his initial hesitance, Trump formally denounced Duke’s endorsement and continues to denounce it.

In the robocall, Duke even takes a shot at Beyoncé:

Unless massive immigration is stopped now, we’ll be out numbered and outvoted in our own nation. It’s happening. We’re losing our gun rights, our free speech. We’re taxed to death. We’re losing our jobs and businesses to unfair trade. We’re losing our country. Look at the Super Bowl salute to the Black Panther cop killers.

You can listen to the full robocall here.

Hillary Clinton took the opportunity to highlight the fact that a prominent KKK figure is endorsing Trump.

Longtime Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke supports Donald Trump because they share so many of the same values. pic.twitter.com/XuXznBEslA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 25, 2016

Duke told NBC in February that he is still an important political player and has hundreds of thousands of followers online who will all vote for Trump. But Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center points out that Duke’s claim is not quite accurate. “David Duke still portrays himself as a white nationalist hero, but the fact is he hasn’t done anything political in years,” Potok said. “Duke’s having a moment in the news now, and he needs this. In the white supremacist world, he’s seen as an opportunist, someone who is living off the movement.”

David Duke’s history in politics ranges from founding the White Youth Alliance at the Louisiana State University in 1970 to becoming a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, which he made an effort to bring into the mainstream. He won a seat in the Louisiana State Senate in 1989 but later failed when running for governor, Senate, and even the White House. He also formed an organization called National Association for the Advancement of White People to further his mission and spread white supremacy.

In 2002, he was convicted of filing a false tax return–he used donated money privately and for gambling–and lost a lot of public support. He is now running for Senate in Louisiana and even though the Republican Party there does not support him, it claims that it would be too costly to formally ban him from running on the Republican ticket.

After the recent robocall made the news, Trump’s campaign sent a statement to politico reiterating his disavowal of Duke’s support. The statement said:

Mr. Trump has continued to denounce David Duke and any group or individual associated with a message of hate. There is no place for this in the Republican Party or our country. We have no knowledge of these calls or any related activities, but strongly condemn and disavow.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post David Duke Robocalls Voters Asking them to Vote for Him and Trump appeared first on Law Street.

As Donald Trump continues to poll poorly among minority voters, many within the Republican Party are getting nervous as the electorate becomes more diverse each year. On Monday morning, the hashtag #BlackVotesMatter started trending on Twitter, as the general election gets closer and Trump still hasn’t done much to win over black voters.

The fact is, very few black Americans support Donald Trump. According to a FiveThirtyEight analysis, Trump is actually polling in fourth place among black voters, behind Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. In an average of several recent polls, Trump’s support among black voters sits at about 2 percent.

Trump’s numbers are worse than almost every Republican presidential nominee since 1948, in surveys that are taken after the party conventions and before Election Day. The only Republican nominee to poll worse than Trump was Barry Goldwater in 1964, who voted against the Civil Rights Act in the same year as the election. For a closer look at the parallels between Trump and Goldwater you should check out Sean Simon’s analysis.

With black voters expected to make up between 10 to 15 percent of the electorate in November, the GOP is urging Trump to change his tactics and appeal to a broader group of Americans. But as the New York Times reports, Trump has done very little to reach out to black voters, preferring to campaign with a mix of large rallies and media interviews.

In a recent visit to Detroit–the city with the 10th largest black population in the country–to talk economics last week, he went straight from his private plane to the Detroit Economic Club, where he talked to a mainly white audience. So far, Trump has decided against traditional community stops along the campaign trail and as the New York Times points out, he has yet to hold an event geared toward important black constituencies.

His director of African-American outreach, Omarosa Manigault, told the New York Times that she was “extremely concerned” about Trump’s standing among black voters. Manigault also said she is researching opportunities for him to meet key figures in the African-American community to improve his perception. “He’s alienated a number of minority voters, and that’s reflected in his low numbers,” said Tara Wall, a communications consultant who has helped with black outreach on previous Republican presidential campaigns.

But the question posed by many on social media is how black votes can matter to the Republicans when their nominee has openly criticized the Black Lives Matter movement as a threat to police officers. Trump also has a questionable record on race himself.

Yo, say, GOP, if Black votes matter, drop your racist Presidential candidate and the KKK vibe at his rallies & your convention. Start there.

— Jeffrey Wright (@jfreewright) August 15, 2016

However, many were also unhappy with both parties’ records on race.

Black ppl should not fall for the “Black Votes Matter” crap. When both parties are dominated by white supremacy

— Cliff Po (@Pharaoh_Po) August 15, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do #BlackVotesMatter to Donald Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the first day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Kevin Rizzo and Alec Siegel:

Day 1’s theme was Making America Safe Again. And the Republican National Convention in Cleveland started off with an unusual bout of excitement. In a day filled with a range of speakers, from senators, to Melania Trump, and even Scott Baio, a lot of the excitement happened before the prime time speakers took stage.

The Rules Fight

In a last ditch effort to thwart the nomination of Donald Trump, a group of delegates attempted to force a roll call vote instead of a voice vote to accept the party rules. Chants erupted on the convention floor after three state delegations reportedly dropped their support of a measure to change the voting procedure used to approve the party rules.

Although the effort had little chance of success, it amounted to a rare show of disunity and chaos on the convention floor. It also wasn’t the only time a voice vote caused an uproar on Monday. In a largely symbolic vote to make Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell temporary chairman, the “nays” appeared to have outbid the “ayes,” yet Reince Priebus, the acting chair, concluded that the “ayes” won.

in a voice vote just now to name Mitch McConnell temporary chairman, the Nays were arguably louder. Priebus said the Ayes won.

— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) July 18, 2016

Alec Has a Weird Pierogi Run In

Quicken Loans Perimeter: Pierogi and Press. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media.

Monday evening, reporters were still scrambling over the grounds on the perimeter, scrounging for last-minute food before the dive into Quicken Loans. Pierogi–pillows of dough filled with cheese–were being sold at one popular concession tent, a nod to Cleveland’s large Polish population. A moment that seems to sum up the caffeine fueled, sleep-less nature of the convention: a reporter from a TV outlet stumbled up to me–overcome by the smell of my delicious pierogi–and asked where he could get some. I told him I was the last sale of the night. Tears welling up in his eyes, he said, “I’m gonna pass out if I don’t eat,” and ambled off, mic and camera cord dragging behind him.

We Weren’t Allowed to Bring our Drones in

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Rudy Giuliani Gets the Crowd Going

All of Monday night’s speakers were well received by the audience, but no one got the crowd louder than former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. The theme was “Make America Safe Again” and Giuliani touched on the Republicans’ greatest hits. From a full-throated defense of American police officers to a long tirade decrying radical islamic terrorism, everyone in the crowd stood as he spoke.

Giuliani gets the crowd to the loudest volume of the night with his defense of police officers #RNCinCLEpic.twitter.com/gw2LaLruIt

— Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) July 19, 2016

While it was certainly an exciting speech, it’s also important to take a closer look at what many of the speakers were describing on Monday night. The theme was “Make America Safe Again” and with that came many references to crime rates and policing. But what many might not recognize is that violent crime has dropped precipitously over the past several decades. The United States today has considerably less violent crime than it did a couple decades ago.

Here’s a graph from Gallup that shows how public opinion and the reality of crime rates are often far apart. For years, many people believed that violent crime was increasing while, in fact, it was consistently going down. So the convention speakers’ calls for law and order may be doing more to evoke emotion than accurately describing the facts on the ground.

Liberal Bashing was Visible

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

There were plenty of jabs at Hillary, too.

“Hillary Clinton wants to be the president of Hillary Clinton”-Scott Baio #RNCinCLE

— Alec Siegel (@beardedbard92) July 19, 2016

“Hillary loves her pantsuits…but we should send her an email saying she deserves an orange jumpsuit” #RNCinCLE

— Alec Siegel (@beardedbard92) July 19, 2016

A Little Bit of Plagiarism?

Melania Trump was the headline speaker on Monday night, even receiving an introduction from none other than Donald Trump. Also of note, Trump’s intro may have been his shortest public speaking appearance yet in the campaign. While brief, Trump’s appearance came with his fair share of fanfare–he walked out to “We Are the Champions” and exclaimed “we’re gonna win so big” upon taking the podium. But everyone was there to see Mrs. Trump, a point that became clear as the crowd almost immediately filed out when she was done speaking.

Although Melania Trump’s speech appeared to go off without a hitch, a short while after after her speech some “striking similarities” were recognized between her remarks and Michelle Obama’s famous address at the Democratic Convention in 2008. You can see for yourself:

So that’s pretty blatant, right? pic.twitter.com/EPnHME7afV

— Mike Hearn (@mikehearn) July 19, 2016

Texas’s Delegates Win Alec’s Fashion Awards for Day 1

Texas state delegates were hard to miss. They showed up in their state costume: a cowboy hat and a red, white, and blue collared shirt. Some wore jeans. Toward the end of the night, one Texas cowboy walked off into the night in a cowboy hat and skirt. A red, white and blue skirt, to be specific, and he had his dog at his side, also decked out in patriotic hues.

The Texas Delegates Are Not Messing Around At The RNC! #NeverTrump #CruzCrew pic.twitter.com/Tg6A2UDMiE

— DLW (@Dlw20161950) July 18, 2016

You Couldn’t Miss the Police Presence

Police presence at the exits. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media.

And in what is probably convention tradition, but especially amplified in light of the last few tumultuous weeks, sheriffs and police certainly made their presence known on Day 1. Brawny clumps of men with badges and sheriffs hats watched the proceedings from the perimeter on the TV screen. After Melania Trump spoke, most of the attendees spilled out from the “Q” (The cordoned off area where reporters and delegates are allowed–Quicken Loans and its perimeter).

The mass of us wound through a fenced off maze, finally spilling out onto East Fourth Street, an alleyway of restaurants and bars, many rented out for the week from news outlets like CNN and The Washington Post. Police formed a human boundary on both sides as we made our way from the “Q,” into the Cleveland night, off to get some sleep for day two.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s up at the RNC?: Law Street’s Day 1 Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

As the Republican National Convention–which will be held in Cleveland, Ohio–approaches, the GOP is drafting its platform. A party’s platform doesn’t set any requirements or binding language, but it does provide guidance for the party’s direction in coming years. It can be an opportunity for a party to show that it’s made progress on issues, or that it’s ready to move in an optimistic direction. Unfortunately, this year it seems that the GOP is once again taking an archaic view on social issues. Here’s a look at some of the crazy things that have come up in platform talks:

Pornography

The GOP may be taking a stand against porn, deeming it a “public health crisis.” The draft party platform currently includes an amendment written by Mary Frances Forrester, a delegate from North Carolina, that states:

The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography which closely linked to human trafficking.

While fighting human trafficking is certainly laudable, the rest of the amendment is a bit overdramatic, and there’s no real evidence to suggest that porn has destroyed the lives of millions.

Gay Marriage

After  gay marriage’s big SCOTUS win last summer and the fact that almost 60 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, you would think that the GOP would cool it on insisting that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. You’d be wrong.

Some on the platform committee–including Rachel Hoff, the first gay individual to sit on that committee–wanted to soften the GOP’s language on gay marriage. But they were overwhelmingly voted down. For now, it appears that opposition to same sex marriage will stay in the platform.

Bathroom Mania

There was the HB 2 craziness in North Carolina earlier this year. Now, multiple states are suing the Obama Administration over a directive that requires public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity. So, it follows that there would be language about bathrooms in this year’s GOP platform draft. Here’s a draft of that language:

This is the draft language opposing Obama admin’s guidance to schools re: trans kids and bathrooms/locker rooms pic.twitter.com/OyWfVaxbB5

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) July 11, 2016

Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory Angelo talked to the Daily Signal, and made a good point about how ridiculous this addition seems:

This is a foolish issue to nationalize and talk about within the Republican Party platform. It literally drags the platform into the gutter when so many people who are on this committee seem hell-bent with some obsession with bathroom use.

Conversion Therapy

Another socially conservative issue that became a topic of discussion was gay conversion therapy. Delegate Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council introduced conversion therapy language into an amendment and the subcommittee voted to approve it. Gay conversion therapy (sometimes called reparative therapy) is a discredited practice that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation, and has been banned by multiple states. Perkins stated:

It’s what it says, it’s whatever therapy that a parent wants to get for a minor child. There’s states that are trying to restrict what parents can do for loving their children. Parents have a better idea I think than legislators or government bureaucrats.

via GIPHY

What’s Next?

And there you have it, all the crazy stuff that could be included in the GOP platform. Nothing is set in stone yet, but the fact that some of these topics were even up for discussion isn’t a great sign when it comes to social progress in the U.S.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the GOP Platform Stay Stuck in the Past? appeared first on Law Street.

Georgia Representative John Lewis (D-Georgia) is currently leading a sit in on the House floor. Lewis is joined by dozens of other Democratic congressmen in a movement now dubbed #NoBillNoBreak, and they’re all vowing to stay seated on the House floor until the GOP allows a vote on gun control measures.

The sit in began after Lewis, a civil rights leader, delivered a fiery speech on gun control, saying:

For months, even for years, through seven sessions of Congress, I wondered, what would bring this body to take action? “We have lost hundreds and thousands of innocent people to gun violence. Tiny little children. Babies. Students. And teachers. Mother and fathers. Sisters and brothers. Daughters and sons. Friends and neighbors. And what has this body done? Mr. Speaker, not one thing.

Then, he took a seat on the floor, and was immediately joined by many of his colleagues.

Unlike so many events that take place on Capitol Hill, footage of the sit-in isn’t being streamed by C-Span’s cameras. Republicans in the House called a recess, essentially shutting off the cameras’ views into the protest. But thanks to social media we still know what’s going on–here are some scenes from the floor:

Time to occupy the House to demand action. #NoBillNoBreak #DisarmHate pic.twitter.com/C7BZpzNvxL

— Rep Donna F Edwards (@repdonnaedwards) June 22, 2016

You won’t see us on CSPAN but we are still here. #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/44HOBT25WQ

— Janice Hahn (@Rep_JaniceHahn) June 22, 2016

Proud to sit with @RepJoeCourtney and others demanding action. #GoodTrouble #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/SNMWlQ0ZfZ

— Rep. John Yarmuth (@RepJohnYarmuth) June 22, 2016

We’ve had almost all if not all of @HouseDemocrats. Currently @ least 3/4 of Caucus & many Senators. #NoBillNoBreakpic.twitter.com/70zlL8edLv

— Rep Donna F Edwards (@repdonnaedwards) June 22, 2016

One house member, Representative Scott Peters, is streaming the sit in live through periscope. 

There’s also been an outpouring of support on social media from other politicians, organizations, and individuals: 

Change only happens when people come together to say the status quo is unacceptable. We stand with you @HouseDemocrats. #NoBillNoBreak

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 22, 2016

I stand with those who Sit-In for gun control. #NoBillNoBreak #Enough

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) June 22, 2016

.@SenatorBoxer just arrived with granola bars. #NoBillNoBreak

— Tina Dupuy (@TinaDupuy) June 22, 2016

So I’m meeting with @keithellison. His scheduler walks in and hands him this note. Meeting ends #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/JwnusZKZuo

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) June 22, 2016

Keep going @HouseDemocrats ! No parent should have a grave site for a child. #NoBillNoBreak#DisarmHatepic.twitter.com/jTAomUHQRE

— Nelba Márquez-Greene (@apricotmamiof2) June 22, 2016

Lewis’s sit in comes just a week after Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) filibustered for a vote on a number of different gun control measures. Those measures were rejected by the Senate on Monday. But Lewis, and his fellow House Democrats, are showing that this fight isn’t over. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #NoBillNoBreak Sit in Started by House Democrats appeared first on Law Street.

As Donald Trump continues his rise in the presidential election–from a businessman joking about running for president to the man who will almost certainly be the Republican Party nominee–several Republican leaders have had to decide whether or not they are going to suck it up and support him. While some Republicans have refused to support Trump or have withdrawn their endorsements because of his repeatedly racist rhetoric, many leaders have given him their political blessing as it has become apparent that he is all they have left.

In the beginning, there was obvious hesitation to support trump. Around a month ago, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and highest ranking GOP official, was nowhere near willing to commit to the Donald Trump bandwagon. Ryan had slammed Trump for his plan to ban Muslims from entering the country, pointing out the plan’s unconstitutionality and inherent lack of conservatism. And when Trump refused to disavow David Duke in February, Ryan responded by saying,

If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices.

It seems that Ryan and others have decided to weaken the Republican Party stance on bigotry, however, as several party leaders have now readily accepted Trump as their nominee, brushing off his inappropriate behavior and rhetoric as accidental.

A recent example of this hypocrisy? This week Trump has been under fire for inherently racist comments against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an attack add, Hillary Clinton’s campaign capitalized on Trump’s statement and some Republican Party members’ decision to speak out against him.

The video shows clips of Trump’s racist interview claims that Judge Curiel could not fairly judge his case because of his Mexican heritage. His statements are then followed by different clips of prominent Republicans disapproving of his racist claims.

Paul Ryan admitted that Trump’s statements were textbook examples of racism and that he regretted the comments. Mitch McConnell criticized Trump’s statements as stupid inappropriate. Newt Gingrich labeled the comments inexcusable and Trump an amateur. But, while these Republican leaders are disavowing Trump’s remarks on TV or in the news, the sad thing is they and the rest of the party are continuing to support him nonetheless. Party leaders have repeatedly acknowledged Trump’s blatant bigotry, inappropriate rhetoric, and repeated racism, but they still stand behind him and continue pushing for him to be our next President.

At best, Republican support of Donald Trump is some kind of misguided attempt to hold the party together. At worst, the support is grounded in a firm belief in Trump’s plan to destroy all racial diversity and cultural variety in America. GOP leaders need to wake up and realize that the remarks that Donald Trump keeps making on air and in interviews, time and time again, aren’t just silly mistakes–they are who he is. And, then, if party leaders really want to put the force of their party behind the bigoted monster Trump has become (or has always been), they need to accept the consequences that decision will have for their future as a political party and our future as Americans.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Republican Party Leaders Acknowledge They’re Backing a Racist appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump has many talents: amassing large sums of money, ostensibly writing checks to charities, and provoking confrontations with the media. On Tuesday, at Trump Tower in New York, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee managed to show off all three of those skills in a 40-minute televised speech.

Trump said that he raised $5.6 million during a fundraiser for veterans held in January. He also rattled off the names of the charities that were presented donations from that chunk of change, after he received pressure from the media to reveal where the money raised ended up going. And he also responded to that pressure, spending a bulk of the speech deriding the media as being “unbelievably dishonest” and singling out ABC News’s Tom Llamas as a “sleaze.”

“But what I don’t want is when I raise millions of dollars, have people say, like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC,” Trump said, skirting eye contact with Llamas, but aggressively pointing at him while squinting into the cameras. “He’s a sleaze in my book. You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well.”

The speech was a response to mounting pressure from the press about the particulars of the veterans’ fundraiser, which Trump held in lieu of attending a Fox News debate. The reporters’ questions were simple: how much money was raised, and to whom was it donated?

The confusion about the amount of money that was raised stemmed from contradictory statements by Trump and his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Trump initially announced the event’s haul as being $6 million; Lewandowski told The Washington Post it was $4.5 million. On Tuesday, the real estate mogul cleared up the foggy figure, pinpointing the amount raised as $5.6 million and rising.

He explained the lengthy donation process as a result of making sure the charities poised to receive donations were properly vetted. All of the checks have been sent, he said, save for one to the Project for Patriots, a veteran housing group based in Sioux City, Iowa.

The largest of Trump’s contributions was made to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation for a purported amount of $1.1 million. A representative told Law Street: “Mr. Trump sent us a check last week for a million dollars.”

Whether that check was signed and sent amid the increased media attention thrust on the issue or after a drawn out vetting process is unclear. But Trump prefers his donations to fly under the radar, a shockingly different philosophy than how he has run his presidential campaign thus far: “I could have asked all these groups to come here and I didn’t want to do that. I’m not looking for credit.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Attacks Media, Calls Journalist a “Sleaze” During Tuesday Speech appeared first on Law Street.

The potential for a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders debate has captured everyone’s attention lately–a lot of supporters on both sides want to see the two contenders face off before the June 7 primary in California. In a storyline that would seem right at home in a political comedy, Trump originally said he wanted to debate Sanders, and then backed out. Now, Sanders is going after Trump, nicknaming him “Mr. Macho” and mocking him for not wanting to debate.

And some Sanders’ supporters have gone even further, starting the hashtag #ChickenTrump on social media. Check out the slideshow below for some of the best tweets:

#ChickenTrump pic.twitter.com/NcgJopUN48

— Captain Truth (@TruthTeamOne) May 31, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #ChickenTrump Trends After Trump Backs out of Debate with Sanders appeared first on Law Street.

Asian Americans are a largely forgotten slice of the electorate, rarely mentioned in the media and hardly ever courted by presidential candidates. They are the fastest growing immigrant group in the U.S., and have been for a while, yet continue to get overlooked by politicians at the national level. The largest group within the demographic are Chinese Americans–there are over four million in the U.S. as of 2011–and there is one candidate in this election cycle that is speaking to at least some of them: Donald Trump.

“Chinese Americans for Trump” is a group founded by Tian Wang in Anaheim, California. Wang, previously a Jeb Bush supporter, stumbled upon online videos of Trump, binge watched for five hours, and decided he found his man.

“I said, ‘This guy is really cool.’ He speaks from his — You know, he speaks from his mouth, really,” Wang told NBC News. “But most of the stuff he said is pretty straightforward and true.”

Wang, 32, isn’t the only one who feels this way. He said there are around 1,500 members of his collective. At least 50 “Chinese Americans for Trump” members attended his rally in Anaheim, which was held to drum up support for the California primary on June 7. Trump is the only candidate left on the Republican side, and he’s already locked up the nomination.

Chinese-Americans for Donald #Trump! #TrumpTrain – Don’t we have the BEST supporters, folks? pic.twitter.com/QpBTotWg35

— ALWAYS TRUMP! (@Always_Trump) April 29, 2016

Wang’s group–who wear “Chinese Americans [heart icon] Trump” t-shirts at gatherings–does not seem to reflect a broader pattern among Asian Americans, or even most Chinese Americans.

One recent study found Asian Americans predominantly identify as Democrats (47 percent), though many more don’t identify with either party (37 percent). Of the 15 percent who identify as Republicans polled in the study, 61 percent had an unfavorable view of Trump, and 20 percent either had no opinion or hadn’t heard of him.

A separate study conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund after the New York Primary in April surveyed 513 Asian-Americans in New York City’s Chinatown. Only eight percent of those surveyed were registered Republicans, and of those, 60 percent voted for Trump.

Wang, however, cannot vote. He emigrated from China at 10, and while he is a permanent resident, he is not a citizen. But Rui Dai, 40, from Maryland and a fellow Trump backer, can and will. “I found that many of his suggestions are making sense,” she said. “It’s not nonsense. And I found he’s the only one who can state the tough situation of America.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Chinese Americans for Trump” Members Attend Trump’s Anaheim Rally appeared first on Law Street.

In his State of the Union address last year, President Barack Obama acknowledged the need for an update to the nation’s overtime pay rules: “We still need to make sure employees get the overtime they’ve earned,” he said. To the delight of Obama and perhaps millions of workers nationwide, but the chagrin of employer groups and some Republican lawmakers, this need has been addressed.

The Department of Labor (DOL) announced a severe adjustment to overtime pay rules on Wednesday, raising the salary threshold for those eligible for overtime pay from $23,660 per year to $47,476. The rule update–which goes into effect December 1–is designed to give 4.2 million Americans who previously did not qualify for overtime pay the money they earned from working hours beyond 40 per week. The DOL expects the new rules to generate $12 billion in wages over 10 years. The rules will be updated to reflect inflation every three years, starting in 2020.

“Increasing overtime protections is another step in the President’s effort to grow and strengthen the middle class by raising Americans’ wages. This extra income will not only mean a better life for American families impacted by overtime protections, but will boost our economy across the board as these families spend their hard-earned wages,” read the official statement from the White House released on Tuesday, a day before the new rules were announced.

In 2014, Obama issued a directive to the Secretary of Labor to “update and modernize” overtime pay regulations, suggesting a $50,440 threshold, which is slightly higher than the figure that was announced on Wednesday.

Critics of the newly designated threshold, which is nearly double the previous one, fear that it could lead to less jobs and less opportunity for upward mobility within a career. Citing an Oxford Economics study, the National Retail Federation (NRF), an advocate of the retail industry that opposes the new rules, sees a handful of hidden costs in raising the overtime pay threshold. While overtime pay would increase, they agree, base pay and hours worked would drop, leading to an overall decrease in take home pay. The study estimates a $745 million cost for retail and restaurant businesses.

“We would hope it would be a reasonable and responsible update and this final rule is not even close to that,” Lizzy Simmons, Senior Director of Government Relations at NRF said in an interview with Law Street. “[The new threshold] doesn’t reflect reality, the math is bad.”

She added that employers–in retail and other fields–will not have sufficient time to deal with the threshold increase (they have six months to adjust, Simmons said 12-18 months would be more realistic), and would have liked to see a less “reckless” increase in the new threshold.

And although both Democrats and Republicans see a need to overhaul overtime pay rules, Republicans in the House and Senate announced legislation–the Protecting Workplace Advancement and Opportunity Act–in an effort to preempt the DOL’s ruling. 

“The Obama administration’s decision to drastically redefine overtime will hurt our workforce and our employers. It will lead to reduced hours, confusion for job creators, and will limit growth opportunities for employees,” said Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), a member of the Senate Labor Committee, one of the sponsors of the bill.

As the fight over the minimum wage rages on, the other issue middle class Americans hope will provide a boon to their bank account–overtime pay–has been settled for now. Exactly what that means for employees and employers remains to be seen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Labor Doubles Threshold for Overtime Pay appeared first on Law Street.

As it becomes almost inevitable that Donald Trump will be the GOP’s nominee (given that every other candidate in the running has dropped out), many people aren’t happy. The “Dump Trump” and “Never Trump” movements are still alive and well. Ben Sasse, a Republican Senator from Nebraska, recently went particularly on the offensive against Trump–and the apparent Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton–calling for a third party candidate in a Facebook open letter that has now gone viral.

Sasse’s letter, while long-winded and in places somewhat thin on real substance and a bit heavy on rhetoric, is unabashedly honest about what his frustrations are with the party system. Some highlights:

I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that ‘although Trump is terrible,’ we ‘have to’ support him, ‘because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.’ This open letter aims simply to ask, ‘WHY is that the only choice?’

…

I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln — and I will work to reform and restore the GOP — but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.

…

In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two ‘leaders.’

…

I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.

Despite the fact that the open letter was very much a call for a third party candidate to run in 2016, Sasse implied that he would not be willing to be that candidate, stating: “Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.” That would, presumably, rule him out, given that he has three children.

Sasse has been very vocal about his opposition to Donald Trump, according to the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake: “Sasse is still the only sitting GOP senator to say he simply won’t vote for Trump under any circumstances.” Sasse also published a series of tweets about his open letter, mostly in the same vein.

Now that it looks like Trump is certain to be the  nominee, the rift in the Republican Party between the “never Trump” adherents and the “Trump, now, I guess” advocates threatens to widen. We’ll have to see if Sasse’s appeal attracts any viable third party candidates.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ben Sasse: Nebraska Senator Calls for 3rd Party Candidate appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the big moment that people anticipated (and feared) finally happened: Donald Trump became the apparent GOP nominee for President of the United States. While this development brings no surprise to anyone who had been following the polls for the last few weeks, it still was a huge blow to the GOP establishment, who have seemed absolutely lost and completely divided on how to approach the hijacking of their party by a narcissistic megalomaniac.

While talks of a contested convention and a potential Paul Ryan bid provided a glimmer of hope to the establishment wing of the party, any hopes seemed dashed after Trump’s win in Indiana last night. The elimination of Ted Cruz from the GOP race made it clear that the Trump train could not be stopped–and many in the party had to make a decision about whether or not to get on for the ride.

The reactions to Trump’s impending nomination from party members were varied: while some in the GOP demonstrated that they would back the party’s nominee, no matter who it was, others declared that they would choose Hillary over Trump. Then there were those who just seemed confused about what to do now…as well as those who won’t be voting for either candidate.

The “anyone is better than Hillary” camp (aka #NeverClinton)

GOP chairman Reince Priebus never seemed super-enthusiastic about the potential for a Trump nomination, but he declared last night in a Tweet that the party needed to unite in order to prevent a Clinton win:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton#NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

Some former presidential candidates, many who were once rivals of Trump, changed their tone as well, including Bobby Jindal, who told Sean Hannity on Tuesday that Republicans who didn’t support the candidate would only be helping Hillary.

Other prominent Republicans provided a (less than) ringing endorsement for Trump, including former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:

There’s a lot about Donald Trump that I don’t like, but I’ll vote for Trump over Hillary any day.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) May 4, 2016

While there were few enthusiastic responses from the establishment GOP after Trump locked the nomination, it looks like many members will still be casting their vote for him come November, as long as it keeps Clinton out of the White House.

The “we can deal with a few years of Clinton if it means no Trump” camp (aka #NeverTrump)

The #NeverTrump movement did not die with the elimination of Cruz from the race. Many prominent party members expressed the sentiment that, when it came to Clinton vs. Trump, Hillary would be the lesser of the two evils. Others did not clarify whether they would be voting for Clinton or abstaining completely after last night’s results, but indicated that their #NeverTrump stance wasn’t changing now that there were no other options in the party.

As a conservative, i would always rather lose to a democrat, than support a racist and sexist with my party’s nametag. #NeverTrump

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 4, 2016

Ben Howe, contributing editor at RedState.com, tweeted his endorsement for Hillary yesterday and demonstrated his solidarity with the #NeverTrump movement.

Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), tweeted that last night’s results didn’t change his #NeverTrump stance.

Another tweet that picked up steam showed the burning of a voter registration card by Lachlan Markey, a writer for The Free Beacon, who also expressed that he was “Never Trump. Still.”

pic.twitter.com/L0hQvfBSvS

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) May 4, 2016

The “I need some time to figure things out” camp (aka #denial)

Many party members had yet to speak out on their choice, likely confused on how to proceed. A poll conducted  by the Morning Consult said that a quarter of Ted Cruz supporters were still unsure on whether or not to support Trump over Clinton. Cruz himself has yet to speak out on whether or not he will be backing Trump, nor has Kasich, who backed out today.

Basically, this camp of the GOP establishment refuses to endorse Hillary, but also hasn’t yet expressed any sort of desire to vote for Trump. Time will tell how (or if) these party members vote.

The GOP must spend the next few months grappling with the fact that Trump will be the representative for the party in the general election. Meanwhile, Trump must figure out how to woo the establishment wing of the GOP away from a Hillary vote while maintaining the “anti-establishment” message that has brought him so much support. One thing’s for certain: these next few months will certainly defy traditional two-party politics and make for an unpredictable presidential race.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump is the Apparent Republican Nominee, and the GOP Establishment Is Confused appeared first on Law Street.

If my Facebook newsfeed is anything to go off of, people my age hate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’ll see videos with titles like “HILLARY EXPOSED,” “$HILLARY STEALS THE ELECTION,” and “WHO SAID IT, TRUMP OR HITLER?” shared thousands of times, most of which are accompanied by the little angry-face reaction emoji. But, of course, that’s not representative of the general public right? If you’re friends with people who share your political views, the internet is a room full of people who applaud everything you say and hate your enemies. If you’re visiting websites like Reddit or the Huffington Post, you’re going to have a much different comments-section experience than at Breitbart or The National Review. You can’t get a fair take on who likes whom on the internet, so to escape the thought-bubbles of social media, I turned to polling to answer the question: What does America really think of our presumptive nominees?

Favorability is measured in a shockingly simple way–surveys ask Americans how they view a candidate, and provide options from “very favorable” to “very unfavorable.” The data suggest that all the online negativity comes from a real place. Even though Hillary Clinton has received more votes in the primary than any other candidate, her average favorability is 38.4 percent. Donald Trump also has a really bad favorability rating, sitting 10 points below Clinton – at 28.4 percent. Pathetic–sad!

Trump and Clinton have a similar problem–if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them. Trump’s fanbase is larger than anyone predicted, and stark-raving mad dedicated to his cause. His detractors are even more numerous, and just as incensed by what he says and does. Clinton’s campaign is a savvy political juggernaut, and her careful planning has all-but secured the Democratic nominee. Despite her success, over forty percent of voters have a strongly negative view of her.

How do these candidates that Americans don’t like continue winning?  Voters might not be in love with Hillary Clinton, but they’re voting for her as the lesser of two evils. If you only see Clinton and Trump being viable options for the presidency, the decision is made very simple for most voters. It’s also important not to be too cynical–nearly half of voters see Clinton and Trump as favorable (although very different halves, I imagine.) It’s not that everyone hates the almost-nominees, just that they are extremely divisive in the American public.

We’re in a tough position now, as most Americans find themselves rooting for the candidate they hate the least–a far cry from the Obama ’08 enthusiasm that energized the Democratic party just two elections ago. An election as important as this one shouldn’t be treated so dispassionately by voters, because a low turn-out could tilt the election the way you’re actually afraid of. An old adage fits well here: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Candidates America Hates Keep Winning? appeared first on Law Street.

The right-wing’s dynamic duo has arrived: after much speculation, Ted Cruz confirmed Wednesday at a rally in Indianapolis that former candidate Carly Fiorina would be his running mate. If this announcement seems premature, that’s because candidates don’t normally choose their number twos until after they have actually ensured their position as the nominee. However, as the outlook for Cruz’s nomination looks increasingly grim day by day, Fiorina may provide him with a much-needed (but probably too late) bump in the polls. The former HP executive endorsed Cruz after dropping out of the race in February, saying that he was the only candidate with the potential to beat Trump.

After this Tuesday’s round of primaries, where The Donald won victories in all five of the Republican contests, it’s looking more and more difficult to slow down the Trump train. In Wednesday’s rally, Cruz reiterated his confidence that no one would reach the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination, creating a contested convention.

The announcement also comes after Trump received criticism for accusing Hillary Clinton of using the “woman card” to secure votes. While Cruz’s speech didn’t address these comments directly, he hit hard on Fiorina’s accomplishments as a professional and said that she “shattered the glass ceiling.” Having Fiorina on the ticket stands in contrast to Trump’s comments, and could provide a compelling reason for female GOP voters to side with Cruz.

If I am nominated, I will run on a ticket with @carlyfiorina as my Vice President. Join us: https://t.co/sGy8idmZDEhttps://t.co/4RZxR2zlMz

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 27, 2016

Another narrative that Cruz and Fiorina emphasized at the rally was the idea of Trump as a “Washington insider,” comparing him to Clinton and insisting that he was a “liberal” and lover of big government. Regarding the potential Trump-Clinton contest, Fiorina stated: “They’re not going to challenge the system; they are the system.”

For the Republican Party, Trump is looking more and more like the super-villain that can’t be beat, despite the fact that everyone is teaming up to bring him down. Earlier this week, Kasich and Cruz announced their plan to work together to weaken Trump’s lead and create a contested convention, but it seems like it might be too little, too late. Bringing down the relentless Trump machine may be too far out of reach at this point, but there’s certainly not a lack of trying.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Cruz-Fiorina: The Trump Takedown Team Is Here, But Is It Too Late? appeared first on Law Street.

Inside the historic Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. this afternoon, the mainstream press junket packed into a cozy conference room, preparing for a long awaited detailed foreign policy speech from Donald Trump.

Outside, a small group of protestors braved the gray early spring chill to chant and jeer the billionaire businessman, as sleepy cameramen waited around hoping to capture Trump after his speech, which had the presidential hopeful reading from a teleprompter for the first time. (Which according to Twitter, didn’t go all that smoothly).

The protestors held colorful makeshift signs with slogans like: “Love trumps hate” and “stand against Islamophobia.”

Protestors face the gilded doors of the Mayflower Hotel as security looks on. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media]

With a backpack slung over his shoulder and his hands cupping his mouth, Justin Scoville led the protestors in a rhythmic chant: “Donald Trump go away, racist, sexist not OK.”

“I don’t really care about his foreign policy,” said Scoville, 26, who was arrested twice last week as a participant of the Democracy Spring protests. “I care about his domestic policy. What he represents domestically I find much more disturbing.” Addressing Trump’s reason for visiting the posh Mayflower–a detailed foreign policy speech–he added: “I think [US foreign policy] will continue no matter who is in office.”

Over wailing sirens and the general cacophony of downtown D.C., the protestors at times banded together shoulder by shoulder in front of the entrance of the hotel, anticipating Trump’s arrival, or bunched up in a tight mass. 

Justin Scoville (center, hands clasped) converses with fellow protestors. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel Via Law Street Media]

Beyond the gray concrete exterior of the Mayflower, in front of a group of reporters and cameramen, Trump dove a bit deeper into his broad foreign policy plan. Press members have reported the following details of the speech on Twitter. Various statements by Trump include:

“I would absolutely bring back interrogation.”

“We are going to get rid of ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] and we are going to do it very, very quickly. Believe me.”

“Replace chaos with peace.”

Amid the “Trump=Nazi” signs and young protestors–the Mayflower is blocks away from the George Washington University campus–the number of visible Trump supporters totaled one.

Laurie Saxson did not confront the chilly wind in a sleeveless turquoise dress simply to show support for a more detailed policy vision or a more “presidential” version of Trump.

Laurie Saxson shows her support for Trump, unlike the man in the camouflage jacket behind her. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel Via Law Street Media]

“I think he’s great the way he is,” said Saxson, who wore the ubiquitous red “Make America Great Again” hat. Saxson said she felt confident in Trump’s ability to follow through on the promise sewed onto her hat, and reiterated his positions in the same 140-character style of the candidate who hasn’t roused this much excitement in her “since Reagan”: “Strong economy, fight government corruption, and get rid of the illegal alien problem.”

As Saxson stood alone in the chilly air in a silent show of support, the protestors rushed to the curb as the wailing of a motorcade came cruising by, presumably escorting Trump. They stood on their tiptoes and shoved their signs toward the oncoming police cruisers and black SUVs, chanting, “two, four, six, eight, love always trumps hate!”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As Trump Gives Foreign Policy Speech, Protestors Gather In D.C. appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is winning, winning, winning. He’s winning so much, he’s probably getting bored of winning. He’s enjoying a 286-delegate lead over Cruz, and with the April 26 Republican primaries poised to be a sweep for Mr. Trump, his rocket-fueled journey to the magic number of 1,237 delegates has struck fear in the hearts of his rivals. How in the world is this happening?

When you consider that each of Trump’s opponents has a weakness with the GOP base, you start to see how the rabid fanaticism of “Trumpeters” could outnumber the “Cruz-ers” and the “Kasich-ettes.” Cruz is too zealous for many non-evangelical voters, as evidenced by his paltry third place finish in New York’s Republican primary. The opposite is true for Kasich, as his more moderate brand of conservatism appeals to Ohioans, and pretty much nobody else.

Kasich is so far behind in the delegate count, even a miracle couldn’t earn him the necessary majority of delegates. And if Cruz can’t consistently and thoroughly beat Trump, it will be impossible for him to get his majority. That is a recipe for a Trump nomination, which is why Cruz and Kasich’s camps met in what I assume is a secret underground GOP lair to develop a game plan. Much like when Loki coordinated with that robot alien race in “The Avengers,” they figured their powers combined might be what it will take for primary domination.

Here’s how the game plan will work: Kasich will essentially skip the Indiana Primary, conceding all efforts to Ted Cruz. Considering that polls have Kasich’s support at around 22 points, and Cruz and Trump are close at 35 and 41 points respectively, if Kasich’s voters jump ship to Cruz, he could topple Trump. Indiana’s 57 delegates are “winner-takes-all,” so a Trump victory could sound very final. In return for this, Cruz will pass on Oregon and New Mexico, allowing Kasich to be a monolithic Trump-opposer. This interactive graph allows you to change the margins of future primary results in the GOP race, showing how a loss in any one state could prevent Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates.

There are a few drawbacks to this plan–firstly, that it might not work. Kasich’s name is still on the Indiana ballot, and he has yet to formally address his supporters and instruct them to vote for Cruz. So far, the agreement just states that he won’t campaign in Indiana. There’s also no guarantee that Kasich’s voters will want to vote for Cruz, even if they don’t support Trump.

The move also plays right into Donald Trump’s narrative of persecution. “The establishment is out to get me” sounds a lot more convincing when the establishment is actually, actively plotting to take you down in a kamikaze blaze. Nothing will stir his fan base more than actual proof that the system is indeed rigged.

The most terrifying part of this plan is that it’s a strategy designed to cause chaos. Their best hope is to create a contested convention, and it’s likely that Trump would still have the most votes among the three candidates. If Cruz or Kasich wrests the nomination from Trump’s tiny hands, all hell could break loose, including temper tantrums and riots. Say what you will about the candidates’ positions, but this has been the best season of America’s Next Top Candidate yet.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mutually-Assured Obstruction: Cruz, Kasich Aim for Contested Convention appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! In case you were worried or concerned (although, honestly, with this year’s presidential candidate pool, who isn’t concerned?) Paul Ryan has made it very clear that he will not be running for president. That’s right. You’ve heard it correctly. Paul Ryan will not be the next President of the United States, so don’t even think about voting for him.

In a weird press conference last week, Ryan announced his lack of desire for the presidential nomination and his refusal to accept the nomination if it comes down to that. Check out his refusal at the 30 second mark:

He made it very clear in this video that he does not want the delegates nominating him and that he believes only candidates who ran in the primaries should be considered by those delegates, should the nomination decision go to convention this July. “I should not be considered. Period. End of story,” Ryan says affirmatively, before he proceeds to again emphatically state that he is “not going to be our party’s [the republican party’s] nominee.” It’s okay Paul! Calm down! No one is going to force you to be president if you don’t want to be, buddy!

Why was Ryan being so oddly repetitive and assertive as he announced his non-candidacy for president? Well, if we think back to last fall, Ryan pulled the same stunt when there were rumors flying around of him stepping into John Boehner’s role as Speaker of the House. Time after time, Ryan denied any desire to be the Speaker. There was even Twitter evidence that Ryan was dead set on not accepting the Speaker position.

Ryan spox to NBC News: "Chairman Ryan appreciates the support he's getting from his colleagues but is still not running for Speaker."

— Alex Moe (@AlexNBCNews) October 9, 2015

And, what happened in that situation? Less than a month later, Ryan flopped and stepped into his new role as Speaker of the House, despite numerous attempts to convince the public he really did not want the job.

This sudden change in heart last fall makes it hard to believe Ryan’s current media pleas, no matter how earnest and heartfelt they seem. But, don’t worry America, not too many people are falling for this shenanigan Ryan has pulled–even “SNL” called Ryan out on his nonsense in a skit that parodied his not a campaign announcement.

This “anti-campaign ad,” which features Taran Killam as Paul Ryan, hams up Ryan’s not running for president shtick. What starts as Ryan claiming he will not be America’s next president, under any circumstances, quickly transforms into what is essentially a campaign ad. This hilarious spoof directly mirrors Ryan’s “not running” campaign announcement, where he began by claiming he wasn’t running and then basically gave a presidential campaign speech immediately following the announcement. It’s a brilliant example of why satire and parody really are the best kinds of humor.

Will he be the nominee? Won’t he be the nominee? It really is too hard to tell in the midst of Ryan’s broken “not running” promises and confusing not campaigning announcements. The one thing that is certain, is that the Republicans are gearing up for a Convention nominee because it’s looking like that’s what the end of the Republican race will require. And, even though Paul Ryan is “not running,” I think we all know he could be just what this country needs after months and months of watching the zodiac killer (read: Ted Cruz) and America’s biggest bully (read: Donald Trump) duking it out.

So, anyways, we get it Paul! You’re not running for president just like we’re all not voting for you and not sick of the rest of the Republican presidential candidates. Your secret is safe with us.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Paul Ryan is Not, Under any Circumstances, Running for President appeared first on Law Street.

On the internet, everyone can have an opinion. The idea behind Change.org is that if enough people share an opinion, the powers that be will listen and accommodate their requests. Some petitions are superficial, like this one demanding that Instagram present photos chronologically. Some are touching, such as this one by the mother of a murder victim asking that the killer not receive a death sentence. One petition that has been getting attention recently is a petition for the Republican convention in Cleveland—an event with the potential to incite riots—to be an open carry zone for firearms.

Ohio is already an open carry state, but Quicken Loans Arena, the venue for the RNC convention, forbids firearms inside the premises. The petition explains in no uncertain terms how dire the need for firearms at the convention truly is. The author, a man named Len Davies refers to Quicken Loans Arena’s policy as “a direct affront to the Second Amendment,” arguing that it puts “all attendees at risk.” Davies even quotes the NRA as saying, “gun free zones… tell every insane killer in America… [the] safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

If the petition comes to pass, the GOP candidates (as well as the managers of Quicken Loans Arena) will have a tricky decision on their hands. From one point of view, open carry is a no-brainer because all three republican candidates have voiced their disapproval of gun-free zones. The petition cites several quotes from each candidate: Donald Trump has called multiple times for the expansion of open carry areas, saying “you know what a gun-free zone is to a sicko? That’s bait.” Ted Cruz has said “look, if you’re a lunatic ain’t nothing better then having a bunch of targets you know that are going to be unarmed.” John Kasich worked to end “gun-free zones” at National Guard facilities in Ohio.

While the decision would ultimately come down to the venue’s management, candidates and figureheads of the RNC will be encouraged to respond to this petition. Supporting open carry at an event like this one could be a very dangerous move, but denying open carry could be seen as a violation of second amendment rights. If a candidate supports open carry in their state, that should mean they see it as a safe choice and would have no issue following the same rules at an RNC event. The petition decries the “hypocritical act of selecting a ‘gun-free zone’ for the convention.”

Some of the petition’s supporters may have ulterior motives, however. Many tweets and Facebook posts seem to indicate that the petition’s proponents aren’t quite friends of the RNC and are sending a tongue-in-cheek request for mayhem and chaos at the Cleveland convention. It’s also likely the petition’s author isn’t a ‘true conservative,’ as some elements of his petition read so strongly that they may be a parody. Davies capitalizes “HUSSEIN” in Barack Obama’s full name, and refers to ISIS using Dubya’s favorite phrase—”evil-doers.”

These petitions do occasionally enact real change but are often just digital wishful thinking. Don’t hold your breath for Cleveland to become the ‘wild wild (Mid)West’ just yet. Expect this petition to make some buzz, especially if it reaches its goal for petitioners. If you believe in the cause, add your name, and if you don’t, add your name just to add fuel to the fire. In all likelihood, nothing will change. Today, the Secret Service announced unequivocally that there will be no guns at the RNC convention, but it never hurts to try.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Open Carry Petition A Double-Edged Gun for GOP appeared first on Law Street.

Could Donald Trump be rehabilitating Hitler’s image? White supremacist and former leader of the KKK, David Duke, sure thinks so. Four days ago, Right Wing Watch–a project started by People for the American Way that reports on activities of right-wing political organizations in order to highlight the risks of intolerant views–posted a short clip from Duke’s radio show, in which, Duke shares his views on Donald Trump and media intent on bashing Trump for his platforms on racial issues.

Duke starts off his rant about Trump by claiming that,

The reason there’s a war on Donald Trump is because there’s a war on the real America, there’s a war on the European-American majority of the United States of America.

He goes on to point out that, rather than Donald Trump perpetuating hatred and racism, it’s actually the media and their portrayal of Trump’s candidacy that does so. To a certain extent, sure, some media outlets do cast a negative light on Trump.

There are ads that highlight his nasty language.

There are ads that attack him for the Trump University scam.

There are even ads that attack Trump for not being as conservative as he purports to be.

But part of the problem with Duke’s argument–other than the fact that he is an avid white supremacist who whole-heartedly believes that white people are being actively discriminated against by the cultural melting pot America is becoming–is that Trump has time and time again used violence inciting and racist language in his speeches. The way attack ads against Trump are structured may play up his negative features, but they aren’t making things up.

Some of the recent criticisms of Trump  compare him to Hitler in the way he uses rhetoric to promote racist ideals and the way his speeches and rallies have begun to stir up violence.

Went to the Trump rally just to see how crazy it would be……..this is insane pic.twitter.com/QFwSwmNoI0

— Alex Satterly (@alex_satterly) March 19, 2016

In a recent article from the Wrap, a holocaust survivor explained that, although Trump hasn’t provided us with enough reasons to be worried about a Hitleresque regime yet, he is unsettling and the situation seems like it could get ugly. John Kasich released an ad that highlights the ways in which Trump’s discussion of race isolates groups of people the same way Hitler’s early rhetoric against Jewish people did, before his mass genocide began.

A Huffington Post reporter weighed in on this comparison, drawing a parallel between a recent Trump rally, where Trump asked supporters to raise their hands and swear to vote for him, to scenes from Nazi Germany.

Now the real kicker of Duke’s argument comes at around the 50-second mark when Duke states that, in comparing Trump to Hitler, all of his opponents are actually just rehabilitating Hitler’s image:

The truth is, by the way, they might be rehabilitating that fellow with the mustache back there in Germany.

He even claims that these commercials comparing Trump to Hitler aren’t going to have the effect people want: they will actually boost Hitler’s image instead of defaming Trump.

This claim is outrageous and it’s important to keep in mind that it’s coming from a man who, when addressing “European” people not two minutes later, said,

The government is purposefully wiping you out and your families and your children and your future. They are purposefully transforming this country into a Third World nation.

Duke clearly has some opinions about our country that are blatantly untrue and, if he really thinks that comparing Donald Trump and Hitler is going to improve the public’s perception of the largest, most racist mass murderer in the history of humankind, he’s even more out of touch with reality than it previously seemed. The good news? After all the confusion over whether or not Trump was willing to denounce Duke and the KKK a few weeks ago, he finally got around to making a crystal clear disavowal of the two. But the thought of comparing anyone to Hitler and having it improve Hitler’s reputation is obviously ridiculous.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Seriously? David Duke Claims Trump Comparisons Improve Hitler’s Image appeared first on Law Street.

Ted Cruz–he’s just your typical guy running for president of the United States. Or is he? He was born in Canada and is really only eligible because his mother is American. I think I’m going to need a birth certificate for this one…

But Cruz continues to captivate the masses with his allegedly non-human features, such as his melting-off-the face waxy skin, lizard-like appearance, and disturbing alien-like facial expressions.

Some on the internet are seriously doubting his humanity…but that’s fine, right? After all, an alien can run for president as long as they’re not illegal.

He Makes Unusual Facial Expressions

@kevinmaisto you forgot that Ted Cruz is a lizard pic.twitter.com/CnIdqQ3MoF

— // CJ // (@CJZOLANSKI) February 7, 2016

One of the ideas floating around theiInternet is that Ted Cruz is simply a lizard man in a human suit, and I really can’t say that I don’t believe it. Look at that face. If that is a normal human facial expression, then I have seriously been sending some mixed signals over the years.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Times We May Have Doubted Ted Cruz’s Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s sort-of second Super Tuesday led to even more of a mess for the GOP than I think anyone thought possible just a few months ago. As of last night, Marco Rubio has officially bowed out of the race. Donald Trump is certainly doing well, but he hasn’t quite locked up the nomination yet. And John Kasich’s win in his home state of Ohio means that he’s still holding on. Then, with the chance that there’s a brokered convention, literally anything could happen at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this summer. So…who’s still left in the race for the GOP nomination, and what’s next?

Donald Trump

Trump is, quite obviously, the man to beat. Trump is the only Republican candidate left in the race who has a realistic path to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination before the convention–he currently has 646. While Kasich’s win in Ohio denied Trump 66 delegates, which certainly makes that path harder,  Trump is still in an enviable position.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is still in it, with 397 delegates. He’s positing himself as the only one who can beat Trump, and is seemingly trying to push Kasich out of the race to scoop some of those “absolutely never voting for Trump under any circumstances” voters. He’s also claiming that he’ll do well in closed-primary states that are coming up, where only pre-registered Republicans can vote. We’ll have to see if now that the field has narrowed a bit if Cruz can make good on those promises.

John Kasich

John Kasich somehow managed to stay alive last night by winning his home state, Ohio. However, Cruz and Trump are both promising that their delegate counts will keep him out of the convention. But Kasich may still see some room for himself at a contested convention. As Politico’s Kyle Cheney put it:

Kasich’s campaign foreshadowed its plans for a convention brawl late Tuesday, naming Stu Spencer and Charlie Black — two veterans of the last contested convention, the 1976 fight between President Gerald Ford and an insurgent Ronald Reagan — to his national strategy team.

Paul Ryan? Jeb! Bush?

With the prospect of a contested convention, there’s always the chance that another contender sneaks up through the side. In this case, all eyes would appear to be on current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Former Speaker John Boehner has stated:

If we get to the convention and we don’t have a nominee that can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above. They all ran, they all had a chance to win, none of them won, so I’m for none of the above.

Ryan himself doesn’t seem particularly in favor of the concept, but it sounds like he hasn’t totally ruled it out, either. He told CNBC:

You know, I haven’t given any thought to this stuff. People say, ‘What about the contested convention?’ I say, well, there are a lot of people running for president. We’ll see. Who knows?

Then there are people who say that Jeb! Bush could make a comeback at a convention, at least according to Rush Limbaugh.

The Ghost of Ronald Reagan?

Honestly, at this point, it may be one of the more plausible and palatable options.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Could Still End Up with the GOP Nomination? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been feeling inevitable for a little while now, but it’s looking even more and more likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee, and possibly even our next President. But laughter is the best medicine (particularly when the sickness is racism, xenophobia, and terror) so the good people of Twitter started weighing in on what the U.S. will be like if Trump is actually elected President. This isn’t the first time the hashtag #IfTrumpWins has surfaced, but the submissions this time around are particularly relevant. The hashtag was started by Chris Hardwick of Comedy Central’s “@midnight with Chris Hardwick.” Check out the best of #IfTrumpWins in the slideshow below:

#IfTrumpWins you better start getting in shape for the 1st Hunger Games

— Ethan Bradly (@Ethan_Bradly) March 9, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #IfTrumpWins: Smiling Through the Pain appeared first on Law Street.

Tis the season of funny campaign videos and delightful candidate gifs as everyone gears up for the elections this November. As usual, “Saturday Night Live” has been churning out some good content. Whether it was the Bernie Sanders and Larry David sketches from a few weeks ago, or this week’s nominee-centered cold open, “SNL” always seems to be right on target with its narrowly tailored critiques of the presidential candidates.

This weekend’s funniest video was a satirical political advertisement about people supporting Donald Trump and it was spectacular; definitely worth the one minute and 25 seconds of your life.

The comedic genius of this video is that you can’t even tell if it’s a joke or not until half way in. What starts as a pretty typical campaign video quickly spirals into a real statement on Donald Trump’s racist views and attitudes. You see a man in his office, a woman ironing, another man painting, and a man carrying some wood–seems normal, right? About halfway in, the characters are revealed to be nazi sympathizers, KKK affiliates, and white supremacists–all very topical characters given some of Trump’s recent political moves.

First off, Trump has been accused of being similar to Hitler this week after videos from one of his rallies surfaced in which he had everyone pledging to vote for him with salutes that almost mimicked Nazi Germany.

Donald Trump makes members of his Orlando crowd raise their right hands and swear to vote in the primary. pic.twitter.com/EVenRilJrV

— Jenna Johnson (@wpjenna) March 5, 2016

Obviously nobody is quite contending that Trump would actually be like Hitler, but this rally certainly doesn’t make anyone feel too comfortable either.

The second “SNL” characters, the KKK affiliates, were also timely, as it has been about a week since Trump refused to publicly denounce the head of the KKK, David Duke. Trump had a lot of excuses for why he wouldn’t denounce the group and seemed to talk around the issue when asked directly about why he refused to disavow Duke. That seems suspicious at best, Trump.

Finally, the white supremacist painter. Along with Trump’s KKK battle this week, there were three white supremacist leaders who have joined together to create a group to support Trump. Although Trump has not commissioned this group or asked for their help, the implicit connection between this white “advocacy” group and Trump’s policies on banning muslim immigration and building a wall between Mexico and the U.S. is impossible to ignore. Jared Taylor, one of the white supremacists supporting Trump, claims that because white people feel more comfortable in schools and neighborhoods with other white people:

When Donald Trump talks about sending out all the illegals, building a wall and a moratorium on Islamic immigration, that’s very appealing to a lot of ordinary white people.

“SNL‘s” video was outright and unapologetic in calling Donald Trump out on the racist and bigoted policies he has been promoting nationwide during his campaign. That kind of direct hit may be just what the country needs to start realizing that some of Trump’s policies aren’t so rosy after all–they’re hateful. When it comes down to it, with some of the things Trump has been saying about immigrants and diversity in our country, an ad like the one “SNL” made may be an almost accurate reflection of his campaign. Are we really going to rally behind Donald Trump, America? Instead, let’s fight for diversity, equality, and liberty and put our faith in someone who can actually make America great.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post “Saturday Night Live” Calls Out Donald Trump’s Racism appeared first on Law Street.

Super Tuesday kind of sucked. Actually, I take that back, it really sucked. On the Republican side, America’s future Supreme Leader Donald Trump walked away with wins in seven states, and 234 new delegates, and many from both sides of the aisle are beginning to worry that his nomination has become all but inevitable.

I guess no one should be that surprised. After all, he’s been racking up big totals in the primary thus far–although in some cases his share of the actual vote has been a bit less than polling would indicate. But, he’s still had a pretty damn good run so far–all said and done about 1/3 of the Republicans who have casted their votes up until this point have voted for the Donald.

So, no one is quite sure what will happen next. It seems likely that Ted Cruz, who had an okay night and took home wins in his home state of Texas, as well as Oklahoma and Alaska, probably won’t drop out. And Marco Rubio, who has just begun to have some of the establishment coalesce behind him, won Minnesota last night, and doesn’t seem to be dropping either.

But, it still seems that many elites are desperate to stop Trump, and there’s a few different trains of thought emerging. One is that either Rubio or Cruz should drop out, allowing the party to unify around one anti-Trump force. For example former contender Lindsey Graham, who has somehow managed to be kind of the voice of reason at points during this totally-bonkers election cycle, pointed out that rallying around Cruz may be the only choice. Graham said on CBS:

I made a joke about Ted, but we may be in a position to have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump, and I’m not so sure that would work. I can’t believe I would say yes, but yes.

Then there’s another school of thought, which actually advocates that both Rubio and Cruz stay in the race and try to take as many votes away from Trump as possible. Cruz or Rubio supporters would have to choose a new candidate if either dropped, and surely some could pick Trump. So, keeping the votes closer to a three-way split may keep Trump from meeting the threshold he needs, and gives the GOP more wiggle room at the convention. As Slate’s Jim Newell explains the theory:

Rubio would not have defeated Trump in Texas, so it was useful for Cruz to stay in and take a majority of those delegates for himself. Rubio won’t be able to defeat Trump in Ohio, so Kasich can handle that task. A split field makes it impossible for one candidate to gain a majority over Trump. But it helps to stop Trump himself from getting a majority.

Newell does acknowledge that this theory probably won’t work, especially given that there are more winner-takes-all primaries post-Super Tuesday, but it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been a serious consideration for the GOP.

So…Trump won Super Tuesday. Most people are horrified, and rightfully so. But as this future-trainwreck hurtles toward the convention, someone has to do something. Unfortunately, at this point, it’s easy to wonder if anyone can.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post That Was an Un-Super Tuesday: Can the GOP Stop Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb! Bush makes me sad. He’s trying oh so hard, and failing oh so miserably to win the 2016 Republican nomination. Now, he’s done some truly awkward and bizarre things over the course of this election cycle–check out fellow Law Streeter Sean Simon’s roundup of the best Jeb! Bush moments–but one of the most bizarre ones actually happened last night. Jeb! tweeted out this photo:

America. pic.twitter.com/TeduJkwQF3

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) February 16, 2016

Obviously, we all know what Jeb! was getting at here–he’s a real, tough gun owner, just like the voters in South Carolina he’s trying to woo! He stands for the Second Amendment! He gets his name engraved on his gun, because nothing says tough like making sure your firearm matches your monogrammed bathrobe! He’s just like you! But, once the internet got its hands on the meme-worthy potential of this tweet, that message was utterly lost. Check out some of my favorite responses–some funny, some poignant–to Jeb!’s weird gun tweet in the slideshow below:

Yes @JebBush. America. pic.twitter.com/4Yhtdl2ygY — Éoin (@LabourEoin) February 16, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Twitter Responses to Jeb! Bush’s Gun Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend, the remaining GOP candidates had what felt like the 876th debate of this election cycle (it was actually the ninth). The first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, did their job and made the field much smaller, leaving just Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, and Governor John Kasich. But the smaller field didn’t lead to a smaller amount of BS being flung around the debate stage; check out the top five craziest moments of this weekend’s GOP debate below:

Everyone Was Confused About Supreme Court Nominations

Saturday’s debate was certainly affected by the fact that just a few hours earlier, the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was announced. It’s obviously a sitting president’s job to nominate a replacement, but that’s not what Senator Mitch McConnell said after Scalia’s death was announced:

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

So, naturally, the candidates were asked about what they thought of Obama nominating a replacement. Every candidate on the stage essentially said that Obama shouldn’t nominate a new justice–despite the fact that that would guarantee an empty seat on the bench for at least a year, and there’s not some footnote in the Constitution that says that a President can only nominate a Supreme Court justice when he’s not a lame duck president. That didn’t stop multiple Republican candidates from speaking incorrectly about the U.S.’s history when it comes to nominating SCOTUS candidates. For example Ted Cruz incorrectly stated that “we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming justices in an election year,” despite the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and confirmed in 1988, while Reagan was a lame duck president.

This Confusion Led to Fact Checking by the Moderator

.@jdickerson tries to correct Cruz on Kennedy appointment, gets booed by audience for facts. #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/31bdGQoE7a

— Mashable News (@MashableNews) February 14, 2016

John Dickerson, the moderator, even pointed out that Cruz was wrong. The issue was that Cruz was conflating the terms nominating and confirming–and Dickerson sparred with Cruz over that issue, explaining that he just wanted “to get the facts straight for the audience.” At this point the audience decided to boo Dickerson, leading to a decidedly messy exchange all around.

But There Was a Lot of Booing on Saturday Night

Dickerson wasn’t the only one who got booed–much of the audience’s ire appeared to be aimed at Trump. Trump had a theory for why this kept happening–and turns out his theory might not be that off–that the crowd was packed with  “Jeb [Bush]’s special interests and lobbyists.” Turns out the crowd had a lot of moderate Republicans, due to the fact that the RNC gave tickets to local supporters, and people actively involved in RNC work are probably less likely to be big Trump fans. So, Trump got pretty heavily booed, but unfortunately it probably won’t diminish his still pretty solid poll numbers.

One of the Biggest Boos Was About 9/11

Jeb! Bush and Donald Trump had a pretty tense exchange over 9/11–Trump essentially blamed the terror attack on Bush’s brother, George W. Bush. Trump claimed that George W. didn’t keep America safe because he wasn’t able to prevent 9/11. Bush responded that he was pretty tired of Trump going after his family, and then to complicate things more, Rubio jumped into the mix to exclaim he was glad it wasn’t Al Gore in the White House during 9/11. The entire thing turned into a mess–check out the exchange: 

But One of the Biggest (and Weirdest) Fights of the Night was Rubio v. Cruz

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz got into an interesting spat over their shared Cuban heritage, stemming, as many criticisms of Rubio have, from his role in the Gang of Eight immigration bill. Cruz accused Rubio of contradicting his platform when he appeared on Univision and spoke in Spanish about immigration and amnesty. Rubio fired back by saying: “I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish.” So then Cruz responded in Spanish (although a bit shakily) to prove Rubio wrong:

WATCH: Cruz replies to Rubio in Spanish after Rubio said he “doesn’t speak Spanish.” #SCPrimary https://t.co/xGmJKNSzup — Good Morning America (@GMA) February 15, 2016

For a party that has taken an almost methodical approach to alienating Hispanic voters during this year’s election cycle, it was incredibly odd to see the debate devolve into a pissing contest over who speaks Spanish better.

A Final Takeaway

With Scalia’s recent death, it’s almost certain that the question of who will replace him will probably become cemented on the hot list of 2016 issues–immigration, Planned Parenthood funding, and how to deal with ISIS, among others. Saturday night’s debate has been referred to by many observers as the nastiest one yet, and given that the primaries are just starting to heat up, future exchanges will probably follow suit. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Craziest Moments from this Weekend’s GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Remember Louis Shenker, the young man who made waves by sneaking into the Democratic debate? Well this past week I had the opportunity to chat with the surprise guest of the debate held two weekends ago on January 17. As a quick recap, in case you didn’t hear about this wonderful feat, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts managed to sneak past several levels of security and make his way on stage at the debate, shook each of the candidates’ hands, and appeared on national television. The story originally surfaced on Twitter when people called out Shenker, said teen, for his loud silk jacket and seemingly out-of-place presence. Shenker then posted a blog describing the whole experience in nearly comedic detail–the whole thing seemed like an elaborate sitcom plot.

How I Snuck into the South Carolina Democratic Debate https://t.co/000EQUYXqH pic.twitter.com/CbRjmCkQMF

— Louis Shenker (@Louis_Shenker) January 21, 2016

In attempt to learn a little more about this daring experience and figure out just what it takes to make it onstage at a nationally viewed event, my fellow editorial intern, Sean Simon, and I talked with Louis over the phone this past Friday. It started off as your average interview conversation; Louis told us about how he is a junior in high school, how he works at a local Chinese restaurant, and how he plays guitar and didgeridoo (not to mention the fact that he has created two didgeridoos himself, one out of cardboard and one out of PVC pipe). I’d also like to take a hot sec to acknowledge the fact that this young man has actually opened up for Hoodie Allen on the didgeridoo, and, if that doesn’t scream accomplishment, I don’t know what does.

The Inspiration

Once we got into the swing of things, we asked Louis a little bit about what prompted this whole string of sneaking into debates, and this is what he had to say about the first debate he snuck into:

On Thursday, I saw on Snapchat that there was a GOP debate filter and I had no idea that that was even happening, and so I thought that that would be fun to try to see how debates ran and stuff like that. So, I thought it would be fun to try to sneak in, to try to get in there, see what it’s like, meet the candidates, see what all the hubbub was about.

Looks like Snapchat can be informative and educational–take that, mom! So, after asking around about some details and for some opinions, Shenker decided to seize the opportunity and head to the GOP debate, even after being told not to go by both his siblings and his dad. The GOP debate was apparently the perfect practice for sneaking into the Democratic debate a few days later; Shenker gave some insight into what he learned the first time and how that helped him out:

I learned a little bit more about how they ran, what the situation was and stuff like that, so by the time the Democratic debate rolled around on Sunday, I had a pretty good understanding of the workings behind the scenes and stuff like that. What would be good to say, what would be good to do, how to act, how to dress and that kind of thing. And so I tried my luck and, yeah, I was pretty lucky.

When it finally came time to talk about the debate that was on all of our minds–the one where Shenker ended up onstage shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand–we started off by asking him if he had any clue at all that he was going to end up on national television that day. His response? He hadn’t even thought he was going to get into the debate because of how small the venue was in comparison to the GOP debate a few nights before. He said that once he got in, he figured he had to see how far he could take it and try to “roll with it” a little bit. Shenker claims that by the time he was in the front row “there was really only one thing left to do, and that was to be on stage.”

Nerves and Stage Fright?

Of course, we asked the million dollar question of the interview: when were you most concerned about being caught? Interestingly enough, Shenker claims he was never even really worried about it, though there was a point when he was trying to get on stage where he had a little bit of stage fright himself:

I guess I was the most nervous when I was trying to walk backstage onto the platform for the debate because thats where I thought there’d be the most security. Either that, or just getting into the debate itself. Once I was in the debate I was pretty much in good standing.

Shaking Hands and Taking Names

Nerves or not, Shenker made it all the way to shake hands with the candidates, but those three weren’t the first potentially presidential hands he had shaken. Believe it or not, Shenker told us that he has traded handshakes with all of the presidential candidates except Ben Carson and Donald Trump. We asked him to rate his top three and (in this specific order) they included Bernie Sanders, whose handshake was firm; Jeb Bush, whose hands were pretty soft; and Martin O’Malley, who had a nice strong grip. Shenker also volunteered details about his handshake with Hillary Clinton (which, might I add, was caught on national television), saying it was pretty cold, which he attributed to potentially poor circulation. After some quick research thanks to a tip from Sean, I found that, yes, Clinton does suffer from both hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies.

Spoiler Alert: This kid’s jacket won the democratic debate. pic.twitter.com/PwKa0AVA6h — Blue (@8lve) January 18, 2016

On the other end of the spectrum, with the worst handshakes, Shenker listed John Kasich and Ted Cruz, claiming that they just weren’t that special or memorable. To the candidates’ credit, Shenker noted that all of their handshakes were really pretty above average, probably thanks to the years and years of practice they have all had as politicians.

Confidence is Key

What does Shenker have to say about the candidates’ presence in person? Well confidence is key; he said they all just exude confidence and personality, especially his pick for the Democratic nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders. He said to keep in mind that these candidates are real people, not idolatrous figures or greater powers, and said that that realization was one of the biggest changes to his viewpoint after meeting them: they’re real. On why he likes Sanders specifically, Shenker said,

Ever since I came across Sanders about three years ago, even before this whole election cycle started, I thought that he was a good guy. A lot of people were like ‘oh that’s just cause he’s Jewish’ but you know that’s not really the only reason that I support him. I think that a lot of his view points that he’s expressing with the struggle of money and politics as a huge issue, I think it is a tremendous issue that is really corrupting the system. He is very genuine. He seems like he cares more about people… There’s also something about liking an underdog…Having someone who sees the importance of education and infrastructure and all the social changes that resonate pretty strongly with me and my generation, I feel like he’s the candidate who gets the most.

Pretty perceptive of him–looks like it’s not just the millennial women jumping on the Sanders train!

Louis’s Advice

Last, but certainly not least, we asked Shenker to tell us when he knew he had made it and if he had any last words of wisdom for us–he hit us with some seriously existential thoughts:

I wouldn’t say [I feel] famous. I always like having cool stories and I thought this would be a cool opportunity for a story. But, once I knew I was on TV for a moment, I mean, my friends were all texting me, calling me, and stuff like that, was kind of when I realized, oh, maybe there’s something a little more to this… In ten days no one will care, no one will remember, but for now it’s fun.

And his final thoughts on the whole shebang were pretty inspirational:

People need to understand that you can’t let opportunities pass you by, or at least that’s the way I view things. Whenever there’s an opportunity, whether it’s something at school, or a dance or a concert or something, just go to it. Have fun… Too many people sit inside their house watching TV or staying on their phones and they don’t get out and actually do things… I think something important to learn is that, when you’re stagnant, you’re really just not actually living life to the best potential, and I think it’s wrong to let opportunities pass you by.

Overall, it’s pretty clear that Louis Shenker had his own one-of-a-kind experience. So, with that in mind, and opportunities ahead, go out and sneak into your own Democratic debate–or whatever your version of that may be. You never know what may be waiting for you.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Louis Shenker: How Did a 17-Year-Old Sneak into the Democratic Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

We are constantly bombarded with headlines talking about presidential candidate Donald Trump as the frontrunner of the Grand Old Party, and we often ask “why?” and “what are people thinking?” and “when is he going to go away?” You know, causal questions. We all see the percentages, but how many people across the county really like Trump?

Only 33 percent, apparently.

According to the most recent two-week average from Gallup, 33 percent of Americans surveyed nationwide had a favorable view and 60 percent had an unfavorable view of the businessman, who has risen in the polls and garnered a hefty amount of media attention because of his fiery attitude and defiance of political norms and correctness.

In Gallup’s findings, Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport explains that Trump, “has a higher unfavorable rating than any nominated candidate from either of the two major parties going back to the 1992” (1992 was the first year Gallup recorded favorability percentages).

While Trump’s number seems a bit extreme, some of the other candidates aren’t too far behind.

Across all Americans, Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating is at 52 percent; Jeb Bush, 45 percent; Chris Christie, 38 percent; Ted Cruz, 37 percent; Marco Rubio, 33 percent; Bernie Sanders, 31 percent; and Ben Carson, 30 percent.

Check out a graph of some of the other ratings (modern and historical) below:

Data courtesy of Gallup.

This puts Trump’s net favorability in the negatives at -27 percent, and according to Gallup, is higher than Clinton and Bush’s net -10 percent favorability.

“The bottom line is that Trump now has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles,” said Newport. “That conclusion takes into account the fact that unfavorable ratings tend to rise in the heat of a general election campaign as the barbs, negative ads and heightened partisanship are taken to their highest levels.”

In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton’s highest unfavorable rating was 49 percent, while opponent George H.W. Bush’s unfavorable rating was higher and closest to Trump’s at 57 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama’s unfavorable rating ratings maxed at 37 percent and in 2012 raised to 48 percent.

The moral of the story is that if we blame Obama for everything now and he still had lower unfavorable ratings then, who knows what the world will become if a man like Trump becomes president. So, don’t believe everything you read about how much everyone likes Trump–it’s not technically true. 

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump is the Most Unfavorable Presidential Candidate In Recent Years appeared first on Law Street.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has officially announced that he won’t be participating in the Republican Debate tomorrow, due to his (totally not sexist and unreasonable) dislike for moderator Megyn Kelly. Trump’s decision has been confirmed by both his campaign, as well as Fox News. So, given that the big-mouthed millionaire has been dominating the debates thus far, who will step up to fill the vacuum?

Trump not being present for the debate may change the overall flavor of the night by quite a bit. It certainly could have an impact on disappointing not-so-prodigal son Governor Jeb Bush, who has had many of his most memorable and heated campaign moments while taking jabs at Trump. It also could affect Senator Marco Rubio, who is currently coming in third in most polls, and has been pretty critical of Trump in past debates.

But, it seems like most eyes will be on Senator Ted Cruz, who has been coming in second to Trump in most of the recent polls, although those second place results have been by quite a wide margin. In national polls, including CNN/ORC, Fox News, NBC News, and other leading news outlets, Trump has seen a lead over Cruz that ranges from about 13 percent to 22 percent. However, in Iowa, which will be the first state to caucus next Monday, Trump holds a far slimmer lead–ranging from about 2-11 percent. In New Hampshire–the second primary–the gap between Trump and Cruz looks only slightly smaller than national results. Given that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are so soon, this may Cruz’s last chance to make up some of that ground.

However, Cruz’s success will depend on whether or not he also shows up tomorrow night. He has now challenged Trump to their own, one-on-one debate. However, it could be a mistake for Cruz to sit this one out, given that everyone will be looking to him to see how he handles a Trump-less stage.

So, Law Street readers, what do you think? Will Cruz dominate tomorrow night’s debate? Or will it be a missed opportunity for the man currently in second in most GOP polls?

Cast your vote in the poll below:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Trump Out of the Debate, Who Will Dominate? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was the third Democratic debate of 2015. Amidst a data-breach scandal and threats from Bernie Sanders’ campaign to sue the DNC, contentious back-and-forth about how to deal with ISIS, and a still messy Republican field, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Governor Martin O’Malley all had some shining moments on stage. But they also all had some awkward, and funny moments. Check out the top five below:

Hillary’s Gratuitous “Star Wars” Reference

A lot of Americans were pretty excited about the release of the new “Star Wars” film earlier this week. So, at the end of the debate, Clinton played into that hype,

That’s a wrap at the #DemDebate. Now go see Star Wars. https://t.co/2uyOmzf4ST pic.twitter.com/Kcb9bdLlgG

— POLITICO (@politico) December 20, 2015

Since then, there’s been a lot of speculation that her shout out may have been a reference to donor J.J. Abrams, or she may have just been trying to play to young voters who are gravitating more toward Bernie Sanders. Either way it was cute, but seemed a bit forced and camp-y.

Martin O’Malley Calls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Old

Martin O’Malley, who is the youngest of the three contenders by about two decades, pointed out the age difference at one point, stating: “can I offer a different generation’s perspective on this,” while talking about the situation in Syria. It was a cheap shot–but not an unfounded point. If elected, Sanders would be the oldest U.S. president ever, Clinton would be the 2nd oldest if she’s elected.

An Awkward Question About Spouses

This was a “laugh because it’s awkward” kind of funny moment, brought to us by the moderators. Martha Raddatz, an ABC News journalist, asked:

Secretary Clinton — first ladies, as you well know, have used their position to work on important causes like literacy and drug abuse. But they also supervise the menus, the flowers, the holiday ornaments and White House decor. You have said that Bill Clinton is a great host and loves giving tours but may opt out of picking flower arrangements if you’re elected. Bill Clinton aside, is it time to change the role of a president’s spouse?

It was a condescending question to subject any of the presidential candidates to, especially when there are way more important issues to talk about. Some commenters pointed out that there were no questions about abortion, and the stupid spouse question got as much time as systemic racism.

Just the Moderators in General

There were just a lot of awkward and funny interactions between the candidates and the moderators last night, including the candidates, at various times, talking over the moderators. Additionally, they started the debate without Hillary Clinton at one point, while she was in the bathroom, which gave us this hilarious moment:

.@HillaryClinton was late to the podium after a commercial break https://t.co/p7fumApIDe pic.twitter.com/y2jdWLn3dk — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 20, 2015

Accidental Innuendo from Clinton

This list wouldn’t be complete without some accidental innuendo from one of the candidates–in this case, Hillary Clinton. While discussing internet security, she made a reference to the concept of backdoors–essentially ways for the government to gain access to confidential, encrypted information. But the way she phrased it was “maybe the back door isn’t the right door,” leading to lots of giggles from less mature members of the audience.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Five Funniest Moments from the Third Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Public Policy Polling released a National Survey on GOP voters today. Many of the questions were expected, delving into the favorability or lack thereof of the many GOP presidential candidates. But PPP (the same firm that brought us results on Deez Nuts’ candidacy) also threw in a bit of a trick question “Would you support bombing Agrabah?” Thirty percent of the respondents said yes–and now the internet is having a bit of fun at their expense.

Agrabah, some of you may know, is the fictional land in “Aladdin.”

This poll should definitely be taken with quite a few grains of salt. It was certainly a “gotcha” question, sandwiched between many other, very legitimate, questions. PPP is well known for cheeky questions, and is often viewed as left-leaning. Additionally, Slate pointed out that Agrabah “sounds pretty similar to ‘Aleppo’ and ‘Raqqa,’ which are two Syrian cities that have been occupied by ISIS.” Moreover, a total 57 percent of the GOP respondents replied that they were not sure, indicating that they may have realized that it was a BS question.

This isn’t limited to the GOP though–19 percent of Democratic primary voters also answered that they would agree to bomb Agrabah, which is almost equally as embarrassing. On the full spread, 50 percent of respondents who identified as “somewhat liberal” said they were more likely to want to bomb Agrabah. So really, there’s just a lot of people across the political spectrum who either don’t know what Agrabah is, or really hate Aladdin, Jasmine, the Genie, and Jafar.

But, regardless of the actual validity of the poll, it incited a lot of fantastic internet reactions.

Everyone wants to go to Agrabah. Real men want to go to Mordor. https://t.co/1o9Z3mmYzF

— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) December 18, 2015

In fairness, Agrabah’s leadership is clearly pretty sketchy — easily manipulated, reliant on magic… https://t.co/qrZHKdbOkp

— Bill Connelly (@SBN_BillC) December 18, 2015

I’ve literally had someone believe me when I said I’m from Agrabah. https://t.co/3DJJkvyu02

— Lily Bolourian (@LilyBolourian) December 18, 2015

A discussion over a poll on how many voters would support bombing a fictional country in Aladdin seems befitting of the 2016 campaign.

— Matt Viser (@mviser) December 18, 2015

Thanks, PPP for proving once again that stupidity is bipartisan.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PPP Says Scary Number of Voters Want to Bomb Aladdin’s Home, Internet Explodes appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was yet another installment of the GOP circus–also known as a Republican primary debate. Hosted by Fox Business, the debate was supposed to be focused on economic issues, with a bit of domestic and international policy thrown in. This debate field was smaller than the last three–Governors Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie were moved down to the kiddie stage. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t still plenty of crazy to go around–check out the top seven funniest, strangest, and most memorable moments from the 4th GOP debate below:

Is China Part of the TPP?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, has been a hot topic in the political sphere as of late. Check out Law Street’s explainer on it here, if you’re not caught up. Last night at one point, the discussion on stage devolved into a talk about the TPP, and Trump went on a nice ramble about how the deal is “designed for China to come in as they always do through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone.” Senator Rand Paul was quick to interject, pointing out that China isn’t part of the deal. It was an embarrassing moment for Trump, to be sure.

Everyone Was Kind of Mean to Philosophers

Last night, “philosophers” became a weirdly maligned group of people. It started when Marco Rubio talked about a need to destigmatize  trade education, arguing that “welders make more money than philosophers.” Then, Ted Cruz called the Fed “philosopher kings.” Then, John Kasich, when talking about economic concerns, stated: “philosophy doesn’t work when you run something.”

I’m not sure why everyone was being so mean about philosophy, but it’s worth noting that Carly Fiorina was a philosophy major.

Kasich Gets a Little too Excited about our Friendship with Jordan

John Kasich got a little too into the King of Jordan last night, when he stated: “Jordan, we want the king to reign for 1,000 years.” While he might have just been being a little hyperbolic, it seems pretty extreme. I don’t know that we should be wishing immortality on any other country’s leader.

Literally No One Paid Attention to the Bell

Fox Business’s poor “time is up” bell-ringer was the least respected person on stage last night. The bell was constantly rung to signal “time is over” and every candidate completely ignored it. While that meant that the candidates had a more open discourse than the previous debate, it was still pretty pathetic that no one even tried to stay within their allotted time.

The World’s Biggest Over-Simplification of Israeli-Palestinian Relations

We need someone who knows diplomacy, not name-calling & green rooms #DonaldTrump #RepublicanDebate #GOPDebate #Putin pic.twitter.com/yrjPcyPojp

— Law Street (@LawStreetMedia) November 11, 2015

When talking about a desire to build a wall on the American-Mexico border, Trump brought up the wall between Israel and Palestine on the West Bank. This is an incredibly controversial project, which was at one point ruled to have violated international law, so maybe not something that a presidential candidate wants to compare their future strategy to.

Jeb Bush Thanks Trump for Letting him Talk

Jeb! proved he can’t “fix” his debate performances last night, all epitomized by a fantastically awkward moment in which he thanked Trump for letting him talk. After a messy back-and-forth involve Kasich, Bush stated: “Thank you, Donald, for allowing me to speak at the debate. That’s really nice of you. Really appreciate that.” Jeb, unfortunately, total passive-aggression isn’t going to help with your quickly falling poll numbers.

The Department of Commerce: So Bad, We’ll Get Rid of it Twice

If you’re from Texas and decide to run for President, never try to explain what departments you’d cut during the debate, because y’all are 0/2 in recent years. When talking about his tax plan, Ted Cruz stated:

$500 billion in specific cuts — five major agencies that I would eliminate. The IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and HUD — and then 25 specific programs.

That’s right, he mentioned the Department of Commerce twice. While it was less noticeable and embarrassing than Rick Perry’s “oops” moment back in 2012, it would have been nice if he could have really told us what five agencies he wants to eliminate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Seven Most Memorable Moments from the 4th GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

If last night’s GOP debate could be summed up in one word, it would almost certainly be “utter disaster.” Well, that’s two words, but in true debate form I will take some liberty with the constraints. In close second, the debate could be described as “entertaining” but unfortunately, substantive political discourse is rarely entertaining. Due to the media’s obsession with sensationalizing politics, and the candidates’ (somewhat forced) decision to play into this atmosphere, last night’s debate highlighted the growing issues with modern politics.

The debate was a disaster for a number of reasons, the primary one being the odd and, at times, incompetent moderating. Very little time was spent discussing substantive issues, which is crucial at this point in the race for allowing candidates to differentiate themselves. Moderators asked peculiar questions that seemed to be designed to embarrass candidates instead of revealing their policy ideas. This included attacking Marco Rubio’s voting record and asking  “why not slow down, get a few more things done first, or at least finish what you start?” calling out Jeb Bush on his falling poll numbers and asking Donald Trump “is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”  Moderators should certainly feel free to ask candidates about reasons they may not be qualified, however, this seemed to be the only goal of the moderators. The candidates noticed this apparent bias and began attacking the moderators, as well as the media at large. The crowd loved it, and the candidates continued these attacks for the rest of the night, even in post-debate interviews. An event that should have helped differentiate candidates mainly resulted in all of the candidates touting their disdain for media.

To make matters worse, the media decided to cover this election, like many other political events, about as horribly as it could. Instead of addressing the nuances of the debate, nearly every media outlet was content with publishing critiques of CNBC’s handling of the event, which while fair, decreases the public’s focus on the true purpose of the debate: hearing what the candidates have to say. The only other coverage of the debate were picks for “winners and losers.” Seriously, Google “GOP Debate” and look at the top results, I’ll wait…

Are these high quality political outlets or an ESPN version of politics? Who knows. At this point, much of our political dialogue has the same sophistication as our dialogue about sports. By manipulating the coverage of this event, the media pushes the public to choose winners and losers instead of strong or sound minded candidates with good ideas. Both the running of the debate and the post-debate coverage emphasized a polarization between the parties, and settled for petty direct attacks between candidates, not their substantive differences.

There were no winners in last night’s debate, except perhaps candidates who will gain polling boosts, but there were a lot of losers. CNBC, Republican voters, and perhaps most importantly, American politics at large. Without some drastic changes in the process and media coverage of political events, the perceived polarization and proliferation of petty political maneuvering will continue.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate Reveals Everything Wrong With American Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the Republican presidential hopefuls took the stage again, and boy, was it a mess. From angry exchanges between candidates, to accusations that the moderators were biased, to a lack of focus on economic questions in a debate supposedly centered on economics, no one was particularly happy with the end results. Check out some of the funniest reactions to the craziness on Twitter below:

There Were Attempts to Actually Discuss the Economy

“Look. I’m a small business. My mother was a smaller business. My father was a change machine…” – everyone on stage #CNBCGOPDebate

— Sean Crespo (@SeanCrespo) October 29, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Tweets from the #CNBCGOPDebate appeared first on Law Street.

Today, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) dropped out of the race to fill the Speaker of the House position being vacated by current Speaker John Boehner. This came as a surprise to many, and there were reports of “audible crying” on the Hill. But, on the bright side, the Twittersphere took it on as fodder for some pretty entertaining reactions. Check out some of the best Twitter reactions to McCarthy dropping out of contention in the slideshow below:

Excellent Gif Use

House GOP caucus, right now: pic.twitter.com/oIwkuDHyzq

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 8, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kevin McCarthy Drops out of Speaker Race: Twitter Reacts appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s horrific mass shooting that left nine dead at an Oregon community college exemplified escalating concerns over the state of gun safety in this nation. While for many it has sparked outcries for stricter gun control laws, others have responded to the deaths with a variety of excuses that aim to point the finger at the assailant rather than the flawed system.

Republican primary candidates in particular have gone on the defensive post-Oregon, with a number of comments that at many times come across as dismissive, arrogant, and/or utterly ridiculous. So we’ve decided to compile a list of the top five worst Republican responses to the Oregon shooting and present them to you below. We ask that you prepare yourselves now for some head scratching reactions to these nonsensical comments made by contenders vying for the POTUS position.

5. Marco Rubio: “Gun Control Would Not Have Prevented That Attack”

During a “Today Show” interview Florida Senator Marco Rubio responded to Matt Lauer’s questions about the shooting saying, “Many of the proposals that are out there on gun control would not have prevented that attack.” He then said, “We need to start examining why people are taking violent action not what they’re using to commit the violent act with.”

Clearly Rubio’s tactic is to put all the focus on mental illness rather than the concerning accessibility of these firearms. But saying stricter gun laws would have had zero effect on this tragedy is just presumptuous and idiotic.

4. Bobby Jindal: Blames Shooting on Single Mothers

In a bulleted sermon that debuted on his personal website, Louisiana governor and ghost-like candidate Bobby Jindal attempted to make himself relevant by discussing the “cultural rot” he believes contributed to the shooting. However, Jindal’s most offensive critique came in a long-winded rant that insinuated single mothers’ inability to parent young boys is to blame for mass shootings. Jindal said:

And who is it that generally commits these evil acts of mass murder that are becoming routine? It’s almost always young men who have either no father figure in their lives, or a broken relationship with their father. Is this just a coincidence? Of course not.

Now, let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon. This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns.

Of course he doesn’t know. You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here.

Sorry Jindal, but insinuating that one parent households are potential mass murder breeding camps isn’t going to win you any votes with the millions of single parents in the U.S.

3. Donald Trump: Armed Teachers Could Have Stopped the Oregon Shooting

We can always count on Donald Trump for his loquacious political theatrics, but him claiming that arming teachers is the solution to school shootings is just asinine. At a campaign event in Franklin, Tennessee, Trump criticized the fact that the school was a gun-free zone saying, “Let me tell you, if you had a couple teachers with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.”

2. Ben Carson: “I Would Not Just Stand There and Let Him Shoot Me”

Dr. Ben Carson did Trump one better when he claimed that he could have stopped the shooter, Chris Harper-Mercer, had he been in the Snyder Hall classroom that day. Carson said, “I would not just stand there and let him shoot me.”He continued telling Fox News, “I would say: ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.’”

Well at least you’ve got some pretty big kahunas, Carson.

1. Jeb Bush: “Stuff Happens”

Bush shrugged off the issue of gun control when he responded to the shooting saying, “stuff happens”, during a campaign event in Greenville, South Carolina. Bush’s full quote was, “Look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

Point taken, but Jeb I’m pretty sure that the families of the victims wouldn’t appreciate you dismissing the death of their loved ones as “stuff happens.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Worst Republican Responses to the Oregon Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

South African comedian Trevor Noah really seems to be coming into his own as the new host of the “Daily Show.” Fresh faced and full of “millennial approved” banter, Noah has confidently revamped the hit satirical news show, while frequently paying homage to his famed predecessor, silver fox Jon Stewart.

However, during last night’s show Noah managed to outdo himself by perfectly tackling two heated issues currently center stage in American politics–abortion and gun control. In the video clip below, Noah criticized “pro-life” GOP primary candidates that fail to fight for gun control, which is also another potentially life-saving measure.

Noah said that “when it comes to restricting access to abortion, they’re killing it.” And he’s right, they are. Despite abortion being legal, anti-abortionists have managed to impose intrusive mandates in some states, such as forced vaginal ultrasounds and mandatory three-day waiting times, that aim to make obtaining an abortion more difficult.

Noah goes on to say,

It’s truly amazing how much the pro-lifers have been able to accomplish in the anti abortion fight. Just imagine what they could do with an issue where the facts are actually on their side?

 

At this point the segment truly came to life. Noah began by presenting scenarios where pro-lifers negatively addressed efforts to promote gun violence, and then asked “imagine if we could bring some of that pro-life passion into being more pro-life.” He then started swapping in pro-life soundbites from the same candidates as appropriate alternative responses to mass shootings.

Noah’s newscast ended on a somber note with this powerful closing message:

The point is, if pro-lifers would just redirect their power towards gun violence, the amount of lives they could save would reach superhero levels. They just need to have superheros’ total dedication to life, because right now they’re more like comic book collectors–human life only holds value until you take it out of the package and then its worth nothing.

However, not everyone was crazy about the clip. Vox argued that Noah’s segment fails by oversimplifying GOP ideals when it comes to gun control. Vox reporter German Lopez writes,

The fault of Noah’s critique of pro-life conservatives who oppose gun control lies in the fact that they don’t believe gun control can save lives. In fact, many gun rights advocates genuinely believe that gun control can get people killed — since without guns, they won’t be able to, for instance, defend themselves from home invaders.

While his point is valid, it doesn’t make Noah’s point any less so. As a comedian on the “Daily Show,” he’s allowed some leeway when it comes to using hyperbolic statements in order to make a point about a current issue at hand. In a little over a week in Stewart’s former chair, he’s making waves by doing just that. As the presidential race continues to heat up, it will be interesting to see what else Trevor Noah has to say.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trevor Noah Points Out Huge Hypocrisy of Pro-Lifers on Gun Control appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Watch the lively exchange below:

Page, who came out last year, particularly focused her questioning on protections for LGBTQ people, bringing up issues like the fact that gay and trans employees are legally able to fired by their employers in many places. However throughout the exchange, Cruz showed a dogged unwillingness to acknowledge that protections for LGBTQ individuals could be improved, instead focusing almost unilaterally on the concept that Christians are being persecuted in the United States for their faith. He stated: “Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith.”

While Cruz probably isn’t used to being confronted by popular young actresses, the answers he gave are consistent with a point of view that he (and some of the other candidates) have been sticking to resolutely–the idea that the conversation about LGBTQ protections should take a backseat to one about religious persecution of Christians. Now that acceptance of LGBTQ Americans has reached an all-time high, and gay marriage has been legalized via Supreme Court decision, arguments about “religious freedom” appear to be the new hot topic that only narrowly disguises the disgust Cruz has for LGBTQ protections.

But it’s a ridiculous argument. No one is arguing that Christians should be “persecuted” for not supporting LGBTQ rights–unless you define persecution as ridiculously narrowly as Cruz does. At the “Rally for Religious Liberty” he hosted after the barbecue where had the run in with Page, he featured various citizens who had supposedly had their religious liberties trampled upon by the government. These included couples who were fined amounts like $1000 or $5000 for not serving gay couples at their businesses. There’s also the case of a fire chief who was forced to step down in Georgia after he self-published a book calling homosexuality a “sexual perversion,” although the mayor pointed out that it was his overall conduct–including the fact that he didn’t have the permission to publish the book–that led to his termination.

But none of those things are strictly persecution. Persecution is defined by the International Criminal Court as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.” While fines and firings are unfortunate, they don’t appear to fit the definition of Christian persecution.

As Rick Unger wrote in a Forbes op-ed:

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves, Christian believers.

Yet religious persecution remains what Cruz is so worried about, to the point that he couldn’t even have a sensical argument with Page without bringing it up. We should strive to ensure that religious liberty is always protected; regardless of whether you think it’s currently under attack right now. But it’s not a mutually exclusive conversation. Other aspects of the debate over LGBTQ rights that Cruz brought up to Page, such as ISIS’s execution of gay people, deserve recognition. But until Cruz recognizes that we can talk about religious freedom and LGBTQ rights without sacrificing either, there’s going to be a lot more awkward barbecues.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights appeared first on Law Street.

With Ohio governor John Kasich joining the Republican field for the 2016 presidential election, the numbers have reached an all-time high. Sixteen GOP candidates have now officially declared they’re running for the presidency–the highest number in campaign history. Previous to this year, the all-time high for the GOP as reported by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was 11 in both 2000 and 2012. What makes 2016 so different than previous years, and why are so many Republicans suddenly running for the nation’s highest office? Surely the chances of winning are slim in such a highly contested field, however it is still early enough that it’s any candidates’ ball game, and there are definitely reasons why so many may have thrown their hats into the ring.

One of the reasons that makes 2016 such a viable year for GOP candidate hopefuls is the mere fact that Republicans no longer want a Democrat running the government.The last Republican president to hold office was George W. Bush and that was back in 2008. Since then it has been a Democratic-run government under President Barack Obama. Now is the best time for Republicans to run granted that there is no incumbent president. As was seen in 2008, Obama ran as one of the younger candidates in history and proved that running at the right time can overcome a lack of experience.

The large number of candidates further demonstrates that there are contributing factors such as the changes to campaign funding policies which further permit individuals running to raise exorbitant amounts of money through fundraising and sponsorship (think Republican Jeb Bush, and Democrat Hillary Clinton.) Although the FEC used to place strict monetary guidelines on candidates, the 2010 SCOTUS ruling on the Citizens United case essentially gutted those stipulations and made it a lot easier for candidates to raise massive sums of cash. Further, the influx of money as a result of the Citizens United ruling may have propelled and incentivized individuals with large personal wealth (think Republicans Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina) to declare their candidacies. CNN recently reported Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as stating, “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates.” Sanders quote is clearly reflected by the latest GOP poll as it shows one of the most famously wealthy men in United States, Donald Trump, leading the pack.

While many refer to the 2008 election as the “Facebook Election,” it appears that the 2016 election is covering a lot more than just one social media platform. In fact most of the top candidates in the GOP field are staying very active on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Periscope. Senator Ted Cruz demonstrated his active social media dedication as he provided a live stream of his first major speech across all mediums of social media on March 23. Although GOP candidates are aware that the competition in their own field alone is very fierce, they also understand that the highly prioritized use of social media in the campaign will allow them many hours in the national spotlight. Many of the candidates may be seeking some sort of business venture, platform, or  political deal as a realistic option from campaigning, and are in a great position with the constant celebrity-like attention they can get through social media.

Having won the previous eight years in the White House, the Democratic party is somewhat unified on its ideals while the Republican party is immensely divided. There are arguably four separate yet equally important constituencies which make up the GOP right now. The four of these are: the libertarians, the Tea Party goers, the social conservatives and the establishment, although of course there’s plenty of overlap as well as other ideologies. With that being said, it is very tough for one candidate to appeal to all four of the subgroups. However, granted that it is still very early on in the race, candidates have time to strategically plan how to reach their respective audiences within the party. Hypothetically speaking, if one candidate can somehow secure the following of all four groups, he or she would skyrocket in the race and have a very high chance of winning.

Whether all 16 candidates are in it to win it or simply for an experience to share some ideas, the fact remains that only one will win the GOP primary and eventually run against the Democratic rival. With that being said there will be 15 qualified (some more than others) and hungry losers looking to further their influence in politics. Candidates who have already lost may join and support a fellow constituent still in the running who shares similar ideals. Losing candidates might also join forces with those still in contention to make it more difficult for the competition to win. It is still early on, however, things are looking rather exciting for the Republican party as the field is stacked and surprises await.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Raining Republicans: Why is the 2016 Field So Crowded? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s only May 2015 and already the Republican field vying for the 2016 presidential nomination feels awfully crowded. In anticipation of this very crowded field, various outlets that host the presidential debates are already taking steps to limit the number of candidates who will be able to participate in the nationally televised debates. Given the notoriety and celebrity status required to win the nomination in this day and age, this could sink some candidates’ campaigns before they even really begin.

In terms of candidates who have already declared, we have Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. There’s also former Governor Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It’s also speculated that some combination of former Governor Jeb Bush, former Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Lindsey Graham, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor John Kasich, and business mogul Donald Trump will declare at some point relatively soon. At my count that could be well over a dozen candidates, and I’m sure there are at least a few I’m missing or who will come out of the woodwork to declare.

In light of this potentially huge field, both Fox News and CNN, who are hosting debates in August and September, respectively, have declared that they’re only going to allow the top ten candidates on stage to duke it out for the GOP nomination.

Those announcements, of course, raised plenty of questions, because there’s no good way to determine who the “top ten” candidates are before a single vote is even cast. According to Fox News, the candidates have to “place in the top ten of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News.” CNN has announced that it will be using a slightly different metric:

The first ten candidates—ranked from highest to lowest in polling order from an average of all qualifying polls released between July 16 and September 10 who satisfy the criteria requirements … will be invited to participate in ‘Segment B’ of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate.

Either way, Fox and CNN are both taking steps to ensure that the candidates that they allow on stage for the debates are ones who have a fighting chance–although when considering the crowdedness of the field, this may come down to a few percentage points between candidates who make the cut and those who don’t.

With that in mind, apparently CNN has also announced that it’ll give candidates who don’t make the cut for the main debate but who are polling about 1 percent in three national polls the opportunity to speak in a different segment of the September debate.

Given the sheer craziness that was trying to watch the Republican debates in 2012 and the Democratic debates in 2008, both of which had plenty of candidates (although less than 10), it makes sense that the news outlets want to limit the amount of candidates speaking. If they were to go above ten, there would be hardly enough time for each candidate to be able to say anything useful about his or her platform. That being said, missing out on national exposure will end up hurting the lesser-known candidates, and could end up culling the field on the earlier side than past election cycles.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You’re Not Invited: Republican Candidates Vie for Debate Spots appeared first on Law Street.

Political newcomers Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have formally announced their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election, adding more diversity to the growing cast of GOP contenders. However their chances of becoming the Republican nominee may be slim to none, seeing as both candidates have never held public office or had military experience. So, in an effort to learn what would possess a famous retired neurosurgeon and a former CEO to run for president, here’s a bit of backstory on these conservative POTUS hopefuls.

Dr. Ben Carson

Oddly enough, it was a Lifetime movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr. that first introduced me to Dr. Ben Carson. The inspiring yet cheesy biopic modeled after his autobiography entitled “Gifted Hands” chronicled the former pediatric neurosurgeon’s life and the events leading up to the 1987 surgery that made him famous. In that operation, he became the first surgeon to separate a pair of conjoined twins joined at the head.

In 2013 Carson decided to retire as a surgeon and begin inserting himself into the political realm, in what many accurately guessed was the makings of a presidential run. However since then, Carson’s political experience can be pretty much be summed up with his bashing of Obamacare and government intrusion in healthcare at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast.

At his campaign kickoff Monday in his home town of Detroit, Carson chose not to shy away from his inexperience, instead opting to capitalize on it, telling voters he is not a politician, reports the Atlantic. He stated:

I don’t want to be a politician because politicians do what is politically expedient. I want to do what’s right.

But before Carson educated voters about his conservative platform he decided to start things off with what may be the most unusual campaign launch/mini-concert ever. The strange highlights included his wife Candy playing the “National Anthem” on the violin and an evangelical choir singing a rendition of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself,” which is now available for download on iTunes.

Despite having zero experience or political clout, Carson claims he’s ready to go up against the crowded pack of Republican candidates. If he somehow manages to accomplish that, it will be one long uphill battle for the controversial hopeful, especially since he’s been quoted saying Obamacare is the “worst thing since slavery.” He also claims homosexuality is a choice, citing people who go to prison identifying as straight and end up having gay sex as proof.

I’m in it!

— Dr. Ben Carson (@RealBenCarson) May 4, 2015

Carly Fiorina

Unlike Carson, Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign announcement strategically went without the theatrics, but she did throw a bit of shade at fellow female campaigner and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. In her campaign ad’s opening statement, Fiorina plays up her inexperience saying, “our founders never intended for us to have a professional political class” as she turns away from an image of Clinton.

Fiorina is a retired business executive who served as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) before being forced out in 2005 after a botched merger, lackluster revenues, falling stock prices, and innovation struggles. She’s also credited with laying off 30,000 HP and Compaq employees during her time as CEO, a fact not forgotten by one site using the domain name carlyfiorina.org, which Fiorina regrettably failed to register. The site called out Fiorina with thousands of frowny faces and the message:

Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain. So I’m using it to tell you how many people she laid off at Hewlett-Packard. That’s 30,000 people she laid off. People with families.

But Fiorinia wasn’t the only presidential candidate to make that mistake. Ted Cruz also failed to procure the domain name tedcruz.com, which now shows the message “Support President Obama. Immigration Reform Now!” 

Running for president? Buy ALL your domains. Otherwise: http://t.co/cQx6Fw6hGw, http://t.co/9k3UPHQEBT #2016Election pic.twitter.com/yyACnGe94N

— Amina Khan (@aminawrite) May 5, 2015

On a more serious note, like Carson, Fiorina has no political experience and has never held elected office, even though she did make a failed Senate run in 2010. Fiorina did serve as an aide to John McCain during the 2008 presidential elections, but failed miserably when she dissed his running mate Sarah Palin saying she didn’t think she could run a major corporation like HP. Then she dug herself in a bigger hole with these follow up comments:

Well, I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation, I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation, I don’t think Joe Biden could run a major corporation.

Fiorina’s biggest challenge, besides overcoming her vast political shortcomings, may be avoiding chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome.

Newcomers to the political arena aren’t that surprising–we all remember Herman Caine from 2012. But whether or not Republican newbies Carson or Fiorina will actually have a chance with their outsider statuses will be up to the voters.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Republican Newbies Have Any Chance in the GOP Primaries? appeared first on Law Street.

As the Hispanic population in the United States rapidly grows, so does its influence on the electorate. As Hispanic voters turn out in greater numbers, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to appeal to these communities across the country. Even if Democrats tend to be more favored by Hispanic voters, Republicans still have a chance to change the odds. One thing is clear: the Hispanic vote will matter a great deal in 2016.

The Hispanic Population in the United States

Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. In 1990, the Hispanic population amounted to 22 million, or only nine percent of the total population. In 2000, there were 35 million Hispanics, while in 2010 their numbers reached 51 million, or 13 percent of the total population. On average, one million Hispanic people are added to the American population yearly. As of 2013, Hispanics in the United States numbered 54 million, or 17 percent of the total population. Recent projections estimate that by 2060 Hispanics will account for 31 percent of the total population.

The largest group of Hispanic people is found in New Mexico (47.3 percent), followed by California with 14.4 million. They are also heavily represented in Texas (10 million) and Florida (4.5 million). In addition, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York all have more than one million Hispanic residents.

Hispanic Voter Turnout

The phrase “Hispanic vote” or “Latino vote” is often used by the media and politicians in reference to this specific electorate and its ability to alter election outcomes. According to recent voting trends, Hispanics constitute a significant bloc of American voters, and their numbers are likely to grow. In 2010, seven percent of all voters in federal elections were of Hispanic origin, but by 2012 they numbered 8.4 percent.

However, Hispanic Americans are less likely to be registered to vote than white or black Americans. According to 2013 data from Gallup, only 51 percent of all eligible Hispanic residents were registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. At the same time, 85 percent of white voters, 60 percent of Asian voters, and 81 percent of black voters were registered. Similar numbers held for the 2014 midterm elections: 25.2 million Hispanics were eligible to vote, but the number of Hispanic voters was even lower than the already low nationwide turnout of 37 percent.

Even if not all eligible Hispanics are actually voting, they do boost the overall minority vote. Thus, recent ethnic dynamics of the American electorate suggest that a collective ethnic minorities’ voting preferences can alter the outcome of future presidential elections, especially when taking into account the declining numbers of white voters. During the 2012 federal elections, President Obama managed to win with only 39 percent of white electorate support, while Romney lost despite carrying 59 percent of white voters.

Statewide, eligible Hispanic voters amount to around 40.1 percent in New Mexico, 27.4 percent in Texas, 26.9 percent in California, 20.3 percent in Arizona, 17.1 percent in Florida, 15.9 percent in Nevada, 13.2 percent in New York, 12.8 percent in New Jersey, and 10.3 percent in Connecticut. Again, Hispanic voter turnout during the midterms was lower than that of other ethnic groups and nationwide. For example, in Florida, only 36.5 percent of Hispanic voters showed up to vote in the 2014 midterm elections, while the overall voter turnout was at 50.5 percent. Despite low turnout, however, Hispanic voters have the ability to strongly affect American elections.

Why is Hispanic turnout so low?

There’s no one answer to that question, but there are some important factors to keep in mind. The low voter registration numbers among Hispanics can be in part explained by the fact that many Hispanics are not American-born citizens. Only six out of ten Hispanic voters (35.6 percent) were born in the United States, but 75 percent of American-born Hispanics registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. In contrast, those born in other nations registered at a much lower rate of 31 percent. Some Hispanics are ineligible to vote because of their immigration statuses. Hispanics who are permanent residents, but not citizens, are allowed to vote in some local and state elections, but are prohibited from participating in federal elections. Candidates for office are also sometimes blamed for low participation rates as they may not offer comprehensive platforms that include issues important to minority voters.

Party Lines

Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans. In 2000 and 2002 Democrats garnered the votes of 60 percent of Hispanic voters, while Republicans earned only 35 percent and 37 percent respectively. In 2004, 44 percent of Hispanics voted for Republicans and 53 percent supported the Democratic Party. In 2006, more Hispanics than ever chose Democrats, at 69 percent, over Republicans at 30 percent. During the next two federal elections in 2008 and 2010, Hispanic voters supported Democrats slightly less, but still by commanding margins.

According to 2013 Gallup data, 58 percent of Hispanics who had registered to vote were Democrats, 26 percent were Republicans, and 13 percent were independents. In addition, 41 percent of unregistered Hispanics identified as Democrats, and only 17 percent identified Republicans.

While the majority of Hispanics are either Democrats or Independents, Republicans have recently gained a considerable share of Hispanic votes in gubernatorial elections. For example, during the midterm elections in Texas and Georgia, Republicans captured 40 percent of Latino voters. 

Hispanic Voters in Swing States

Historically, certain states in the U.S. have always voted for either Democrats or Republicans, while there are states that swing back and forth between the two parties–“swing states.” Presidential candidates often campaign more in those states, as they will decide elections. In the 2016 elections, many states with large Hispanic populations are already being viewed as the states to win, including Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

Florida has the largest Hispanic population among the swing states, at more than four million. During the 2012 elections, the Hispanic electorate accounted for 17 percent of total voters. As Florida has a large population of Cubans who historically favor Republicans, the GOP has traditionally made a strong run in Florida. But recently, more Hispanics in Florida have been leaning toward the Democratic Party.

Colorado has the second largest Hispanic population among swing states, at a little over a million. Historically, Colorado has been overwhelmingly Republican, but recent demographic trends have changed the odds for the GOP. During the last two presidential elections, Hispanic constituencies overwhelmingly backed Obama over McCain and Romney, helping him to victory.

The voting situation in Nevada is also uncertain, as both Bush and Obama won the state twice. Obama won Nevada largely due to Hispanic voters who made up 14 percent of the total electorate. However, Obama didn’t do so well with white voters in Nevada, leaving significant chances for the Republican party to capture more non-Hispanic votes in this state.

Traditionally red state Texas may also turn into a swing  state. Thirty percent of its eligible voters are Hispanic; as a result experts believe that the Hispanic vote can make a difference in Texas in 2016.

Even though the Hispanic populations in the swing states are likely to vote for Democrats, many non-Hispanic whites in those states are still overwhelmingly Republican, making it possible for the GOP to win through capturing more white votes. That means that Hispanic voters can play a pivotal role in the final voting decision, but won’t necessarily be the deciding factor anywhere. 

Why do Hispanic voters prefer Democrats over Republicans?

While obviously not all Hispanics feel the same way about any given issue, there are certain stand-out issues that tend to draw many Hispanic voters to Democratic candidates. Hispanic voters’ views on major issues such as immigration reform, health care, criminal justice, the economy, and education tend to line up more closely with Democratic platforms.

For one, the traditional Republican stance on immigration is a big reason why they are less popular in Hispanic communities than Democrats, who tend to be more in support of comprehensive reform in this sphere. The 2014 National Survey of Latinos revealed that 66 percent of registered Hispanic voters considered comprehensive immigration legislation an urgent and very important matter. Often Republican-sponsored laws concerning immigration, such as Proposition 187 in California, don’t resonate well in Hispanic communities. Proposition 187, which allowed law enforcement to turn in undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, is sometimes viewed as the end of the Red California, as the ensuing controversy led to many Democratic victories.

However, according to the 2014 National Survey of Latinos, 54 percent of registered Hispanic voters said that a candidate’s position on immigration is not the only factor in their voting decision. The economy and job creation were viewed as more important than other issues, including immigration and health care.

How will Hispanic voters affect the 2016 elections?

By some estimations, Republicans need to capture 30-40 percent of Hispanic voters in order to win the Presidential election. In order for Republicans to win the necessary Hispanic votes, their candidate must engage with Hispanic communities. Watch the video below to learn more about Hispanic voters and what many are looking for in 2016 presidential candidates.

Conclusion

It’s clear that both parties should seriously consider the Hispanic electorate during their 2016 campaigns. While there’s a lot of diversity within the American Hispanic population itself, there are certain issues that have stood as consistent concerns for many Hispanic voters. In any scenario, capturing the majority of Hispanic voters will be essential for both parties in 2016 and beyond. 

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., Voter Registration Lags Among Hispanics and Asians

Latino Decisions: Mi Familia Vota Poll on Executive Action – Nov 2014

Pew Research Center: In 2014, Latinos Will Surpass Whites as Largest Racial/Ethnic Group in California

Pew Research Center: Mapping the Latino Electorate by State

Pew Research Center: Five Takeaways About the 2014 Latino Vote

Additional 

Albuquerque Journal: Low Hispanic Voter Turnout Partly Fault of Candidates

Fox News Latino: GOP needs 40 Percent of Latino Votes to Win White House in 2016

Infoplease: Hispanic Americans by the Numbers

NBC News: Want Latino Votes? Think Ground Game and Messaging

International Business Times: Ted Cruz 2016: Why Hispanic Voters Might Not be Thrilled if Texas Senator Becomes First Latino President

International Business Times: Obama Immigration Orders Could Drive Latino Vote in Battleground States For 2016

Huffington Post: Latino Views on the 2016 GOP Field: Who Can Actually Win the Latino Vote?

Hispanic Voters 2012: Hispanics in America

MSNBC: Latino Voters Likely to Back Hillary in 2016

San Antonio Express News: New Books Dissect the Budding Latino Voter Boom

Washington Post: Handicapping the Hispanic Vote for 2016 

Washington Post: Did the GOP Make Inroads With the Latino Vote?

The New York Times: Hispanic Voters Are Important For Republicans, But Not Indispensable

Texas Monthly: Will Texas be a Swing State by 2016?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Part Will Hispanic Voters Play in the 2016 Elections? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the markers of the current political climate is the animosity between President Obama and Congress. One of the manifestations of this climate can be seen in the fact that Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General has continued to languish in the halls of the Senate. If his remarks at a recent press conference are any indication, President Obama has had enough.

Loretta Lynch was nominated for the position of Attorney General nearly six months ago on November 8, 2014, but her nomination has been held up in the Senate since that point. There aren’t really any substantive reasons though, as no one seems to have any objections to Lynch’s qualifications for the job. While there are some concerns over her opinions on President Obama’s immigration reform, it seems like she’ll eventually be confirmed. It’s just a matter of when at this point.

The when is difficult though, as her nomination is being held up until a bill on human trafficking is settled, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats, however, object to the bill because it contains a provision that prevents any money from the crime victims’ compensation fund from being spent on abortion services. Not only do many Senate Democrats object to the provision on moral grounds, they also claim that the Republicans surprised them by adding that provision to the bill without consulting them. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated,

I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it. But the fact is, the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it that we were told would not be included.

However, until this matter is solved, McConnell has said that they won’t vote on Lynch’s nomination. He’s framed it as a matter of priority–it’s important to finish a bill that will help trafficking victims before moving on to Lynch’s nomination. But it’s become a game of political chicken, and her nomination is caught right in the middle.

A sense of frustration and exasperation is exactly what the President expressed in a press conference Froday when speaking about the hold ups to the Lynch nomination. He emphatically stated,

Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed, let her do her job. This is embarrassing. There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.

Regardless of Obama’s impassioned statements, it’s highly doubtful that his remarks will have any effect on the GOP Senators’ actions. Especially after the fights over the Iran deal and Obama’s immigration reform, there’s no real lost love between the executive and legislative branches. Lynch’s nomination will probably remain in limbo, at least for now.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Lashes Out at Senate Over Loretta Lynch Confirmation Hold Up appeared first on Law Street.

Get excited everyone! The 2016 presidential campaign is beginning to take shape, with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Hillary Clinton all formally throwing their names into this election’s version of the Goblet of Fire. But let’s talk about the newest candidate to submit his bid for office–the 43-year-old Republican Junior Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio. His fresh face and conscious appeal to younger voters has already garnered comparisons to a young Barack Obama, but his shorter resume compared to his peers makes him a less familiar face for many voters.

That’s why I decided to compile some interesting facts about our newest Republican candidate that demonstrate just how “hip” with our generation he really is. So without further adieu here are the three facts millennials should know about presidential hopeful Marco Rubio.

He’s Meme Friendly

One thing we millennials love is our memes, and Rubio tapped into that love of combining photos with witty commentary when he gave us the awkward sip seen around the world. If you haven’t seen the sip, it happened during his turn at the GOP rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union in 2013. Rubio took an uncomfortable pause in the middle of the speech for a questionably timed water break that managed to creep out many viewers.

.@marcorubio: He reaches for water, but we’re breaking out the Arbor red. pic.twitter.com/O6ATmGumkE

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) April 13, 2015

His nervous lip smacking combined with uncomfortably direct eye contact proved to be the perfect recipe for an instant viral meme. That sip alone generated at least 15 different parody Twitter accounts and instantly earned Rubio 13,000 new followers. With those kinds of gains in followers, Rubio could take this election one sip at a time.

Picked up over 13,000 new followers on #twitter since last night! Im going to start drinking #water in the middle of all of my speeches! — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2013

He Loves Rap Music

In a December 2012 interview with GQ magazine, Rubio transformed into an old school music lover out of nowhere, sharing his affinity for Afrika Bambaataa, Public Enemy, and Tupac, and earning some instant street cred. When it comes to music Rubio prefers intensity over “party anthems” calling Eminem his favorite artist and “the only guy that speaks at any sort of depth.” When asked by GQ if he had a favorite song to play to psych him up before a Senate vote Rubio laughed saying:

..in terms of psyching yourself up, I don’t have time for that. You know you can’t put on earphones and the storm the floor and vote.

If you ever wondered what Rubio is currently jamming out to, he was kind enough to share his public Spotify playlist, but sadly it lacks Rubio’s favorite tracks which include: “Straight Outta Compton” by N.W.A., “Killuminati” by Tupac, and Eminem’s “Lose Yourself.”

He’s Social Media Savvy…Or at Least He Thinks He is

Rubio began his presidential campaign by first asking supporters to add him as a friend on Snapchat. Yes, Snpachat, the quick deleting photo/video sharing app that’s usually known for less than wholesome uses.

I’m now on @Snapchat. My username is marcorubio16. Please add me. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 13, 2015

However, his “story” making skills still need some work. His first posts consisted of a lot of clapping and name chanting from his presidential campaign announcement, as well as him being driven away in a super sexy gold minivan. I’m hoping he’ll step his selfie game up soon, or if all else fails just videotape himself taking more awkward sips from tiny water bottles. But till then I still want to know if Rubio is team follow back or nahh?

hi @marcorubio are you team follow back or what pic.twitter.com/l2KzeLAp35 — Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 13, 2015

Why you gotta be so rude pic.twitter.com/HlAlqnnlQq — Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 13, 2015

Since announcing his candidacy last night, Rubio has already begun to try to spin his inexperience and youngest contender status–both of which are concerns for the American people–to his advantage. Whether his plea to millennials will help him actually connect with younger voters will have to be seen.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marco Rubio: Going After Millennials for 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

In 1858, then-Senator Abraham Lincoln made one of his most famous speeches. In this particular speech he referenced the bible in stating, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At that time, of course, Lincoln was referring to the schism that divided the nation, namely should we be a free country or a slave-owning country? While the slavery question has been answered, the idea of a divided nation has continued and seemingly grown as time passed. The problem now is not over any singular issue, but the conduct of various branches of the government. In short, what effect does public disagreement over foreign policy issues have on the United States in presenting a unified front when trying to implement some type of cohesive strategy?

History of Disagreement

With the two most recent high-profile episodes of dissension in federal government–the Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran and the House Republicans’ invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without executive consent–it may appear as though these events were particularly egregious; however, disagreement between members of the government is certainly not something new. For that matter, this level of disagreement is not even that extraordinary. In fact, at various times throughout the nation’s history members or former members of the government have engaged in literal duels where one of the parties was actually killed. Of course those are the extreem examples of disagreement, but they are part of our history nonetheless.

The 1980s seemed like an especially appropriate time to publicly undermine the president and his foreign policy, as evidenced by two specific events. In 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy allegedly secretly conspired with the then-premier of the USSR to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and win the presidency. Just a year later, in 1984, Democrats wrote a letter to the leader of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that was critical of the president and forgave the rebel regime’s many atrocities.

Another episode occurred in 1990 when former president Jimmy Carter wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council denouncing President Bush’s efforts to authorize the Gulf War. In 2002, several democratic senators went to Iraq on a trip financed by late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and actually actively campaigned for his government. This was also aimed at undermining support for the second president Bush’s Iraq War. And the most recent example came in 2007 when newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Basher Assad. Even before he had launched a civil war on his own people, Assad had already made enemies of the Bush Administration by supporting insurgents in Iraq.

This is the context in which Congress’ most recent acts of defiance should be considered. When Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without the consent of the president, he knew perfectly well that Netanyahu would come to urge the use of force in preventing a nuclear armed Iran. This strategy is the complete opposite of the one pursued by the Obama Administration, which has centered on negotiation, give and take. The video below explains why this invitation was so controversial.

The second most recent act of dissent also comes in relation to a nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, 47 senators signed a letter to Iran stating that any agreement between President Obama and the Ayatollah will be considered as an executive agreement only and subject to being overturned when a new president is elected. The video below explores the ramifications of the letter.

Taken alone these efforts by Republicans appear outrageous and indeed even treasonous. But they are actually just two more in a series of moves from both parties to undermine the other. The main difference this time is that it was the Republicans doing the undermining of a Democratic President.

Roles in Foreign policy for Each Branch of the Government

The three branches of the government–the judicial, legislative, and executive branches–each play a role in determining foreign policy. While the courts are instrumental in determining the constitutionality, and therefore legality, of agreements, the legislative and executive branches are the real driving forces behind United States’ foreign policy. So what then are their roles?

Executive

As the saying goes, on paper the President’s foreign policy powers seem limited. According to the Constitution, he is limited to his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nominating and appointing officials. However, the president has several unofficial powers that are more encompassing. First is the executive agreement, which basically allows the president to make an accord without the consent of Congress. This is what Obama did, for example, in relation to immigration in Fall 2014, as well as the situation to which Republicans referred in their letter to Iran.

This power is perhaps the most important as the president is able to pursue his agenda without needing Congressional support, which is often hostile to his ambitions. Along this same track, the president has the ability to determine the foreign policy agenda, and by doing so making it the agenda for the entire nation.

The executive branch also controls the means to carry out foreign policy through its various agencies. Of particular importance are the Department of State, which handles foreign affairs, and the Department of Defense, which is in charge of military operations. The intelligence community is also a key cog in this branch of government.

Legislative

The role of this branch has traditionally been three-fold: advising the president, approving/disapproving the president’s foreign policy agreements, and confirming appointments to the State Department. Recently these powers have come under challenge as Obama himself has conducted military actions in Libya without getting war powers consent from Congress first.

Like everything else, the roles taken on by the particular branches with regard to foreign policy have expanded far beyond those originally outlined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the president, as mentioned previously, serves as both the face of policy and its catalyst, it is generally assumed that he will take the lead in those matters. However, a certain gray area still exists as to specifically who has the right to do what. This role was supposed to be more clearly defined through legislation, namely the Logan Act; however, perpetually changing circumstances, such as the role of the media, have continued to make the boundaries for conduct less clear.

What Happens Next

So what is to be done about these quarrelsome representatives and senators? When Pelosi made her infamous trip to visit Assad in 2007, the Bush Administration was extremely angry and reacted accordingly, deeming her actions as criminal and possibly treasonous. If this rhetoric sounds familiar that is because these are the same types of phrases being hurled at the Congresspeople who invited Netanyahu to speak and condemned Iran with their signatures.

The Logan Act

The real issue here is with who is conducting foreign policy as opposed to who is supposed to, according to the Logan Act. The act was passed in 1799 in response to its namesake’s efforts to single-handedly end the quasi-war with the French by engaging in a solo journey to the country. The basic outline of the act is that no unauthorized person is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States with a foreign government during a dispute. Thus, while in theory this was meant to resolve the issue as to who was qualified to represent U.S. foreign policy, the video below explains that is far from what actually occurred.

Along with the damning words being thrown about, critics of the Republican actions also call for their prosecution under this relatively obscure law; however, no such indictments are likely to take place as no one has even been charged under it, not even the man for whom it was named. In addition, the language itself is unclear. For example, wouldn’t congresspeople be considered authorized persons? These threats of prosecution, along with the strong language being thrown about hide another important factor in this whole mess: the role of the media.

Media’s Role

In the tumult following the Iranian letter, a somewhat important piece of evidence has been overlooked. While the senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indeed signed a letter, the letter was not actually sent anywhere. In fact, after getting 46 other senators to sign the letter, Senator Cotton posted it to his own website and social media accounts. Similarly with the Netanyahu speech, while it is odd for a foreign leader to speak to Congress without approval of the president, the significance of the whole thing can be attributed as much to the stage it was broadcast on as its peculiarity.

There is a history of government officials undermining the White House’s foreign policy. However, in 2015 there are so many avenues to openly and very publicly express dissent that when it does occur it is a bigger deal now than ever. Information is so accessible now, thus when someone posts something to social media anyone all over the world can see it. This is different than if something were broadcast 20 years ago on network news.

Conclusion

In 1951, President Truman removed General MacArthur from command in the Korean War. While MacArthur was one of the most renowned war heroes of WWII, his threats to invade China and expand the war undermined Truman’s efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict. While Truman was able to dismiss MacArthur, this is not true for the current case of branches of government undermining others.Unlike MacArthur who was a general and beholden to the president, these representatives and senators are beholden to the people and cannot be as easily removed. Nor should they, not only because the precedent for this type of disagreement has been set, but also because the president should not have the ability to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him. People voicing their opinions after all, is the whole idea behind representative government.

While recent Republican actions can certainly be termed at least as ill-advised, the question of illegality is much less clear. The Iranians for their part took the letter as well as can be expected, acknowledging its obvious political nature.

Sources

Washington Examiner: 5 Times Democrats Undermined Republican Presidents With Foreign Governments

Foreign Policy Association: How Foreign Policy is Made.

Politico: John Boehner’s Bibi Invite Sets Up Showdown With White House

Intercept: The Parties Role Reversal on Interfering With the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Politico: Iran, Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act

National Review: The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran

LA Times: Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Has Politics Written All Over it

The New York Times: Iranian Officials Ask Kerry about Republicans’ Letter

CNN: Did 47 Republican Senators Break the Law in Plain Sight?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries appeared first on Law Street.

According to the American Values Index, a project created by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), the United States is becoming increasingly multi-religious. The tool, which allows users to see the religious and political views of people around the country, is a fascinating use of public data and polling. It’s also an interesting look into the changing demographics and ideological priorities in the U.S.

PRRI is a nonpartisan research organization that declares its goals as follows:

PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.

The United States has long been seen as a consistently white Christian nation, and demographically speaking, that characterization was fair for a long time; however, according to the American Values Index, white Christians are now a minority in 19 states. The percentage of white Christians has fallen to as low as 20 percent in Hawaii, 25 percent in California, and 33 percent in New Mexico.

Furthermore, America’s Protestant tradition is also on the decline. Only 47 percent of the nation overall is Protestant. Notably, some of these shifting statistics come from the increasing amount of religious unaffiliated Americans. Twenty-two percent of Americans now don’t identify with any particular religious tradition, and given that those ranks are dominated by young people, those numbers are on the rise.

It will be interesting to see if these revelations play any part in the 2016 elections that are already ramping up. A national survey by Public Policy Polling in February revealed that 57 percent of Republicans polled answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion of the United States?” Thirty percent of those polled said “no” and 13 percent said they weren’t sure. Regardless of the fact that such a proposition blatantly flies in the face of the First Amendment, it also shows a blind disregard of the actual demographics of the United States.

There are specific areas where this attitude is more prevalent. Just a few weeks ago, members of the Kootenai County Idaho Republican Party put up a proposal that Idaho be declared a “Christian state.” That measure was eventually tabled, however.

The American Values Index also highlighted some interesting statistics about ideological views in the United States. For example, the conservative split on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage, is very noticeable. Young white evangelical protestants are pretty much split on the issue of gay marriage, while their older counterparts stand in strong opposition. However, both generations agree on the topic of abortion, with roughly two-thirds saying it should be illegal in all or most cases.

The American Values Index, in addition to being a fun tool to play around with for those like myself who love data, creates in interesting window into the minds of American voters, particularly on socio-cultural issues. As we move closer to the hotly anticipated 2016 elections, it will be interesting to see what part these values issues play.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Values Index Highlights Increasing Multi-Religious Culture appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a very pointless fight going on in the world of American politics right now. It’s over whether or not President Obama “loves” America. See? It really is as stupid as it sounds.

It seemingly started a few days ago when Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, made statements speculating about how President Obama feels about America. He stated on Wednesday:

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America … He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.

When accused of being racist, Giuliani got even weirder, saying:

Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people.

He also blamed America’s supposed antipathy to America on socialism. Overall, it was a weird, yet not entirely unexpected outburst. After all, in the almost ten years since Obama has been on the national stage, there’s been plenty of speculation about his beliefs, ideologies, and thoughts.

It hasn’t just stayed with Giuliani though, because now possible Republican 2016 Presidential candidate, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has jumped into the discussion. He essentially said that he didn’t know how Obama feels about America, and also doesn’t know if Obama’s Christian, because he’s never asked him.

Walker has now run in circles around those comments, saying

I assume most people in this country love America. And to me I don’t think it’s worth getting into the battle over whether he does or he doesn’t. He can handle that himself. I know I do.

And his spokesman stated:

Of course the governor thinks the president is a Christian. He thinks these kinds of gotcha questions distract from what he’s doing as governor of Wisconsin to make the state better and make life better for people in his state.

The entire thing is such a bizarre and pointless debate. First of all, any discussion of Obama’s religion again, is exhausting. Walker saying that he’s not sure what Obama’s religion is because he hasn’t asked him is ridiculous, especially after the continuous media coverage and Obama’s constant reaffirmation of his beliefs in 2008. The fact that Walker is feeding into that speculation is just as bad–remember when McCain at least corrected that one insane lady at his event who thought that Obama was Muslim?

The debate over whether or not Obama “loves America” is equally exhausting. It’s polarizing, it’s pointless, and it’s ridiculous. First of all, why does it matter that much? Should we follow this implication through and assume that if Obama doesn’t “love” America, he’s currently attempting to destroy it? That’s insane and beyond paranoid.

What it really is is a way to call Obama elitist, and different than the American ideal of country above self. It’s a debate that we’ve been having for years now, and it’s silly. I hope that in 2016, everyone will focus on getting the best person for the job, and not just silly paranoid speculation.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Candidates Speculate Whether Obama “Loves” America appeared first on Law Street.

In an exceedingly odd move, a legislative committee in Oklahoma voted this week to eliminate Advanced Placement U.S. History classes. This decision is part of a large, equally bizarre move to get rid of AP classes altogether across the state. Furthermore, the move away from AP U.S. History (APUSH) in Oklahoma is a facet of a much larger debate over what parts of American history we should be teaching our children.

The legislators who pushed for this change in claim that the APUSH curriculum only teaches “what is bad about America.” They also argue that it’s a revisionist view of history. Representative Dan Fish, who introduced the bill, also argues that it doesn’t fairly include a Christian perspective or teach “American exceptionalism.”

Before you think this view is coming from a few crazy crackpots, it’s important to point out that the Republican National Committee itself has weighed in on the debate. Last summer it released a resolution slamming the APUSH curriculum. According to the RNC, the recently revised APUSH guidelines: “reflect a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.”

I’m sure some of you are wondering how people can quibble over history–after all, aren’t most facts undisputed? Well, it’s pretty much universally accepted that history can be taught from different perspectives and through various lenses–take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, for example. One perspective may teach that those bombings, while yielding tragic results, stopped the war and prevented further deaths through protracted fighting. Another perspective could argue that regardless of why the bombs were deployed, the mass destruction of civilians is unacceptable. While neither of these perspectives is necessarily wrong–they do each adhere to the facts of those historical events–they by nature tell different narratives.

So that leaves us with a conundrum–there’s no real right or wrong answer to how we should teach our history. Clearly, some people in Oklahoma disagree with how it’s being taught there, and while I can’t emphasize how much I disagree with their concerns, they are still allowed to have those concerns.

Like I mentioned above, there’s also a bigger debate brewing over the applicability of AP classes in general. They’re standardized nationwide–although of course only students who sign up for the elite classes take them. They are also mostly uniformly accepted by different universities, although they’re applied to university curriculum requirements on a case-by-case basis. Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to do away with those as a whole, too. Another representative, Sally Kern, claims that AP classes violate a law passed in Oklahoma last year that eliminates Common Core standards.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise that states should be able to dictate what their students learn, I think that AP courses fall into a whole different category. First of all, they’re not universally prescribed; each student makes the choice about what class he or she wants to take. Most colleges do view them favorably, and again, they can be used to obtain certain college credits. Robbing Oklahoma’s students of that opportunity just because you don’t agree with the perspective from which the history curriculum is taught seems petty and short-sighted.

History will never be one sizes fits all, and I think that students should have every opportunity to learn about the important events in our nation’s history from as many view points as possible. That being said, with the inability to learn from our APUSH curriculum, Oklahoma’s students have just been robbed as one of those perspectives.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will AP History Become a Thing of the Past in Oklahoma? appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama gave his second-to-last State of the Union address last night, and it’s being lauded as a great one. He laid out a long to-do list, including addressing net neutrality, his education plan, a minimum wage hike, a tax code overhaul, and a fight against ISIS, despite the fact that he enters this year having to stand against a Republican-controlled Congress. In fact, much of the speech seemed like a challenge to a Congress made up of the very people who have consistently tried to stall Obama’s polices for the last seven years. Whether or not they decide to play nice will be up to the Republicans.

The Republican response to the speech, of course, was rather negative. The main criticism seemed to be that Obama didn’t focus enough on the middle class. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who actually gave the Republican response to last year’s SOTU, commented:

You know, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that I didn’t hear more from the president as far as how we were going to help those middle-class families. I thought he painted a little rosy picture of how things are, at a time when people continue to see their wages actually shrink, take-home pay shrinking. Job opportunities are not enough.

That quote from McMorris Rodgers is pretty consistent with a lot of GOP responses to Obama’s SOTU speech last night–that he doesn’t understand the middle class and do enough to help the citizens who fall into that bracket. Most Democrats are insisting that the plans that Obama laid out–particularly those to give middle class families a tax break, as well as help ease the burden of college payments, are going to be great for these segment of the country.

As I sat here trying to work my way through all of the plans, all of the political rhetoric, all of the buzzwords that got thrown around last night, I had a realization. It’s not just that Democrats and Republicans can’t seem to agree on how to help the middle class. It might be that we can’t agree on what the “middle class” is. 

It sounds silly–we all know what the middle class is, right? It must be that chunk of the population between those in poverty, and those who live in mansions. Is it blue-collar workers, or white-collar workers, or a little bit of both? Or is it more of a heritage–are we middle class because of the values that are instilled in us? I honestly don’t know anymore.

What I do know is that pretty much everyone thinks they’re middle class. In a 2012 Gallup Poll, 42 percent of respondents said they were middle class. Another 13 percent said they were upper-middle class. Then another 31 percent said they were “working class,” which makes this entire thing even less clear, given that working class is sometimes viewed as middle class. Most importantly, there were a plurality of people in every income bracket from $30,000-$100,000 who defined themselves as “middle class.”

The concept of the middle class has long been hailed as a bedrock of American society, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But I think it does make it incredibly difficult to design policies for the “middle class” because when you’re talking about well over half the population, one size doesn’t even fit most. What I, as a 20-something living in Washington D.C., need, is significantly different than what a family in Iowa needs, which is different than someone about to retire in California needs, even if we all make about the same amount and identify as “middle class.”

To bring this back to last night’s speech, it’s that very definition problem that makes it easy for both the Democrats and the Republicans to point to their plans and say “look, it’s for the middle class.” For example, Obama’s statement last night:

That’s why this Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. Really. It’s 2015. It’s time.

To me, that sounds like a tangible thing that would help the middle class. Given that it’s now pretty close to the norm for both men and women, even those married and/or with families, to work, ensuring that they both get fair pay seems like it would help the middle class to me. But then the Republicans see that Obama is also proposing a tax hike on the richest Americans, and will argue that that’s going to slow job growth, so paying men and women equally isn’t helpful if neither of them can find a job. It’s a messy, cyclical argument that’s more about politics than actually trying to help the middle class, no matter who we may be. And that’s a shame.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SOTU All About the Middle Class, But Who Exactly is That? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Joni Ernst may be a newcomer to Washington D.C., but she’s already making a big splash. She was just selected by the Republican Party to give its response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. That’s a pretty good thing for which to be chosen–the last few years the spot of responder has included Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Paul Ryan. Ryan, of course, ran for Vice President last year, and Rubio’s name keeps popping up on the list for possible 2016 contenders.

But what does this choice actually mean? When I said that Ernst is a newcomer, I really meant newcomer–before running for Iowa’s Senate seat, she was in the Iowa State Senate. So, she’ll only have been in Washington for about a month before speaking for the entire GOP in response to the President. She in some ways ran her campaign on the fact that she was a Beltway outsider–her most talked-about ad of the 2016 elections involved her discussing castrating pigs as a child.

Honestly, it’s probably that outsider status that inspired the GOP to pick her as the responder. President Barack Obama and, by extension, the Democrats have run the Executive Branch since 2008. The GOP is probably going to paint them as tired, crony-filled, and too nationally focused to look out for the average American. On the other hand, Ernst is pretty much the definition of a fresh face. She’s also a woman, which given the gender gap that has made or broke some recent national elections, probably appeals to the Republican Party. For those reasons, this is a pretty good strategic choice on the GOP’s part.

On the other hand, she’s also a risky choice. She’s untested on the national stage, and she’s said some weird things in the past. For example, she subscribes to the conspiracy theory that Agenda 21, a sustainable environmental plan created by the United Nations, is a secret drive to force Americans off their land. Last November, she stated:

All of us agreed that Agenda 21 is a horrible idea. One of those implications to Americans, again, going back to what did it does do to the individual family here in the state of Iowa, and what I’ve seen, the implications that it has here is moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don’t have property rights anymore. These are all things that the UN is behind, and it’s bad for the United States and bad for families here in the state of Iowa.

It’s a relatively popular Tea Party idea–but coming out against the U.N. is…extreme, to say the least.

It’s definitely a good position to be in for your first few months in Washington, but whether or not Ernst will be able to rise to the occasion will have to be determined. No matter what, one thing is certain: it will be an interesting speech to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Joni Ernst Chosen to Give GOP Response to State of the Union appeared first on Law Street.

In a mess that just won’t end, the Sony hacker scandal has continued to stretch on. Last week, Sony announced that it wouldn’t release The Interview–the movie that has been at the center of the controversy. Despite the fact that the hackers had threatened violent attacks if the movie was shown, Sony received a lot of flack for that call–including from President Barack Obama. However today, Sony backtracked, and annnounced that it is screening The Interview after all.

Sony Entertainment Chairman and CEO Michael Lynton stated:

We have never given up on releasing The Interview, and we’re excited our movie will be in a number of theaters Christmas Day. At the same time we are continuing our efforts to secure more platforms and more theaters so that this movie reaches the largest possible audience.

I want to thank our talent on The Interview and our employees, who have worked tirelessly through the many challenges we have all faced over the last month. While we hope this is only the first step of the film’s release we are proud to make it available to the public and stood up to those who attempted to suppress free speech.

Some theaters have already announced that they are planning on showing The Interview. A theater chain called Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas has said it will be showing the movie. While exactly where it will be showing the film doesn’t appear to have been released yet, the company has locations in Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, California, Nebraska, and New York. A theater in Atlanta called the Plaza Atlanta has also said that it will show the film. It should be expected that other movie theaters, though probably smaller chains, will end up showing the movie as well.

This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise, given that one of Sony’s lawyers, David Boies said on Meet the Press on Sunday that it would be released at some point. He explained,

Sony only delayed this. Sony has been fighting to get this picture distributed. It will be distributed. How it’s going to be distributed I don’t think anyone knows quite yet.

Even if Sony hadn’t made their recent decision to release the film, there was a decent chance that we all would have been able to still see the movie. The amorphous hacking group “Anonymous” has said that they would leak it if Sony didn’t release the film.

Overall, people seem pretty excited that The Interview will be released–especially those who were involved in the production of the film. Seth Rogen, one of the co-directors and stars of the film tweeted:

The people have spoken! Freedom has prevailed! Sony didn't give up! The Interview will be shown at theaters willing to play it on Xmas day!

— Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen) December 23, 2014

James Franco, one of the other stars, sent out a few equally jubilant tweets, and even got in a shot at President Obama for mispronouncing his name as “James Flacco” in a press conference last week:

CELEBRATING!!!!! "The Interview" starring Seth Rogen and James Flacco saved by President Obacco! I… http://t.co/VXDy7NFtPe

— James Franco (@JamesFrancoTV) December 23, 2014

So, if you were disappointed that you wouldn’t be able to see The Interview on Christmas, there’s hope. More importantly, Sony’s release of The Interview shows that the company is unwilling to give in completely to the demands of cyberterrorists.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sony Will Release “The Interview” After All appeared first on Law Street.

A major hacking scandal at the entertainment company Sony has escalated quickly over the last few weeks. It started with leaked information, and has now led to full on terror threats against theaters that show the movie The Interview, a comedy that centers around the premise of killing North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. The release has since been cancelled. The hacker group responsible called themselves “Guardians of the Peace.” This morning, the FBI put out a statement that included the following:

As a result of our investigation, and in close collaboration with other U.S. government departments and agencies, the FBI now has enough information to conclude that the North Korean government is responsible for these actions.

Just before 2:00 PM today, President Barack Obama held a news conference to address the Sony issue, among other things. It is his final press conference of 2014.

The first question of the day was, as expected, about the Sony hack.

A Politico reporter asked whether or not Sony made the best choice pulling The Interview. Obama was clear: he thinks that Sony made a mistake. He talked about the need to be able to resist cyber attacks, saying “we’re not even close to where we need to be.” He also emphasized the need for strong cyber security laws that would serve to protect both the public and private sectors. He then made an excellent argument for why Sony’s decision was wrong, saying:

We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship in the United States. Because if someone is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don’t like, or news reports they don’t like. Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities need to be affected. That’s not who we are. That’s not what America’s about.

He continued to emphasize the need to stand against terrorist demands, because of the slippery slope to which it could lead, specifically referencing North Korea in this case–not a surprising move given that the FBI had already done so. He said there would be a response, but he wasn’t going to go into detail today, emphasizing the need for international cooperation on the issue of cyber security. Later, in response to another question, he pointed out that despite the international aspect, there’s no evidence to indicate that North Korea was working with any other country.

It’s been a long few weeks for Sony, and the idea that a foreign government could use cyber-terrorism to intimidate an American company is concerning. But President Obama was right–negotiating and giving in to terrorists may be even more dangerous down the road. While his plan about how to respond to North Korea was, completely understandably, very vague, I have a feeling the White House may need to take tough actions here to mitigate Sony’s caving to the cyberterrorists’ demands.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama: Sony Made a Mistake Pulling “The Interview” appeared first on Law Street.

The world of politics is changing, and quickly. Between technology and the current state of campaign finance laws, the political landscape looks very different than it did just a few years ago. We’re starting to see the backlash of those changes now, and the noticeable difficulty of laws keeping up with all these changes. The actions of the GOP on Twitter in the recent midterm elections are in one of those murky gray legal areas at the intersection of campaign finance and technology.

CNN discovered that GOP campaigns had set up fake Twitter accounts during the midterms that spewed gibberish. For most of us, such a sight would indicate that there was some sort of spam account at work, and we would ignore it. But according to CNN, that gibberish could be decoded–and the decoded messages were internal polling data. Ostensibly, an outside group, such as a PAC, could look at that message, decode it, and figure out which campaigns were in need of an extra monetary push.

The thing about Twitter is that it’s pretty easy to hide in plain site. If all you’re doing is tweeting out gibberish, the only good way to find you is to search for the gibberish, or to search for the user. Interestingly, the GOP was quite glib about some of these accounts–one was named after Bruno Gianelli. West Wing fans will recognize him as a political campaign operative who was in favor of using soft money to get the President re-elected.

Current campaign finance laws allow outside groups to work on behalf of candidates, as long as they don’t explicitly coordinate with candidates’ campaigns. So the question that no one can really seem to answer is whether or not these Twitter accounts were legal. Given that they were public accounts–although very difficult to decipher public accounts–they don’t really seem like behind-closed-doors coordination that the FEC attempts to prevent.

The consensus seems to be that they’re probably not completely legal, but no one really cares enough to do anything. It appears that maybe-coordination like this is sort of like the jaywalking of election season. Everyone does it, probably, but no one’s really going to get caught. Daniel Tokaji, a professor at Ohio State’s law school said:

It may bend common sense, but not necessarily the law. A lot of things you and I would consider coordination are not coordination under the law. I don’t think sharing polling data is going to be enough to establish that the campaign was materially involved in decisions about content, target audience or timing.

This isn’t a one-sided issue, either. Both political parties have tried using technology to get around campaign finance coordination laws, and both parties have been accused of foul play. The FEC probably isn’t going to do anything about it, and that’s fine, but as the rules surrounding campaign finance in general change so drastically, there’s a need for our rules to progress along with them.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Accused of Illegal Coordination Over Twitter, No One Really Cares appeared first on Law Street.

Gay marriage is now legal in the majority of American states. The Supreme Court declined to take on cases in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin in which lower courts struck down the gay marriage ban. Given that the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and West Virginia fall under the purview of the same appeals courts, gay marriage essentially has been legalized there as well.

Most Americans now live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal http://t.co/7XbvlUuirz pic.twitter.com/DPbAoZUf5T

— Conrad Hackett (@conradhackett) October 6, 2014

The speed with which the legalization of same-sex marriage has spread through the United States is nothing short of remarkable. The first state to legalize gay marriage was Massachusetts in 2004. Back then, it was pretty much revolutionary. The Defense of Marriage Act still existed, states were voting to ban same-sex marriage by droves, and sodomy laws had only just been struck down.

In just ten years the trajectory has changed dramatically. In 2004, less than a third of the American population supported legalizing same-sex marriage, now a clear majority does.

With the opinion on gay marriage shifting so dramatically, it’s easy to wonder what role the debate will play in the 2016 election. Will it even be a topic of conversation? Or is this a done deal — states are going to continue to legalize same-sex marriage, probably slowly, until we get to the point where same-sex couples can marry no matter where they are in the United States. Ten years ago, Massachusetts was almost revolutionary, now the practice is common place. In another ten years, will prohibiting gay marriage seem as archaic as the ban on interracial marriage?

Those questions, especially what will happen in 2016, are difficult to answer. There’s a chance that it will still be a topic of conversation, after all, GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz had a strong reaction to the news of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. He took issue with the court, saying:

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislature.

Ted Cruz essentially said that it should be to the voters to decide whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. He won the straw poll at the Values Voters Summit, held in Washington D.C. just a few weeks ago. The Values Voter Summit this year apparently focused heavily on anti-Muslim and anti-ISIS rhetoric, but there was still some LGBT-rights bashing as well. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was present, and it worked hard to try to convince attendees that the fight against same-sex marriage was by no means over. And some of the speakers did wax poetic about traditional marriage — Rick Santorum, for example, made an appearance.

But the question is, is the Values Voter Summit still representative of a large chunk of the Republican Party? And that’s not just a question that I, as an observer, am trying to answer. It seems to be a question that the Republican Party itself is having difficulty with.

The Republican Party is in a tough place — an issue that it’s worked on for a very long time is no longer really an issue. While it’s tough to tell whether or not the Party will still put any focus on the issue in the 2016 elections, it’s a choice that it is going to have to make for itself. But as more states move toward legalizing gay marriage and more Americans show their support, it will be a difficult choice to make.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Same-Sex Marriage Legal in Most States: What Does the GOP Do Now? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s officially October, which means that next month is election month, which means that shit is officially getting weird! Now, the Republican party has in recent years had a hard time connecting with a few groups of voters — namely women, young people, and minorities. In response, they’ve tried to switch some things up, and I do applaud them for that. But they might want to refine their plan a little more, because some of these ads created by Republican groups have just been plain weird. Without further ado, here are the three Republican ads I’ve seen in the past few weeks that have made me scratch my head.

Republicans are People Too

I don’t even fully count this one as any sort of political ad, but rather a…Public Service Announcement?

This spot is literally just a reminder to be nicer to Republicans. Which is nice I guess, but I feel like if the Republican party is at the point where it needs to remind potential voters that it’s composed of humans, the phrase “losing battle” may apply. The group that posted this video on YouTube was called “Republicans are People Too” and posted it with the disclosure:

It seems like it’s okay to say mean things about someone just because they’re Republican. That isn’t right. Before you write another mean post about Republicans, remember Republicans are people, too.

In a super awkward turn of events, it turns out that the “Republicans” in the video are actually stock photos. Which means I’m left with some terribly pressing question: do real Republicans actually use Macs???

Overall, this spot was a nice attempt at creating polite political discourse, but it came across a bit odd and sort of like aliens trying to communicate after observing Earth for just a few weeks.

Break up With Barack Obama

Americans for Shared Prosperity released this weird and creepy exercise in sexism a couple weeks ago.

First of all, why does he have to be her boyfriend? The message is perfectly fine! This spot is saying that she doesn’t like Obama anymore because he’s been bad for foreign policy and the economy and those are incredibly valid arguments! Why does it have to be framed like he’s an abusive boyfriend? It’s just distracting from the actual point of the ad!

To be fair, this isn’t a new tactic, during the 2012 elections, Lena Dunham starred in a weird Obama ad that compared voting for the first time to losing your virginity, and it was similarly weird and creepy.

I get that it’s supposed to be provocative or go viral or something, but it’s just weird. Also it makes it seem like you shouldn’t vote if you aren’t 100 percent sure about a candidate, which is not how democracy works.

But I digress. According to the head of Americans for Shared Prosperity, John Jordan, the goal of the ad was “to communicate with women voters in a way that outside groups and campaigns haven’t. The purpose of this is to treat women voters more like adults.” With all due respect Mr. Jordan, if you’d like to treat me like an adult, talk to me about the issues. Don’t make a creepy ad pretending that the president is my abusive boyfriend.

Say Yes to the Candidate

This ad is hands down my favorite, though. Similar to the ad above, it tries to relate to young female voters through something we can understand — DRESSES!!! Created by the College Republican National Committee for use by Rick Scott in the Florida gubernatorial race, it creates a metaphor between the candidates and dresses, say yes to the dress style.

Gag.

This is the one that has hit the news over the last few days, but the CRNC also made others for tough races, with just different candidates/facts inserted in.

There’s a big disconnect here with these three ads. The first tries to convince me that I need to realize that the Republican Party has a ton of diversity, but the next two try to target me, as a young woman, with apparently the only two things I’m interested in and can understand — boys and pretty dresses.

It is genuinely good that the Republican Party has realized that it needs to do something to win over the type of voters who have traditionally not voted for them. I hope it ends up leading to higher levels of discourse, compromise, and understanding. But these kind of ads are not the way to do it.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan Heaney via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republicans May Be ‘People Too,’ But They Sure Make Narrowminded Ads appeared first on Law Street.

You guys, I’m getting really fed up with the GOP.

This week, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to block the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill aimed at closing the gender wage gap.

It would have encouraged salary transparency among employees, protected workers who share salary information with one another, imposed more serious penalties for pay discrimination, and required employers to prove that any existing wage gaps are in place for reasons other than gender.

Basically, the Paycheck Fairness Act is exactly what it sounds like — a bill that seeks fair paychecks for everyone, regardless of gender.

You’d think that’d be a pretty standard, reasonable goal: pay everyone fairly based on the work that they do, not on the genitals they have! Easy enough, right? Well, apparently not. Because this is the fourth time that Republicans have blocked it.

It’s a pretty counter-intuitive move, considering that just a few weeks ago, the Republican National Committee claimed that, “All Republicans support equal pay.” It appears that these Senate Republicans are voting against the official party line.

This #LaborDay, the White House & Democrats believe paying women less than men is an acceptable practice. pic.twitter.com/AhCYH5RGgR

— RNC (@GOP) September 1, 2014

Not to mention, earlier this month, Politico leaked that the GOP was sorely lacking in support from single women, and would be targeting the Beyoncé-voters’ bloc come election season. Senate Republicans didn’t seem to get that memo, since their actions this week are only further alienating the key voting demographic they need to win over.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a direct response to the realities of gender discrimination in the workplace — women earn an average of 77 cents to a man’s dollar. That statistic hasn’t changed in a decade. And while it’s true that it’s a fairly complex number, determined by a variety of factors, it’s still very real that the average female worker earns less than her male counterparts.

And Republicans are voting to keep it that way.

Women are paid less than men from the minute they enter the workforce right through to the moment they get promoted to the executive corner office. There are a ton of factors that go into the wage gap — industry, tenure, marital status, and education level, just to name a few — but women are getting paid less no matter which of these variables get thrown into the mix.

Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act would send a clear message that the federal government cares about women in the workforce. This bill would not only take real steps toward closing the pay gap between men and women, it would also communicate that female workers are valued. The way they’re treated, and how much they’re paid, matters.

But Republicans are voting to hang on to current practices, like salary secrecy, that work to keep women’s paychecks smaller and their professional contributions undervalued. Why? According to the Senators, they worry that the bill would cause employers to stop hiring female employees, fearful of discrimination lawsuits. They’ve also argued that the wage gap is exaggerated and that women are already protected from discrimination enough.

So basically, the Republican Senators who blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act on Monday night are sending a number of shitbag messages:

They’re dismissing the very real problem of pay discrimination, invalidating the experiences of women who are forced to support themselves on inadequate wages simply because they have vaginas.

They’re telling the world that women are not valuable workers, and that it’s perfectly acceptable for women to work just as hard as — if not harder than — their male counterparts, and get paid less.

They’re upholding a hostile, sexist culture in which, apparently, if employers are expected to treat their female workers in a non-discriminatory manner, they simply won’t hire female workers at all.

And finally, they’re sending a crystal clear message to women across the nation that the GOP does not take our priorities seriously. Instead, they’ll tell us our problems don’t exist, our concerns are invalid and unnecessary, and then vote in favor of policies that harm us.

The RNC’s Twitter account claims to be in support of equal pay for women, but actions speak louder than words.

You’re not fooling anyone, conserva-turds.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of  [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The GOP Blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act AGAIN appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, folks! We’ve finally made it through the week. Phew! It’s been a long one, am I right?

Unfortunately, women in Missouri aren’t feeling much relief today. Legislators in the Midwestern state enacted a bill on Wednesday that mandates a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion. There are no exceptions to this rule, even in cases of rape or incest.

So, unless you are about to literally die as a result of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong, if you want an abortion in Missouri, you’ll have to wait it out through a mandatory, three-day “reflection period.” The bill becomes effective in 30 days.

Folks, this bill is extremely problematic for a bunch of reasons.

First, there are the practical ones. Requiring a standard medical procedure to span over a number of days places a real logistical burden on women seeking abortions. Since there’s only one abortion clinic left in the state, accessing abortion services is already super difficult. Many have to travel long distances to reach this single, lonely clinic — a trip that requires a steep financial investment of gas money, wear and tear on your car, and probably a day off from work.

And that’s all before you can even get the actual abortion, which will cost you money, since a number of restrictions on Obamacare and public employee coverage mean it’s pretty unlikely that your insurance will pay for it.

Now, multiply all that hassle by three. Thanks to this bill, not only do Missouri women have to go through all this mess, they also have to take multiple days off from work and book a hotel room.

Oh! And to top off this logistical disaster, that three-day waiting period? You have to go through counseling sessions before it can even begin. They’re specifically designed to misinform women about abortions, and are meant to discourage patients from going through with the procedure — so add another day to that hotel bill, ladies.

The problems with this bill don’t stop there, however. Aside from the practical issues it will cause Missouri women looking to access safe abortion services, it also wreaks a certain level of psychic havoc.

Forcing women to undergo a reflection period to reflect upon a decision they’ve already thought about and made is incredibly condescending, demeaning, and paternalistic. If you’ve traveled 100 miles to get this procedure done — the average distance a patient at St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood will travel to receive an abortion — you’ve already made your decision.

You’ve thought this through.

Abortion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, and guess who knows that better than anyone else? WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ABORTIONS.

Imagine these women were seeking different kinds of medical procedures. A cystectomy, for example, or a colonoscopy. How absurd would it be for someone — aside from her doctor — to step in and tell her to hold on, she’d better think this through?

It would be ridiculous. But the Republican lawmakers of Missouri have decided not to treat abortions like what they are — standard medical procedures — and instead, to separate them out into a special circumstance where women cease to be independent, intelligent adults, capable of making their own decisions. Apparently, when abortions are on the table, the women of Missouri are to be treated like ignorant, irresponsible children.

Now, it’s important to note that this bill didn’t pass easily. When it was introduced earlier this year, Democrats and women’s rights activists protested it, and Governor Jay Nixon even vetoed it. But this week, Republican legislators voted to override the veto, then cut off a Democratic filibuster to force a new vote.

In other words, Missouri Republicans really, REALLY care about forcing women who need abortions to undergo 72 hours of physical, mental, and financial hardship before they’ll be allowed to receive medical care.

Why, exactly, is the GOP so concerned about women’s reproductive systems? The past few years have been filled to the brim with cases of Republican lawmakers restricting women’s access to safe, affordable birth control and abortion services.

New research points to the idea that conservatives believe that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex. A recent study that surveyed Americans on their views about promiscuity found that people who think casual sex is wrong, also believe that women need a man to financially support them.

So, basically, a woman who’s totally independent, both financially and sexually, is a really foreign and potentially threatening concept to many conservative folks. As a result, they’re trying to reign in our ability to have consequence-free sex — which any man can do, by the way, with a quick stop at a local convenience store.

And in Missouri, they’re doing a damn good job.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re looking for a weird political race to follow during the 2014 elections, I have a suggestion for you: Kansas. There are actually multiple weird political races to watch there, so get ready to keep your eyes focused on the Sunflower State come November.

It’s important to point out that Kansas is a solidly red state. So red in fact, that until fairly recently, it was pretty much assumed that a Republican was going to win both the gubernatorial and senatorial races. Let’s face it, the last Democratic Senator from Kansas was a man named George McGill, who stopped serving in 1939. But the assumed Republican domination isn’t looking so certain now.

Let’s start with the current Senate race, because there’s been a lot of news there in the last 24 hours. Up to this point in the race there have been three candidates: current Republican Senator Pat Roberts, Democratic challenger Chad Taylor, and Independent Greg Orman. Pat Roberts is pretty conservative — socially, economically, and diplomatically. He’s also not that popular. He’s been a Senator from Kansas for three terms now, and has been accused of being out of touch with the average voter. He doesn’t even have a residence in the state anymore. He narrowly defeated a primary challenge from a tea partier named Milton Wolf, and after that primary he had an approval rating of 27 percent. He also hasn’t been running a very good campaign, probably because he’s never really needed to before. In 2008, he beat his Democratic challenger by more than 20 points; in 2002 he had no Democrat challenger and won with 82 percent of the vote. Through his three terms in the Senate, and three in the House of Representatives, he’s never won an election by less than 60 percent.

But now, things are getting weird. Taylor has been faring surprisingly well. The real standout start though, is Orman. He’s a good candidate — moderate, pro-business, and he’s been running a solid campaign. He has a real shot to win this race. Taylor even announced yesterday that he was stepping down, which watchers assumed would up Orman’s chances even more, given that Democratic voters are way more likely to rally around him than Roberts.

Complicated and weird enough for you, yet? Well I hope not, because there’s more fun ahead. The Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach has said that Taylor can’t remove himself from the ballot. He claimed that after reviewing Taylor’s request, his team had not found “sufficient evidence” to show that Taylor would be incapable of serving the duties of the office. This is good news for Roberts — now the liberal vote will remain split between Taylor and Orman.

So, the Democrats are suing the Republicans to get the Democrat off the ballot in order to give the Independent candidate a good chance. Yes, it’s as complicated as it sounds. And that right there is the state of politics in Kansas right now.

In comparison, Kansas’s weird gubernatorial race seems almost calm. Here’s a great in-depth look into what’s happening, but long story short, a Democrat named Paul Davis is doing pretty well against Tea Party-backed uber-conservative Sam Brownback. He’s wildly unpopular, and Davis is capitalizing on the Republican split between Tea Party and establishment. He’s received the endorsement of many prominent Republicans in the state who don’t want to see Brownback receive another term and damage the Republican reputation even more.

Only one thing is certain: Kansas will definitely be fun to watch this November.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Ganann via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kansas’ Topsy-Turvy Election Year appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Back to School, folks!

While I was traveling around Canada last month, all of you were clearly partying up your last few weeks of summer, right? RIGHT? I hope so, because law school is now officially back in session.

And you know what that means!

You need me back in the saddle to keep you informed about all the racist, sexist, homophobic legal bullshit that’s going on! (Also, to give you lots of procrastination material. Let’s be real.)

So! Let’s talk about the Republicans and women, shall we?

This is going to be good.

Now that President Obama is getting depressingly close to being a lame duck, all the politicians are really starting to get antsy about the 2016 election. Candidates are being tapped, strategies are being thought out, and groundwork is being laid to win over the decisive voting blocs.

For the Republicans, a key point of concern is the Beyoncé Voters. All the single ladies — and even plenty of the not-so-single ladies — are seriously skeptical of conservatives these days. According to a recent GOP report leaked by Politico, 49 percent of women hold a negative view of the Republican Party. It bluntly reported that women believe Republican policies to be misaligned with their own priorities and to be lacking in compassion and understanding.

As a result, the ladies are taking their votes elsewhere. And for good reason. Women aren’t wrong when they say that conservative politicians aren’t acting in their best interest. Republican policies advocate restricted access to birth control, virtually no access to safe abortion services, the continued entrenchment of rape culture and domestic violence, as well as a hearty LOL at equal pay.

So nope — we’re not voting for policies that take away our bodily autonomy, restrict our access to safe and affordable healthcare, leave us vulnerable to violence, and also make us poorer.

Goodness, what a mystery that more of us aren’t voting for you, conserva-turds!

Well, apparently, Republicans have solved the mystery, and are rolling out a new initiative to win the vaginal vote in 2016.

Are you ready for it?

They’re going to calmly explain to us little ladies that we’ve been mistaken this whole time — the Republican Party really is acting in our best interest — and now that we’ve cleared that whole mess up, won’t you please vote for us, darlin’?

They aren’t going to actually change any of their policies. They aren’t going to actually do anything different AT ALL.

The big, awesome, Republican strategy is to tell women that they know us better than we know ourselves, expect us to laugh good naturedly at our silly, womanly inability to understand the complex, crazy world of politics, and agreeably hand over our votes, glad to have been educated about our own feminine ineptitude.

What exactly will this episode of mansplaining look like? Republicans are going to attack the Democratic claim that their policies are unfair to women — without interrogating or changing those policies, mind you — and every time abortion comes up, they’ll change the subject as quickly as possible.

Conservatives seem to genuinely think this is a good plan.

R.R. Reno, an editor for the conservative journal First Things, wrote a completely serious, non-satirical essay about just how this plan would work in practice.

In it, he creates a fictional woman to use as an example of all the women who are mistakenly eschewing Republican policies. She’s a single, 35-year-old consultant, living in the suburbs of Chicago, “who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

Translation: She’s a misinformed damsel in distress who presumably owns about 12 cats.

Apparently, this woman is in favor of social safety net-type Democratic policies — not because she believes that all people should have access to a baseline quality of life — but because she has no man to provide for her, which is clearly TERRIFYING. She dislikes Republican policies that take away her bodily autonomy and expect her to lead a traditional life of wife and motherhood NOT because they’re sexist and terrible and render her, legally, as a quasi-human/permanent child, but because “she wants to get married and feels vulnerable because she isn’t and vulnerable because she’s not confident she can.”

So basically, all the women who aren’t voting Republican are in serious need of the D. And according to Reno, conservatives can and will deliver it.

He goes on to theorize that our fictitious cat lady should support Republican policies because a pro-marriage culture will increase her likelihood of getting married, therefore increasing her overall happiness. All we have to do is explain that to her! And then she’ll vote for us! Yay! Problem solved!

What Reno, and his conservative compatriots, fail to realize, is that women aren’t voting Democrat because of their inability to legally bind themselves to a penis.

We’re voting Democrat because we want to have control over our own bodies, our own reproductive systems, and our own lives. We want to be able to support ourselves. We want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence.

Also, they’re clearly forgetting that some of us don’t even like the D. (Fellow clam divers, I see you.)

So, Republicans, I totally applaud your strategy for locking down the vaginal vote in 2016. It’s a really great idea.

Because you’re buying Hillary a one-way ticket to the Oval Office.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D appeared first on Law Street.

Speaker of the House John Boehner invoked the great American cliché in a memo to Congressional Republicans stating his intention to file suit against President Obama: “At various points in our history when the Executive Branch has attempted to claim for itself the ability to make law, the Legislative Branch has responded, and it is only through such responses that the balance of power envisioned by the Framers has been maintained.”

Ah, the Framers of the United States of America! Indeed, Boehner evoked those immaculate men who fought British tyranny to allow life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to flourish in the New World. But Boehner’s argument here, his basis for why there should be a suit filed against Obama, is rooted in a concoction of confused irony. Try to hold in the tears, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, which Framer is he talking about? They aren’t some amorphous blob of white men sharing the same principles and goals. Is he evoking the anti-monarchical, anti-tryannical sentiments of Thomas Jefferson? It would be ironic if one of the most complex, self-contradictory politicians in American history was being evoked as the epitome of some simpler, small-government United States with a backseat executive. Jefferson unilaterally orchestrated massive projects without being checked by the legislature. From the Louisiana Purchase to war with the Barbary states, the republican champion expanded executive authority greatly. Talk about inconsistency, after all this is the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves!

I feel like we forget about that sometimes.

So which Framer is being referred to with regard to a checked executive branch? Maybe it was George Washington or John Adams. Setting aside that both presidents wore ceremonial swords to their inaugurations, Washington established the presidency as a dominant part of the government while Adams threw people in jail for disparaging him. Was Boehner talking about Alexander Hamilton? Hamilton thought that the greatest man to ever live was Julius Caesar and as a result, frequently pushed for greater unilateral power in government outside of the hands of the people. So maybe not.

The point is not that these American founders were all overreaching tyrants, but that they were a diverse group of brilliant and complicated individuals who each had differing visions of the ideal government. Further, each had his own set of competing ideas. Referencing “the Framers” as an entity from which America must never stray is a mistake. Jefferson never wanted posterity to idolize him and his colleagues. Moreover, he was so aware of the Constitution’s imperfection that he recommended it be redrafted regularly. Indeed, many of our founders acknowledged flaws in the government that they created.

This is why it is ironic that “the Framers” are constantly brought up as symbols of American perfection, especially in the way they were used by Boehner. We cannot point to “the balance of power envisioned by the Framers” because no single thing can possibly encapsulate all the different visions of all the different people. It should be noted that many are to blame for putting the Framers on a pedestal this way. I’m calling out Boehner because this is such a high-profile case. And because he’s orange.

But why does it matter? Couldn’t I let this one go and chalk it up to tradition and patriotism? No! It’s actually unpatriotic to characterize the American founders with a singular, idealistic label. It flies in the face of American tradition to ignore the diverse thoughts, ideas, and motives with which our founders wrestled during the creation of our country. When those who claim to stand by the patriotism of the United States become obsessed by an idealization of “the Framers,” their claims are unsubstantiated and their efforts counterproductive.

I could comment more on Boehner’s possible suit against the president, but I just see it as yet another nuisance for Obama that remains insignificant in the long run. Instead, what is most heinous to me is the embrace of a false idea of who our founders were and what they stood for. This is a phenomenon that transcends partisan and demographic lines, plus if I hear someone say “the Framers” one more time I might resort to drastic measures.

Okay maybe not that drastic.

The danger in this Framer obsession hints at the division that plagues our country. By painting all of our founders with one broad brush, we choose to look past the challenges and differences that they overcame to bring America into existence. We choose to praise a dogmatism that never was instead of appreciating the debates that made us who we are. If we remove the compromise and problem-solving from the glory of the American Revolution, we will continue to be mired in polarization and political stagnation today. Didn’t see that coming, did you? ‘Merica.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Founding Fathers Obsession appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor is the last Jewish Republican in Congress, but he was just beaten in the primary by Tea Party candidate Dave Brat. As a result, some Jews (and some Goys) have been schvitzing over the lack of Jewish representation in the GOP. Minority representation in the Republican party is one concern, regardless of how disingenuous that concern is among Republicans. Another concern that carries some actual weight in the GOP is that American relations with Israel could be strained. The discussion is posed as though Cantor himself is some sort firewall between American support of and disregard for Israel. While I am Jewish and I do care about Israel, I know that Jerusalem isn’t going to be affected by Cantor being gone. At all.

First, the Republican party is going to be just as pro-Israel as it was before. According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of Republicans already sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine. Among conservative Republicans, the statistic is even higher at 75 percent. Only seven percent of the GOP would support Palestine over Israel, while the rest said “neither” (nine percent) or “both” (16 percent). Republicans have their reasons for supporting Israel. Well, they have the one reason: the Muslim Middle East is still a bad thing in the eyes of Republicans; as recently as the last midterm election, Pew revealed how Republicans were one of three main groups to view Islam “unfavorably.” The other two groups were the elderly and less-educated people.

It’s not like the GOP is trying to support a demographic in their constituent base. Again, a Pew study shows the political leanings of different Jewish denominations. Only Orthodox Jews have a majority that identifies with the Republican party. All others identify as or at least lean Democratic: Conservative Jews at 64 percent, Reform Jews at 77 percent, and no denomination at 75 percent. On the whole, 70 percent of Jews favor Democrats. Republicans will continue to support Israel fiercely, not because Jews support the GOP, but because of the state’s position as a counterweight against the Muslim Middle East.

When considering the president’s stance, it’s even more evident that Israel’s fate won’t be affected by Cantor’s defeat. In a piece from Bloomberg, Jeffery Goldberg writes about an interview he conducted with Obama. ” Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy…Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I’ve ever heard him.” The president’s policies on Israeli-relations, as detailed by Goldberg, seem to be some of his strongest and most balanced policies ever. Obama is quoted saying, “I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and…has an opportunity also to take advantage of a potential realignment of interests in the region, as many of the Arab countries see a common threat in Iran.” It’s a mitzvah we have someone in office who can deal with the complexities of an alliance, and not be sorry about being straight with our friends.

Constructively criticizing one another is an essential part of friendship. And what does pro-Israel mean, anyway? In the long run, would the state be better off struggling with its own Arab citizens and belligerent neighbors? Or, isn’t it more likely that Israel’s future will be secure if Jerusalem negotiates with Palestinians? The difference between being a mensch and a shmendrick here isn’t about dogmatism and hostility toward Palestine. Being powerful and pro-Israel means looking down the road and understanding that a peaceful compromise is the greatest possible outcome. It would be enough if we had a president who even acknowledged this, but Obama and Kerry have been actively seeking this goal, too. Dayenu, am I right?

With Cantor gone, no, there won’t be any Congressional Republican Jews. But between the conservative funding of everyone’s least favorite chosen person Sheldon Adelson,a Republican party that’s consistently defensive of Israel, and a president who may be taking the most level-headed approach to the matter in U.S. history, our relationship with Jerusalem will remain solid. We’ll remain the shmeer to their bagel, they the capers to our lox. Still, it’s amazing to me that people care so much about the lack of Jews in the Republican party when it seems as though the Republican party cares so little about Jews. The conservative pro-Israel stance is based on defining Jews against the rest of the Middle East. Should I kvetch that American political parties actually bring Jews into the national conversation? Maybe not. But it may be less insulting to ignore Jews than to use us as a means to end. 

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg via Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cantor Defeated in Primary, Israel Will Be Just Fine appeared first on Law Street.

You know what I find hilarious? Incompetence. Seriously, it’s one of my favorite things. Especially when it’s political incompetence. Although to be fair, I probably only find it funny because it keeps me from getting too depressed over the current state of American politics. Are y’all curious as to what my favorite political incompetence moment was this week? Well, it was the incident where Virginia Republicans bribed a Democratic state senator by offering jobs to him and his daughter. By doing so, they gained a majority in the Virginia State Senate. Getting that majority may mean that the attempted Medicaid expansion that Gov. Terry McAuliffe has been working on will be derailed. Confused? Me too. There’s a lot going on here. This issue has a bunch of layers. More specifically, a bunch of layers of incompetence. Let’s break them down.

The Incompetence of Phillip “Sure I’ll Accept a Bribe” Puckett

Let’s work from the inside out. In this case, this first layer of incompetence involves now-resigned Senator Phillip “sure I’ll accept a bribe” Puckett. A Democrat from southwestern Virginia’s Russell County, Puckett received an interesting offer from members of the Virginia GOP. According to inside sources, Puckett was in consideration for a job as Deputy Director of the State Tobacco Commission and his daughter has been waiting around to be confirmed to a federal judgeship. The deal, allegedly, was that they would finally get approved if Puckett resigned. So…he resigned.

Although much-deserved backlash has led to Puckett’s announcement that he won’t be seeking the Tobacco Commission job, it seems that his daughter will get her appointment after all. And the Republicans will get what they wanted — Democrats won’t control the Virginia Senate, which likely means that Medicaid expansion in the state is dead. If this is all true, which it seems to be, I have just a few words for Puckett.

Sounds about right. Because if Puckett did take a bribe to leave his elected position as a state senator, he is a selfish bastard. People elected him based on his beliefs. And when you’re elected by the people…well then you work for the people. That means those voters are counting on you. That means that you probably shouldn’t let them down over your own selfish desires. If you wanted a job that you could leave without letting people down, you probably shouldn’t have become a public servant. Maybe Puckett left for some other reason; it does happen. But it’s still a crap move. Because at the end of the day he let down people who count on him.

And on the issue of Medicaid expansion, there were a ton of people who desperately could have used his help. As the Washington Post pointed out, there are about 3,000 of his constituents who have no health insurance. People who could have had their lives changed by Medicaid expansion. Puckett owes every single one of them a damn apology.

The Incompetence of the Virginia GOP

This award goes to the Republicans who bribed him — although incompetence is probably not the right word, because their plan did actually work. Instead, let’s call it nastiness. This is not our political process. Our political process relies on everyone going out and voting. And then after we’ve voted we have elected officials, and hypothetically we’re done there. We do this cool thing where we get to vote them out if we want to, we just need to let them serve out the term first. In some places, we can even recall our elected officials.

You know what we can’t do? Be giant babies and bribe them. I mean I guess we can, because Virginia Republicans just did. But we shouldn’t. It’s cheap, it’s obnoxious, it’s immature. And guess what? It’s also wrong.

The Incompetence of Everyone Who Doesn’t Value Compromise

And that brings me to our last layer of incompetence. It’s a big one. A huge one, actually. Because it’s all of us.

Yup, you. All of you. And me too, if we’re being fair. Without sounding prematurely ancient here, I remember growing up when compromise was a good thing. In school we learned how to compromise to end fights between friends. At home, I learned how to compromise with my parents so we all got what we wanted. And I remember a time when the word “compromise” wasn’t a synonym for evil when used in a political context the way it is now.

We disagree over Medicaid expansion, OK. While I have my own personal feelings about the issue, I recognize that there is a valid argument to be made for the opposing side. But this would all be a hell of a lot easier if we didn’t assume that our politicians can get exactly what they promised us. Because they can’t. They can’t stick to their guns so concretely that compromise becomes impossible. As we learned this week, when that happens you get crap like Puckett accepting a bribe.

So yeah, these layers of incompetence include us too. Let’s reclaim the word “compromise.” Let’s make sure this is the last time we facilitate an environment in which a bribe is a real possibility. Because otherwise, our elected officials will try this again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Torbakhopper via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post VA Senator Accepts Bribe & Sells Out Constituents, Incompetence Abounds appeared first on Law Street.

Thanks to petty politics, your local federal court may be lacking in the positions that it needs most to address citizens’ grievances: trial judges.

When it comes to federal court vacancies, the president has an obligation to respect senatorial courtesy, meaning that the president asks the senior senator of his political party to recommend a nominee for an open seat in the district court of his or her state. While this unwritten precedent usually does not extend to senators of the opposite political party, the president may also wish to consult senators of the other party so that their nomination is not blocked in the Senate, as senators have a de-facto power to veto nominees for a court in their home state.

However, many Republicans and even a few Democrats have begun a trend of failing to recommend nominees for vacancies on district court trial benches. These vacancies have significantly increased during Obama’s Presidency. By leaving seats in federal district courts unfilled, senators are undermining federal authority in the states. They are making a statement that demonstrates they would rather leave seats open than fill them with Obama’s appointees.

According to the Alliance for Justice, there are thirty-seven current vacancies and twenty-one future vacancies in federal courts around the country that currently have no nominees to fill these positions. The majority of these vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. And these seats have been open for quite some time. The most extreme example comes from Texas, where one vacancy has been left unfilled for 1,951 days.

There are so many reasons why this trend is troubling, but I’ll attempt to explain just a few:

It’s giving states less federal oversight, and it undermines the rule of law.

By leaving the positions open, senators are effectively limiting federal jurisdiction over states. A lack of enough judges on the bench means that judges cannot handle the amount of cases brought to the court, which slows down rulings and therefore curtails the extent of federal authority over the presiding cases in these states. And states that are more conservative and have more Republican senators are experiencing more of this restriction on federal oversight than Democratic states.

But this policy goes against the rule of law in the United States. Indeed, there are certain matters that can and should be brought to state courts if there is no federal law involved or at stake. However, there are many cases that require a suit to be brought to federal court, and the fact that senators are intentionally leaving open seats on the benches of federal courts goes against the rule of law. Courts need a certain amount of justices to operate, and withholding nominations unjustly limits the power of the federal judiciary. Additionally, there should not be an uneven balance of federal oversight among states. Red states must experience as much federal oversight as blue states, otherwise the level of independence from the federal government of the different states will be unequal.

It’s a prime example of partisan politics at its worst.

As previously said, the majority of federal court vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. Only eleven out of the total fifty-nine current and future vacancies with no nominees come from states with two Democratic senators. States with one Republican and one Democrat are having trouble coming to a consensus on a nominee. For example, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) had trouble working together to fill the eight open seats on Pennsylvania’s federal courts. The fact that political differences are now limiting the function of courts is concerning to the operation of government institutions.

Ultimately, it just hurts citizens.

When it comes down to it, the political move of leaving vacancies open hurts citizens and can deprive them of the right to receive speedy justice. Litigants will have wait for long periods of time before their case can be heard and ruled on. And some business is extremely important, such as immigration rulings. It is extremely unfair to keep citizens in limbo over cases that can impact their lives and futures.

While the senators who are neglecting to suggest nominates may feel they are protecting their states from federal judicial oversight, the reality is that they are actually failing to serve their constituents’ needs. They are depriving citizens of their right to court and failing to help them receive justice by blocking appointments. To many residents of the affected states, it doesn’t matter whether judicial appointments came from Bush or Obama; they simply need their cases to be heard. The vast amount of federal court vacancies shows the worst of how partisanship can negatively affect constituents.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part about this problem is that it won’t be solved unless citizens physically take action and rally outside court houses. Senators clearly need a reality check if they feel their methods are helping their constituents.

[The Atlantic] [Alliance for Justice] [Dallas News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Sorry, Citizens: Senators Won’t Fill Court Vacancies appeared first on Law Street.

The GOP has really struggled over the last few years with how to woo the young demographic. Voters between 18-29 overwhelmingly voted for Obama in the last two Presidential elections — 66 and 60 percent in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Pundits have done analysis after analysis into the GOP’s young voter problem, and the conclusion is that…many young voters just don’t like the GOP’s message.

So, the GOP has tried to reach out to those wayward young voters, despite this fact. And that effort has created some hilarious results. Here are the top five weirdest ways the GOP has tried to attract young people…and whether or not they’re any good.

Let’s start with the most recent:

5. GOP Hipster Ads

A couple days ago, the GOP released these two ads:

They feature your friendly neighborhood hipster who’s here to tell you why he’s a Republican! There have already been a few parodies released, and to be honest, before I inserted those clips I had to make sure that those weren’t, in fact, parodies. These ads will air on networks that young voters, minorities, and women (all groups the GOP doesn’t do well with) frequent, such as Bravo, Food, E!, Hall, HGTV, Life, LMN, Oxygen, OWN, TLC and We.

Ok so here’s the thing about these ads. They depict a white, 20-something male, who is complaining because a lot of his paycheck goes to filling up his gas tank. But he has a gas tank to fill up. He has a paycheck. He can afford to pay his heating bill. As a white male he has probably faced very little discrimination in his life. He’s doing way better than most millennials. The entire ad campaign comes off as entitled, whiny, and alarmingly fake.

And as Gawker points out, the gas policies that he supposedly thinks will make his gas cheaper would actually probably just make energy companies richer and have no affect on his gas.

4. The one time the GOP tried Crowdsourcing 

One thing that the Democratic Party has always been good at is rallying young people online. So the GOP jumped on the bandwagon and tried crowdsourcing — reaching out to the internet community for ideas. It was called “America Speaking Out.” And it went spectacularly badly.

The ASO site was glitchy and outdated. Despite Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) claim that he, “personally traveled to Washington state and discovered a Microsoft program that helped NASA map the moon,” the site looked like this, with a terrifying mix of fonts and interfaces:

Thanks, ThinkProgress!

The site was almost immediately trolled, because, really, it’s just too fun to mess with an attempt this bad.

A close runner up though, is this throwback:

Thank you for saving this, Tech Crunch.

3. When the Heritage Foundation tried to use Buzzfeed. 

I do give them some credit here. At least they chose a relevant medium, even though it was poorly done. This summer they created a list called, “That One Time I was Really, Really Excited About Obamacare: Until I Realized Everything I Thought About Obamacare was Totally Wrong.”

The entire list truly is a tutorial in contrived marketing, contains a heavy helping of blatant lies, and feels rather patronizing, but my personal favorite is this part:

“… and made the announcement on the 4th of July … WHO IS PAYING ATTENTION TO NEWS ON THE FOURTH OF JULY?!”

Really, Heritage Foundation? You had a list to make a dozen or so points about Obamacare and that’s one of the ones you chose? The 4th of July is Thursday. Sure, most people have it off work, but the news still exists. I still have access to my computer and TV and newspapers.

But really, guys, stop trying. This isn’t even a well done Buzzfeed list.

And speaking of badly done anti-Obamacare propaganda…

2. Remember this creepy Uncle Sam Ad?

Nothing attracts me to a political party like being incredibly creepy. Really, I want to be a part of the party that tells me some terrifying mascot/clown hybrid will soon be my OB-GYN.

On a more substantive note — we all realize what this ad is, right? It’s encouraging young people not to get health care. There’s no way around it. The message is don’t get your health insurance through Obamacare or you will be assaulted by “Uncle Sam.”

AHHHH!

And young Americans didn’t respond well. Pretty much everyone agreed that instead of getting the message across, the ad was just creepy and off-putting.

1. Make Abortion “Funny” 

This was a stated strategy of certain groups in the GOP, particularly in the youth wings. Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins stated at a conference last year, “You can engage with sarcasm, it’s hard with the abortion issue, but you have to. Unfortunately we have to, because this is the generation that we’ve been dealt.”

Abortion is a serious issue. It is a personal issue. It is by no means a thing that you joke about. Ever. This right here is so completely indicative of all the issues the GOP has with young people. They think that we care more about energy policies (like the hipster dude in the first ad) than being given autonomy over our bodies. They think we care more about sarcasm than respect. They think we can be bought with cheap taglines and shoddy listicles. Until they learn how wrong they are, I bet you that 2016 election results will be similar to 2008 and 2012.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr/Don DeBold/Klearchos Kapoutsis]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 5 Lamest Attempts by the GOP to Reach Young Voters appeared first on Law Street.

Hello loves! How many of you went to CPAC last week?

Hopefully none of you. But! A whole bunch of young people did — obviously as props to debunk the claim that the GOP is full of rich, white men. (I’m just kidding.) (Kind of not really.)

Anyway! As a result of this Millennial pilgrimage to the land of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, the NRCC took the opportunity to ask its youngins’ why they identified as conservatives. The results are laughable.

First of all — the most concrete piece of new information we’ve learned from this little exercise is that Republicans can’t count. While the NRCC claims to have asked 37 Millennials why they were fans of the Grand Old Party, there are 45 individuals pictured on their countdown. Likewise, the Independent Journal Review, which reposted the piece, claims 26 individuals in the headline, 37 individuals in the slug, and pictures only 33.

Learn your 1, 2, 3s here, people. What kind of nonsense is this?

No, we’re not giving you one more chance.

So, clearly, we’ve established that this little study is anything but scientific.  Also, not well produced. If the Republican question-askers and statisticians can’t even keep their numbers straight, shouldn’t your standard, run of the mill copy editor notice something’s up? You’d think so. You’d also be wrong.

Anyway, mathematical challenges aside, let’s let these young Republicans speak for themselves, shall we? Here are a few reasons why they’re counting themselves conservative this year.

That’s pretty vague. Courtesy of NRCC.org

Even vaguer. Courtesy of NRCC.org

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Really?

Am I the only one who’s noticing that something’s up here? None of these reasons are actually reasons. They’re just meaningless buzzwords.

You’re conservative because…taxes? Do you mean that you like how the Republican party has rigged the system so that gazillionaires and corporations get tax breaks, while YOU, lowly 20-something, are paying taxes through your nose? If that’s what you meant by, “I’m conservative because taxes,” then I guess you’re in the right place. A self-defeating one, mind you.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

And what about fiscal responsibility? These folks are on the tax train too — as in, they’d like to pay fewer of them. They’re all kinds of pissed off about having their tax dollars funneled into the social safety net, because no one wants to subsidize those lazy, mooching, poor people! The blasphemy!

I’m guessing they all have health insurance, and aren’t particularly worried about falling ill and going bankrupt. Also, they probably aren’t aware that the group who benefits most from the social safety net is, in fact, their grandparents.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Then, of course, there are the Jobby McJobersons, who are conservatives because jobs. I’m guessing they want more of them? If so, maybe they should be a little more specific about the kinds of jobs they’re looking for.

Because among job creators in the GOP, new positions typically don’t pay a living wage or include benefits. Take Walmart, for example. Owned by the Waltons, an incredibly rich and incredibly conservative family, it’s the single largest employer in the country. Its employees also hold food drives for each other, because they don’t actually make enough money to buy food themselves.

Walmart holding canned food drive for its own underpaid employees http://t.co/SkUrh7tP53 pic.twitter.com/h9ZmJHfekZ

— Scott Keyes (@smkeyes) November 18, 2013

I feel like those aren’t the kinds of jobs that’ll pay off your student loans, young CPAC attendees.

There were a few young people who were more thoughtful in their responses. Take this girl, for example, who’s being really clear about how much she’d like to preserve her privilege as a white, cis-gender, straight, Christian woman, at the expense of queers, people of color, and poor folks.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Then there’s this guy, who’s affiliated with the GOP because he’s disappointed in Obama’s performance as President. You know what, love? I totally agree with you. Obama hasn’t been able to create the hope and change he promised. A huge factor in that, though, is the unwillingness of Republicans to cooperate with him on literally anything.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Now, I’m all for listening to young Republicans as the reflect on and explain why they identify as conservatives. But that’s not what’s happening here. These 20-somethings aren’t reflecting on much, and they aren’t explaining anything at all. They’re mindlessly spewing one-word, canned talking points.

And that’s not helping anybody. You need to improve your communication skills here, CPAC’ers! You should take a lesson from these awesome people, who are fabulous at explaining their political alignment. Notice how they all use full sentences and complete thoughts.

PS – Handsome person in the top right corner, give me a call sometime, mmkay? Courtesy of Tumblr.com

So, young Republicans, do me a favor. Get your fucking acts together. Think more critically about why you identify as conservative, and give us more than the same tired, one-word answers a million people used before you. You don’t need to understand a damn thing about life or politics to write “Jobs” on a piece of paper.

And we need you to understand things. Because you’re pretty close to taking over this show yourselves.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Young Conservatives Actually Have No Clue Why They’re Conservative appeared first on Law Street.

A new bill placed on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s desk had me looking at the calendar to make sure we’re still living in 2014. On Monday, February 24, 2014 the Arizona State Legislature passed a bill that would allow companies to deny services to gays and others on ‘religious grounds’. Other Arizonians, despite their conservatism, spoke out against the measure, and various groups lobbied the governor to veto the bill. Both of Arizona’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, tweeted that they hoped Brewer would veto the measure. Thankfully, the veto came on Wednesday, February 26.

It seems unusual for an executive to veto legislation coming from a legislature dominated by their  own party. Arizona’s government is dominated by the GOP, both in the state legislature as well in the governor’s office. However, this was no ordinary bill: in fact, even some of the original supporters and drafters were having second thoughts about the potential consequences of the radical legislation. They noted that the bill’s final product was not what they originally intended and believed that its passage would cause the state “immeasurable harm.” 

Here are three reasons why it is important that Brewer vetoed the bill: 

1. It’s just bad business.

If the law passed, Arizona could have lost out on bringing new business and capital to the state. Representatives from Apple and American Airlines, two major companies that planned to build new operations in Arizona, wrote to Brewer to express deep concern about the bill’s effects and stated that they would relocate their new facilities elsewhere. And there was potential for many more companies to react the same way. 

Governor Brewer’s state had already experienced economic backlash due to the implementation of another controversial policy. After the state passed its notorious immigration law in 2010, Arizona’s economy lost about $140 million in business and tourism revenue. Moreover, the state is slated to host next year’s Superbowl, but the NFL has already publicly criticized the bill and could potentially threaten relocation of the game. Again, this wouldn’t be the first time — Arizona lost its ability to host the 1993 Superbowl because it failed to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. day as a national holiday. Both of these experiences showed Brewer the economic danger of passing controversial legislation.

2. The bill misinterpreted religious freedom.

Supporters of the bill, SB-1062, argued that it was intended to better protect religious freedom. Doug Napier, an attorney representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, commented after the veto: “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.” However, the grounds on which the legislation’s supporters argued that the bill enhanced personal religious freedom are not supported. If enacted into law, the bill would have changed Arizona’s religious exercise clause to allow citizens and businesses to refuse services to a specific group of people.

The drafters of the bill incorrectly applied the notion of freedom of religion. The First Amendment states that freedom of religion is guaranteed to all Americans to freely practice their beliefs without persecution or discrimination. What freedom of religion was not intended for, however, was the imposition of one’s religious beliefs on another. It is understood that practitioners of some religions may oppose homosexuality due to the teachings of their faith, but that does not mean that services can be denied to gay Americans because of someone’s religious beliefs. The fact that someone identifies as anything other than heterosexual should not impact someone else’s practice of religion, and therefore to say that freedom of religion supports the Arizona bill is simply wrong.

3. And of course, the bill was highly discriminatory toward gay Americans.

If signed into law, SB-1062 would have allowed gay Americans and others to be denied services just because of who they are. These people would have been discriminated against because of their personal identities — something that cannot be changed. It is no different than denying someone services because of his or her race or ethnicity. In fact, the bill would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that states cannot limit the rights and privileges of American citizens. The bill would have limited the rights and privileges of gay Americans, and thus would have inflicted discrimination on a group of citizens in Arizona.

Because Brewer vetoed the bill, citizens in Arizona will not be forced to comply with the discriminatory law. However, the fact that the legislature passed it in the first place is deeply troubling. 

[New York Times] [Bloomberg] [NBC] [CNN] [FJC]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mel Green via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Brewer’s Choice: Why the Veto Was the Only Option appeared first on Law Street.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is facing criticism for comments he made during a speech on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting. Ironically, the former Arkansas Governor was discussing how Republicans need to increase their efforts to attract women voters when he stated, “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.”

There was instant outrage as soon as Huckabee finished delivering his speech. The Democratic National Committee was quick to jump at the chance to attack the Republican Party for Huckabee’s words. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that Huckabee’s comment “sounds offensive.” And a storm of tweets related to the subject were issued after the speech, including this one from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Even 100 years ago, it would have been hard to imagine a man making a statement as ridiculous as what Mr. Huckabee said today.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) January 23, 2014

What is not important about his statement is the fact that his comments have been easily misconstrued to mean that women can’t control their sexual urges. Though it may have seemed that Huckabee said women have uncontrollable libidos, the former Governor actually meant something else entirely. Reading into the context of the quotation, Huckabee was really discussing that, in his view, Democrats are using the ‘war on women’ to portray women as needing the government’s help to manage their reproductive systems.

However, the actual meaning of Huckabee’s comment is what is truly disconcerting for the three reasons:

1. Huckabee believes that women don’t need the government’s aid with respect to their reproductive health.

Due to a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, women are now able to get their prescribed FDA-approved contraceptives without co-payment. This measure is huge for lower income women who, prior to the passage of the legislation, couldn’t fit the payment for contraceptives into their already tight budgets. If the federal government did not mandate that contraceptives be free to women through their insurance,  many women would not be able to gain access to birth control.  Thus, it is very concerning that Huckabee’s statement suggests woman do not need the government to step in to protect their reproductive rights.

2. The comment echos the common misconception that birth control is only for preventing pregnancy.

Huckabee’s statement draws further evidence to the fact that many have the wrong idea about birth control. Contraceptives are not solely used to prevent unplanned pregnancies while engaging in sexual activity (though it is extremely important that woman have access to birth control to control what happens in their own bodies).  Birth control is prescribed to many women for a variety of reasons. In response to Huckabee’s speech, Planned Parenthood released a statement noting that birth control “helps women plan their pregnancies and manage their lives, and many women use it for a variety of other medical reasons, including treatment of endometriosis that can lead to infertility.”  In addition to treating endometriosis, there are many other uses for birth control, including regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle, relieving menstrual pain, and clearing acne. In addition, according to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of women surveyed who use a contraceptive use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thus contraceptives are not merely used for preventing pregnancy but for a multitude of other important issues related to women’s health.

3. Huckabee’s statement exposes his own hypocrisy with regard to government law on contraceptive coverage.

By claiming that the government should stay out of contraceptive coverage for women, Mike Huckabee ignores his own past as Governor of Arkansas. Bill Scher of Campaign for America’s Future noted that in 2005, Huckabee signed into law a measure that required Arkansas insurance plans to include coverage of birth control and other kinds of contraception. And Huckabee was not the only Republican supporting mandated contraceptive coverage for insurance. Five other GOP governors were responsible for signing similar bills into law, and George W. Bush never challenged federal mandates on contraception during his presidency. However, as soon as birth control became a partisan issue, Republicans were quick to move away from supporting state-mandated contraceptive coverage. If Huckabee believes that government should not sponsor birth control coverage, he should not stop at blaming only Democrats, but should also include his own past actions and those of other Republicans.

What is certain about Huckabee’s statement is that it won’t help the Republican party gain an influx of female voters. From this comment to Todd Akin’s infamous ‘legitimate rape’ gaffe, there are so many instances that prove Republicans are failing to properly address and understand women’s issues.  And while Huckabee’s comment has been misinterpreted as being more offensive than what he actual meant, perhaps the former Governor should have taken time to ensure his words would be clear before making a public speech that would be covered extensively by the media. Moreover, in bringing up the issue of women’s reproductive rights in an attempt to gain political clout for his party, Huckabee demonstrates that politicians are still politicizing an issue that needn’t be controversial at all: the right for women to control their own choices.

[Washington Post] [Twitter] [CBS News] [Guttmacher] [Campaign for America’s Future] [LA Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Nozell via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post What Is and Isn’t Important About Huckabee’s ‘Libido’ Comment appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014.

This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless.

During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Basically, she just made it that much harder for women across the country to access birth control.

Not your finest moment, Justice Sotomayor. Courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway source via Wikipedia.

Here’s how it went down. As of December 30, 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control. So, basically, if you get health insurance on your day job’s dime, you legally cannot be prevented from using it to snag some birth control pills. Awesome.

But! As always, some folks were pretty pissed off about this. Namely, Christian folks. A whole slew of Christian-values nonprofits and businesses objected to this piece of the ACA, claiming it infringed on their religious freedom. The logic here, is that if Christian values include not supporting contraception or abortion, a Christian employer shouldn’t have to subsidize those services for its employees.

Fair enough, churchgoers. The government can’t force you to support — financially or otherwise — actions that are forbidden by your religion. That’s what religious freedom is all about, right? Getting to practice your faith freely, without anyone telling you it’s not allowed?

Yes! Absolutely. But, there’s another side to the freedom of religion coin. While the government can’t prevent anyone from freely practicing their faith, it also can’t push any particular faith on its citizens. So, while the government can’t stop Catholics from attending church on Sundays, it also can’t force Jews to celebrate Christmas. The street runs both ways.

And this is where things get tricky. While Christian organizations have a fair point — being legally forced to subsidize contraception if they’re religiously opposed to it is majorly problematic — they’re also forgetting the other side of the coin. They’re right in asserting that they can’t be forced to do anything that interferes with their religious beliefs, but they can’t, in turn, force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

And that’s the tragic flaw in their anti-Obamacare logic. If Christian businesses were given their way — and allowed to forego contraceptive coverage for their employees — they would be forcing workers to live by a set of Christian standards, unless they paid a steep price tag. What happens when the employees of a Christian company aren’t Christian themselves? What happens when they’re Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist? Can those employees be forced to live by Christian values?

Absolutely not. Now you’re infringing on their religious freedom.

And here lies the central problem. Forcing Christian businesses to pay for contraceptive coverage might be infringing on their religious freedom — but allowing them to not pay for it might infringe on workers’ religious freedom.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

But! As per a compromise cooked up by the Department of Health and Human Services, there seemed to be a solution. Under this plan, Christian companies and nonprofits had to sign a form stating their religious affiliation, and instead of paying for contraceptive coverage themselves, the insurers paid for it, and were reimbursed.

Yay solutions!

Awesome! Way to use your problem solving skills, people. This way, religiously opposed employers don’t have to pay for contraception, but employees can still access those services if they choose.

But, this wasn’t good enough for many a Christian employer. Signing a form was, apparently, too much to ask. So lawsuits poured in. And Justice Sotomayor was sympathetic.

So, with the hourglass running down on 2013, she signed a mandate preventing this piece of the law being enforced. What does that mean? Religious employers can deny workers contraceptive coverage. For folks working at Christian institutions, birth control will only be an option if they can afford to pay a whole ton of money out of pocket. Which really means, birth control won’t be an option at all.

The Obama administration has until tomorrow to respond. From there, we’ll all just have to wait around for the Supreme Court to make a final decision sometime this summer, after it’s had a chance to sift through all of the case filings. And, mind you, things aren’t looking too good on that front, considering this problem was brought about by one of the most feministy of Justices. If Sotomayor is making it hard for women to access birth control, who the fuck is going to make it any easier?

We’re looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The tricky business of religious freedom has been a constant roadblock for women and feminism. What do you think about this latest Obamacare battle?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Parenting Patch via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year’s Eve, lovelies!

Folks, I can’t wrap my head around this 2014 business. I literally feel like 2013 didn’t happen. A year has never passed so quickly in my entire life. (Don’t I say that every year? Whatever.) Anyway! In honor of this super awesome day — a day that marks fresh starts, new beginnings, and exciting adventures — I thought we should talk about resolutions.

That’s right. New Year’s Resolutions. And not those bullshit ones about losing weight and juicing half your food and spending more time on Skype with your long distance friends. No one ever sticks to those. I’m talking about some resolutions we can really believe in, à la Miranda Hobbes.

Buzzfeed did a fabulous post last week about how the red-headed attorney  was the most empowering of the four Sex and the City characters, and I’d have to agree. If she was a real person, I’m pretty sure she’d be a fan of The F Word, am I right?

So! Without further ado, let’s be more like Miranda this year, mmkay?

Resolution #1: Don’t be afraid to tell someone to fuck off. Ever. Embrace that power gladly.

HBO / Via loveforlabels.eu

Miranda may have been the queen of no-fuss breakups, but this resolution doesn’t just apply to romantic relationships. Republican douchebags preventing you from accessing a safe abortion? Tell ’em to go fuck themselves. Obamacare failing to provide you with real health insurance? Tell ’em to fuck that. Say it loud and say it proud, folks. Because that’s the only way we’re going to make anything better.

Resolution #2: Fuck up the patriarchy and its traditional gender roles.

Thanks HBO!

Loves, Miranda may have been a totally femme straight lady, but she rocked a suit and tie like nobody’s business. She also earned more money than any of her boyfriends, failed to romanticize marriage and motherhood, and even embraced a lesbian identity (albeit, a fake one) in order to make partner at her law firm.

Remember when Miranda bought that ginormous apartment all by herself? Or when she told all of her friends to STFU about their man problems and focus the conversation on something more substantive?

Miranda subverted all the patriarchal expectations surrounding gender — namely, that women should be quiet, submissive, and dependent on a man. And you know what? She was fucking awesome at it.

Let’s resolve to be equally awesome at toppling the patriarchy.

Resolution #3: Don’t apologize for your sexuality.

HBO / Via tumblr.com

Anybody remember the scene we’re referencing here? It’s epic.

Miranda’s been going through a dry spell, and one day, as she’s walking down the street, a group of rowdy construction workers starts catcalling her. Like any good feminist, Miranda got pissed about the street harassment that follows women fucking everywhere. But, she took a unique and super badass approach to handling it. She walked right up to her catcallers and asked them if they were actually interested in fucking her. Because she was horny, and had no time for silly games. Be prepared to make good on your offer — or STFU.

Not surprisingly, her harassers were totally intimidated and basically tried to curl up into little balls and disappear right there in the middle of the street. What can we learn from Miranda here? Don’t be ashamed of your sexuality. Know your needs and seek to have them met, unapologetically. Get it, grrrl.

Resolution #4: Don’t second guess yourself. Call bullshit when you see it — and stand up for yourself.

HBO / Via tumblr.com

While the three other ladies of SATC bitched about how to keep a man, Miranda told them how it is, plain and simple. As a feminine presenting person, you’re often expected to metaphorically — and sometimes, literally — bow down to your partner if you want your relationship to stay intact.

Well, loves, Miranda says fuck that. And I do too.

Let’s all resolve to stay empowered as individuals this year. Let’s be the best people we can be, independently. And if somebody doesn’t like that — whether it’s your partner, your boss, your professor, or the entire Republican party — fuck ’em. Life’s too short.

See folks? Isn’t Miranda awesome? I told you.

Are you with me on these resolutions for 2014? What would you add to the list? Blow it up in the comments!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [John Gilbert Leavitt via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Year’s Resolution: Fuck Shit Up with Miranda Hobbes appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks! You’re almost there. Breathe with me. Friday’s coming.

In the meantime, let’s get to our biweekly session of bitching about the GOP, shall we? Today, we’re talking about school lunches. And poor kids. And how Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia is a gigantic asshole.

Here’s what happened. Across the nation, kids from families whose income levels are below 130 percent of the poverty line can receive free school lunches. Kids from families with income levels between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for reduced lunch prices. This is news to no one.

Trust me on this. My awesome wife teaches in Newark, one of the poorest cities in New Jersey. Literally all of the kids at her school get free lunch. Free lunch for low income kids is nothing new.

Said no one.

Anyway! Rep. Kingston decided to make news out of something that’s not new — a common talent for many GOP rainmakers. This week, he went on the record saying that poor kids should NOT get free lunch — oh no! The blasphemy!

Instead, he made the following suggestions:

“Why don’t we have the kids pay a dime, pay a nickel to instill in them that there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch? Or maybe sweep the floor of the cafeteria — and yes, I understand that that would be an administrative problem, and I understand that it would probably lose you money. But think what we would gain as a society in getting people — getting the myth out of their head that there is such a thing as a free lunch.”

Oh my gosh I CAN’T. I cannot. What are you doing, Rep. Kingston? Really.

Friends is on my level today.

Let’s start with the first and most obvious issue with your solution to a non-problem: children are not possessors of money. They don’t work. That’s what being a child means. So, really, they all get free lunches. Every single one of them. Even the richest of rich kids are getting a free lunch. Because it’s not their money that paid for it. It’s their parents’ money.

Take me for example. I was a solidly middle-class child. My parents, being the health nuts that they are, were not big fans of the idea of me eating mystery meat in my elementary school cafeteria. So, every day, they dutifully packed me a brown bag lunch. I got a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole wheat bread and a handful of cookies, virtually every single day. For me, that lunch was free.

I didn’t pay for it. I didn’t even know that food cost money. Or that when my parents went to work, they were paid in money. I kind of just thought working was a thing that grownups had to do — the same way kids had to go to school — and all of the other stuff like food and housing was just magically bestowed upon people who followed the rules.

Baby me did not understand how much this leather jacket probably cost my big sister.

Clearly, I was a naïve child.

But! There was a kernel of truth in my naivety. For me, food really didn’t cost money. It just appeared in my brown bag every day, as if by magic. Nowadays, as a precariously middle-class adult who has to purchase food before it lands in my brown bag (I’m still packing a whole wheat PB&J for work, I’ll admit it), I’m fully aware that food was free when I was a kid.

I’m even more aware of it when my now gray-haired parents take me out for lunch.

My reaction whenever my parents invite me out to dinner.

Anyway! All children get free lunch. They aren’t working the night-shift to pay for their sandwiches. So, your argument is already inherently flawed, Rep. Kingston.

Moving right along. What is this obsession with punishing poor people for being poor? Seriously. The GOP is fixated on it. When you suggest forcing children to sweep the floors in order to earn their lunch, you’re talking about child labor. That’s bad enough, but when you’re only suggesting the poor kids participate, you’re talking about a caste system.

You’re talking about a world where rich kids learn early on that only certain people sweep floors. Namely, not them. You’re teaching them that someone else will always clean up after them. Someone else will always have to beg for their scraps.

Then, you wind up with kids like this boy, who killed 4 people because of pathological rich kid syndrome.

And, you’re teaching the poor kids that they’re the ones who need to beg for those scraps. Because of the social standing of their family — which they have zero control over — poor kids will understand themselves to be inherently less than. That’s a traumatic and debilitating lesson to learn at such a formative age.

Finally, there’s the looming issue at hand — the solution that Rep. Kingston is obviously hinting at, but isn’t explicitly articulating.

He’s saying that it would be better if these kids didn’t get a free school lunch at all. If we HAVE to give it to them, at least make them work for it, he’s saying. But really, his best case scenario is equally expensive lunches for all.

Folks, this is a classic case of a Republican who lacks empathy. It’s an alarmingly common quality among headline-making GOP’ers.

Where my wife teaches, all of the students qualify for free lunch. Every single one of them. These kids are poor. They don’t have the luxury to grow up naïve like I did. They know food costs money because they don’t have any of it. As in, neither food nor money.

For many of her kids, lunch is the only meal they eat. They hardly eat at all on weekends. Why? Because they’re poor. They can’t afford food. And the little food they do have at home, they give to their baby brothers and sisters.

My wife’s students are good kids. They’re smart and loving and talented, and hysterically funny. And they deserve to fucking eat.

So, Rep. Kingston? Shut the fuck up.

Stop talking about child labor, and a (not really) new caste system, and the idea that poor kids shouldn’t be fed lunch on the school’s dime. Stop talking out of your ass, and start feeding some children.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Philippe Put via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP to Hungry Kids: You Don’t Work Hard Enough appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon, folks! Are you ready for the weekend? I am. I’ll be organizing a march on Rush Limbaugh’s recording studio. Everyone who participates has to wear eyes over their boobs!

Anyway! Rush isn’t the only conservative doofus who has no idea how to relate to women. Apparently, a senior House Republican strategist is training the GOP on how to talk to women voters. It isn’t going well.

The unnamed strategist doesn’t seem to be hopping on the, “Tell your breasts to stop staring at my eyes!” bandwagon. Yay! But he is advising conservative, non-uterus laden politicians to be more sensitive. Yup. Apparently the gender gap in pro-GOP votes is because women have too many feelings. Cue the tiny violins.

This senior strategist, who’s remaining anonymous — probably because his strategy is terrible — is urging his trainees to refer to themselves as husbands and fathers. He’s advising them to make blanket, disapproving statements about rape. And he’s telling them to connect with women on an emotional level.

So, basically, he’s telling Republican politicians that women are a big glob of emotional basket cases, making hysterical, irrational decisions not to vote for them. Appeal to those sobbing nut jobs! Win back those votes!

Are you kidding me?

You’re all idiots.

This guy is probably the worst strategist on the planet. Which isn’t really a bad thing, because less votes for the Republicans! Yay! But seriously, what is going on here?

First of all, if you’re trying to appeal to a group of people by first assuming that they’re crazy, you’re not going anywhere fast. People—not just women—respond well to positive reinforcement and respect. They don’t really appreciate being treated like loony tunes. It’s condescending, insulting, and all around not fun.

So, if you want women to like you, maybe start by assuming that they’re smart? Capable of sound decisionmaking? Worthy of respect? These are the kinds of assumptions that lead to positive interactions between people—and in the Republican case—more votes.

Second, the conservative assumption that women are too sensitive to vote correctly isn’t just patronizing. It’s downright sexist. The image of the emotionally unstable woman is a gendered stereotype as old and tired as you feel after a night of super fun debauchery.

But actually. Ever heard of hysteria? It used to be a common medical diagnosis. Women would be deemed “hysterical” if they were plagued by excessive emotions. And, conveniently, since the cause of illness was a disturbance of the womb, only women could be hysterical.

So, basically, a man consumed with violent rage is just angry. But a woman in the same state is physically and mentally ill. Great! Just drop me off at the nearest insane asylum, would you dear?

Anyway! This whole “women are hysterical” crap is seriously old. Like, YAWN you’re so unoriginal I’m actually being bored back to sleep, kind of old. It’s 2013, people. Can’t you at least get a little creative with your gross and depressing sexism?

Apparently not. Appealing to women’s emotions is the foundation of the new Republican strategy to snag lady voters. And guess what? Not only does it prove that the Right still hasn’t managed to stop being sexist—it also shows that they can’t manage to come up with any new and creative solutions to old problems. Probably not the most qualified people to be running a country, am I right?

NOPE.

Finally, and perhaps most amusingly, the anonymous Republican strategist is advising his trainees to identify themselves first and foremost as husbands and fathers, and to broadly denounce rape. (You know it’s bad when you have to explain that rape is not something to be taken lightly.)

This shit cracks me up. For ages, women have been identified and valued primarily because of their relationships to other people. A woman is always someone’s wife, mother, sister, or daughter first. Is she also a business executive? A writer? A surgeon? Much less important. That comes second.

And that’s irritating as fuck! Women should be valued on their own terms, as individuals with societal contributions to make—not just as caretakers and companions. But no one’s telling the Republicans that. No conservatives are looking to subvert the sexism that assumes women are most useful when they’re behind the scenes. Nope. Instead, they’ve just decided to half-assedly stoop to a woman’s level on the campaign trail. Identify as a father first, a Congressman second. Meanwhile, we all know who’s more likely to be at home, potty training that father’s children. (Hint: Not him.)

So, ladies, the next time you want your elected official to vote against abortion restrictions, food stamp cuts, or affordable healthcare, start crying. Throw a tantrum. Get hysterical. Accuse your legislator of being insensitive.

Because apparently they’re being trained to respond to that.

–

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hermann Kaser via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Should Vote Republican Because You’re a Basket Case appeared first on Law Street.

Happy almost Friday, folks! This week is almost over. THANK GOODNESS. Coming back after a holiday is rough, am I right?

If you have a uterus and you live in Michigan, your week has been especially rough. Shit is getting REAL over there in the Mid-West. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes State are currently debating a bill that would require women to buy rape insurance.

That’s right. Rape insurance.

I tell you, this shit just gets more ridiculous every week I write about it. It’s actually insane.

Here’s how it’s going down. Lawmakers in Michigan don’t want health insurance to cover abortion. Why? They’re not fans of a woman’s right to choose, and so, while they can’t completely outlaw abortion, they can use insurance technicalities to restrict women’s options.

What happens when insurance doesn’t cover abortions? Women either have babies that they don’t want or are unable to carry, or they pay a hefty price to terminate. Obviously, not ideal. So! While Wolverine legislators were batting around this nifty little bill, the same question came up that always comes up when we start talking about restricting women’s access to abortions.

“But what about cases of rape and incest?!” Because, empathy. For like, five seconds.

The legislators of Michigan had an answer ready and waiting. Make women buy additional insurance to cover the possibility of needing an abortion in the future.

This little tidbit prompted Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to veto the bill last year when it was first introduced. He wasn’t too keen on legislation that required women to pay for abortions out of pocket, unless of course, they had paid extra for that separate insurance rider. “I don’t believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage,” Snyder said when he rejected the bill last winter.

Well, duh. Obviously.

That would be like telling a man who had a heart attack that he couldn’t have life-saving surgery, because he didn’t plan ahead and book an operating room beforehand. Or like telling a cancer patient that she can’t receive treatment because she hadn’t reserved a chemo supply ahead of time. Plan ahead, people, be prepared! For all of the possible things that could happen to you ever! (Because that’s possible.)

Folks, let’s get one thing straight. No one plans to get an abortion. Needing one is definitely not a desirable situation to be in. Really, abortions are a last resort. An emergency measure, taken after something has unintentionally gone wrong. Maybe she got raped. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she forgot to take her birth control pill that day. Maybe she just discovered that the baby won’t survive the pregnancy or infanthood.

Whatever the situation, abortions are last ditch efforts to rectify a bad situation that wasn’t planned for. So asking women to plan for unplanned emergencies — and be monetarily penalized either way — makes absolutely no sense.

It’s about as logical as this guy.

But, alas, the anti-choicers think it does make sense, and they’ve got a rage-inducing argument as to why that is. One prominent advocate of the bill claimed that rape is like a car accident, and it was totally fine to make women pay for extra insurance in order to prepare for it.

This is so incredibly gross on so many levels.

First of all, we’re comparing women’s bodies to cars right now. To cars. Inanimate objects that can be damaged, fixed, or replaced. One car is much like another—it gets you from A to B. Women’s bodies are not like cars. They are not replaceable. Their value doesn’t depreciate after a traumatic event. They are not interchangeable. They are not for you to use.

Actually, women’s bodies are attached to living, breathing, human beings. They happen to have vaginas. But they also have lives, passions, emotions, and agency. And when you liken their bodies being raped to a car being crashed, you ignore the human involved in the trauma. You assume she’s an object, instead of a subject.

Stop that right now.

Second of all, expecting women to prepare themselves for rape is absurd and cruel.

Preparation assumes the inevitable. You prepare for a car accident—if we’re going to follow through with this terrible example—because being involved in one, someday, is more or less inevitable. People are stupid. Let a bunch of idiots operate heavy machinery near each other, and things are bound to go wrong eventually. Better prepare yourself for the asshole who forgot to use his blinker and caused a pileup on the freeway.

But rape? That shouldn’t be inevitable. Rape doesn’t happen because of human error. Rape isn’t something that idiots do. Rape happens when one person makes a conscious decision to violate another person. Consent isn’t given. Accidents aren’t made. This isn’t an “oops I didn’t mean to get sexually violent with you, my bad,” kind of situation.

Not at all.

When we treat rape like it is inevitable, we give rapists a free pass. We’re sending them the message that, hey, you’re only human! People make mistakes. No big deal. But it is a big deal. And it wasn’t a mistake. This isn’t like forgetting to use your blinker, or running a red light. This is violence and coercion. And there’s always another option.

So, to all the anti-choicers of Michigan, I have a question for you: If a man was shot, and he had to pay out of pocket to have the bullet removed because he hadn’t planned ahead with elective murder insurance, how would you feel about that?

Probably like this kid.

Not so good, I’m guessing. Because it’s ridiculous to ask a man to prepare himself for the possibility that one day, he might be a homicide victim. No one expects to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence.

So stop asking women to do the same. We don’t need to prepare for our impending rape. We shouldn’t be waiting expectantly, insurance policy in hand, to be the victims of sexual violence. And we sure as hell aren’t cool with legislators putting a price tag on our uteruses.

So, stop it, OK? Just stop it.

Stop restricting our access to safe abortions. Stop legislating our bodies. Stop objectifying us. And stop being so cavalier when it comes to rape.

Do you think the GOP can handle that, folks? Discuss!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LADIES: Michigan Says You Need Rape Insurance appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter has become one of the easiest ways to provide snippets of information to the public. Celebrities, writers, and of course, politicians, can accrue followers to spread their messages. But not everyone is as twitter-savvy as they could be. In fact, some politicians have tweeted some pretty embarrassing, stupid, and ridiculous things. So….(drumroll please!)

Thank you, dog!

Let’s countdown some of the biggest political Twitter mistakes, gaffes, ridiculous statements, and abuses of 2013!

10. Rep Tom Latham’s inability to understand satire

The tweet in question:

Thanks Politiwoops, for archiving this!

The backstory: A few weeks ago, The Daily Currant published an article claiming that MSNBC pundit Chris Hayes was sickened by Veteran’s Day. Tom Latham retweeted the link, and posted about it on Facebook, stating he was sickened by the statements that Chris Hayes didn’t actually make. The problem? The Daily Currant is a satirical news outlet, much like The Onion.

Now, Latham did take down the post very quickly, but still, someone on his staff should have thought to point out that he was getting mad over a fake news story. Fact checking, guys. It really isn’t that hard.

9. Ari Fleischer publicly admitting he’s kind of a huge jerk 

The tweet in question:

Courtesy: PublicShaming

The backstory: Alright, you caught me, Ari Fleischer isn’t actually a politician, but I couldn’t pass this one up. He is a former White House Press Secretary though, so he counts. In this tweet from January of 2013, he referenced the fiscal cliff deal reached in Congress on January 1, 2013. In that deal, tax deductions for individuals donating to charities would be limited. But, it’s important to note that it would only apply to individuals making $250,000 or more, yearly. If Mr. Fleischer was worried about this change to tax breaks applying to him, he’s clearly doing relatively well. So, for him to choose to withhold money from charities because it either a) wouldn’t benefit him as much or b) because it made a political point, was pretty awful. The fact that Fleischer happily tweeted this fact for all the world to see?

Downright despicable.

8. Rep Juan Vargas’s really really bad typo 

The tweet in question:

Thanks again, PolitiWoops!

The backstory: We all make typos, and autocorrect has brought down even the most text-savvy among us. But this is very, very bad. What’s worse is that neither he nor his staff noticed this god awful typo for 8 weeks. That’s right, this tweet remained on Rep Vargas’s twitter for 2 months.

7. TN State Rep. Frank Niceley just lying to constituents on Twitter

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Everyone threw blame around during the shutdown. But most of it came from pundits and commentators, not elected officials themselves. Using the hashtag #harryreidsshutdown was pretty disingenuous, and it’s safe to say that this was simply not polite political rhetoric.

Play nice, Frank Niceley. Otherwise your name will be misleading.

Politicians are supposed to provide information to their constitutions and fight for their interests, not mock each other.

6. David Cameron proves it’s not just American politicians who are embarrassing on Twitter

The tweet in question: Well, it’s not really a tweet, it’s more something that happened on Twitter. David Cameron, the current UK Prime Minister, followed an escort agency on Twitter on November 20th. This is what Carlton of London’s Twitter looked like a few weeks ago.

The backstory: Ok, this one isn’t actually that embarrassing. It turns out this is an older Twitter account set up during the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown’s time in office. This account is barely used today. But it auto follows back anyone who follows it. So, a bunch of spam accounts have a Twitter follower that reads as “UK Prime Minister.” Even if this isn’t the PM’s team’s doing, they should have really taken care of these old accounts a long, long time ago.

Pretty embarrassing, right, Hedgehog?

5. Steve King meets “DREAMers”, tweets his fear

The tweet in question:

Shout out to Public Shaming!

The backstory: A group of “Dreamers,” or young, undocumented immigrants who have usually been successful in the US, visited Steve King’s DC office. They didn’t invade. They walked in to voice their concerns, as they have the right to do. I highly doubt Steve King actually felt unsafe, and if he did, it’s because he’s a racist neanderthal who does things like compare these “Dreamers” to drug mules.

I need to take a quick eye-roll timeout.

4. Jeb Bush doesn’t do his research 

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Apparently, there’s some crazy rumor going around that the US is closing its embassy in Vatican City. It’s not true. Completely not true. It’s being moved into a new compound with the Italian Embassy in Rome, but they will still have separate offices and staff. The Vatican Embassy will even have it’s own entrance. And it will actually be located .1 miles closer to the Holy See. I got all of this information by tapping top secret wires, of course.

I’m only half this coordinated.

I’m kidding. I got it through a google search. Which was apparently not something Jeb Bush thought to do before tweeting this information.

3. GOP’s “racism has ended” flub

The tweet in question:

The backstory: I would write some snarky response to the RNC’s claim that racism has ended, but the good people of the internet have already done it for me! The hashtag #RacismEndedWhen started trending and some truly inspired responses were born:

Check out this compilation, courtesy of BuzzFeed.

2. Speaking of Racism, Obama Advisor tweets N-Word 

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Dan Pfeiffer, a senior advisor to President Obama, was tweeting back and forth with New York Times journalist Jonathan Martin regarding an article about the shutdown.

Apparently he meant to say “bigger” but had a very unfortunate typo. Another Journalist, Lachlan Markay caught the error and immediately retweeted it, despite Pfeiffer’s attempts to delete it. Pfeiffer had tweeted it from his official White House account. Again, we all make typos. But if you’re going to be tweeting from your official White House Twitter handle, it really is important to double, triple, and quadruple check what you’re saying.

1. Rep. Steve Stockman thinks babies should be given guns

The tweet in question:

Public Shaming caught this one.

The backstory: There’s a lot of terrifying implications about this tweet. First, it implies that Rep. Steve Stockman thinks that women who have abortions should be shot. This comes from Stockman’s campaign Twitter, meaning that he wants people who might vote for him to know this. This is horrifyingly violent rhetoric. Rep. Stockman, put down the computer, please.  

It’s time to stop for the day.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Pete Souze via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Biggest Political Twitter Mishaps, Gaffes, and Weird Statements of 2013 appeared first on Law Street.

How was your weekend, loves? Mine was fabulous!

But Obamacare’s weekend was kind of rough.

On Sunday, The Daily Kos reported that the frustrating, glitchy, failure-face of a website that is Healthcare.gov is such a mess, in part, because of coordinated conservative hackattacks.

That’s right. You heard me correctly.

Conservatives are hacking into Healthcare.gov to prevent it from working correctly.

Specifically, hackers have been launching DDoS attacks—an acronym that stands for Distributed Denial of Service—against the site, which function to make a network unavailable to users.

Sound familiar? I think so! How many gazillions of stories have you heard about uninsured, Obamacare-enthused folks getting kicked off the site, denied access to sign up for their government-sponsored health benefits?

Probably a lot.

These cons are SERIOUSLY getting on my nerves.

And that’s not all. In addition to these hackattacks—which are being launched with a tool called “Destroy Obama Care,” no joke—conservative lawmakers are encouraging insurance companies to fraudulently screw over their customers, and blame Obamacare for the ridiculousness.

For example, in Florida, douchebag extraordinaire Governor Rick Scott required insurance companies to blame Obamacare for any canceled plans, even if their reasons for canceling those plans had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Obamacare.

Lie, he said. It will be profitable, he said.

But actually. Because let’s be real here. Insurance companies make a lot of money for doing very, very little. They make healthcare prohibitively expensive. They’ve made medicine less about saving lives, and more about making money.

I mean really. The U.S. is the only country in the world where Breaking Bad makes any goddamn sense.