The U.S. Senate race for Virginia is set after Corey Stewart beat out Nick Freitas for the Republican nomination. Jose Montoya reports.
elections
Rauner Ought to Beware Ives in March
Calling incumbent Illinois Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner a “failed governor,” conservative State Rep. Jeanne Ives says she cannot leave the GOP field to a man who broke countless promises and ended up doing the bidding of the Chiacgo Democrats.
Ives, a West Point graduate and U.S. Army veteran, was first elected to the Illinois House of Representatives in 2012. The GOP primary in Illinois is March 20.
Rauner was elected in 2014 on a platform of reforming government in Illinois and seriously addressing the state’s looming fiscal crisis. Instead, he is branded now by National Review as the worst Republican governor in America, after raising taxes instead of cutting them, signing a bill that forbids law enforcement from checking the immigration status of people they stop, and enacting taxpayer-funded abortion in the state.
“Let’s be clear. Gov. Rauner is a failed governor. He’s specifically a failed Republican governor, which is why I’m challenging him,” said Ives.
She says one issue in particular triggered her primary challenge.
“The tipping point really became when he signed taxpayer funding of abortion, because that’s the point at which I started to get calls from colleagues and other Republicans around the state saying, ‘We do not want him to run unopposed. We need someone else to stand up for us,'” said Ives.
Rauner tries to downplay the abortion bill by saying he’s pro-choice but the party is a big tent and he has supported pro-life candidates in the past. Ives says all Republicans in Springfield, regardless of their position on abortion, were appalled by Rauner’s actions.
“No Republican, even Republicans who consider themselves pro-choice in our legislature, none of us signed on for taxpayer funding of abortion. None of us did. He told us he was going to veto that bill and then did not and decided to sign it anyway, based on his wife being very pro-choice and based on his own propensity of being pro-choice,” said Ives.
“He enacted with that bill the economic agenda and the social agenda of the Chicago Democrats, rather than a Republican conservative reform agenda,” added Ives.
In addition to the moral revulsion of Rauner’s support for the abortion legislation, Ives says the governor saddled Illinois taxpayers with another massive tax bill.
“He lied to us. He betrayed who we are as Republicans and he put in a brand new entitlement program in a state that it literally bankrupt. Nobody does that,” said Ives.
Rauner also took a lot of heat from the right for failing to stop Democrats from pushing new tax increases into law when the state’s budget hung in limbo last year. The governor said people need to realize he does not run Illinois and that Democratic House Speaker Mike Madigan is actually more powerful than he is.
Ives finds that excuse revolting.
“He needs to resign over that comment, quite frankly. The idea that the governor says, ‘I’m not in charge.’ Are you kidding me? It just tells you where he is in terms of his fight and his stance. That’s just nonsense,” said Ives.
Democrats do enjoy large majorities in the state legislature, including a 67-51 margin in the state house and a 37-22 edge in the state senate. However, Ives says Rauner needed to do more to get Democrats to join him in doing the things he promised in 2014.
“There’s much you can do in terms of turning the state around and getting the buy-in from the legislators to do that, and Gov. Rauner just didn’t do that. He picked a personal fight with our longtime serving Speaker of the House Mike Madigan, who does wield a lot of control. However, he didn’t build the coalitions that would make the bills possible for a turnaround,” said Ives.
So how would Ives be different?
“We’re just the worst-run state in the nation. We need to reverse course on nearly every policy. We need policy revolution and I’m ready to lead that revolt,” said Ives, who says she knows where she would start.
“We’ll go after public corruption. Corruption is an everyday event in the state of Illinois and it is something that the executive is charged to deal with, which is enforce our laws.
“We’re all about spending reform. Look, Illinois pensions are the worst in the nation and it’s crowding out all the other services we need to spend money on,” said Ives.
Ives says the pension bubble is a major problem at both the state and local levels, and old methods of kicking the can down the road won’t work anymore.
“Chicago’s got a huge, massive balloon payment due that’s going to nearly double its pension costs by 2023. That’s an extra billion dollars that they don’t have and can’t find because they’ve already raised taxes and fees to the hilt,” said Ives, who says Chicago pensions are only 20 percent funded.
Unlike Rauner, Ives says she’s ready to engage in talks with Democrats to fend off the crisis.
“We have a very powerful governorship, we just have a weak man in it. He didn’t want to take on the fights that needed to be taken on after a while and he just got beaten down. Time for new leadership. Time for someone who’s willing to win the conversation and actually do the work to lead this state,” said Ives.
She says that approach is the only hope for Illinois to stay solvent.
“We’ve had the worst job growth in the nation. We’ve had the worst income growth in the nation. We lead in out migration because our taxes are too high. I got involved in politics for economic reasons, so we’re going to focus in on the economic stuff,” she said.
If she can win the nomination, Ives would then run statewide in a deep blue state come November – most likely against billionaire J.B. Pritzker. So how would Ives convince voters with Democratic instincts to give her a chance.
“Most people think that J.B. Pritzker will be the Democratic nominee because he’s supported by Mike Madigan. I think that’s a losing ticket for Illinois. I think you’re going to have a lot of disaffected Democrats not vote for that ticket and instead look for a reformer, look for somebody who’s actually got a record of leading a revolt and speaking out on behalf of taxpayers and working across the aisle when the legislation is good,” said Ives.
First, however, Ives needs to knock off another another billionaire in Rauner. The battle is even more uphill with the state Republicans squarely in Rauner’s corner.
“They want to stick with Rauner because he’s got so much money that he can feed the rest of the legislative races. I think that’s all just a bunch of junk. It’s Gov. Rauner who cannot win in 2018. Nobody is going to re-elect him in 2018 and that’s a bipartisan feel,” said Ives.
Ives says the energy behind her campaign is palpable, as she acquired 16,000 petition signatures without spending any money. There are no recent polls of the race. One from several weeks ago shows Rauner up double figures but below 50 percent among Republicans. Ives believes the race is now neck-and-neck and thinks the trust issue will determine the nominee.
“He may have a lot of name ID but it’s negative and you cannot buy back trust after betrayal. Rauner has betrayed our party. His base is no longer with him. He can’t win in 2018, which is why Republicans deserve an alternative, and an alternative to hiring a plutocrat like Pritzker for the job too,” said Ives.
GOP Thrashed in Virginia, Dems Romp in NJ & NYC, Flake’s Redundant Gun Bill
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America break down how the Democrats easily swept the statewide races in Virginia and even reversed a huge GOP majority in the state assembly. They also discuss easy wins by Democrats in New Jersey and New York City, where the Republicans hardly appear to be a factor anymore. And they roll their eyes as Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake proposes a law to ban gun sales to people convicted of domestic violence – because that exact law already exists.
Dems Unveil Same Agenda, Trump Staff Rumors Swirl, Fury Over Phelps vs. Shark
Comey Pounds Press, Tory Gamble Gone Wrong, Bernie’s Anti-Christian Bias
David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America point out former FBI director James Comey’s evaluation of how untrustworthy much of the media was when reporting on Russia and the 2016 elections. They also discuss the major political disaster that befell British conservatives in the snap election Thursday, badly weakening the party and strengthening the position of the Labour Party’s far-left leader. And they decry Bernie Sanders’ blatant disregard for the 6th Amendment when questioning President Trump’s nominee for deputy budget director about his Christian beliefs.
‘All About Nothing’
Politicians and media are salivating over Wednesday’s Senate testimony from the top figures in the intelligence community and the opening testimony expected Thursday from former FBI Director James Comey concerning the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, but a former House intelligence committee chairman says so far nothing has really changed.
On Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein joined Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
While each of the men seemed reluctant to say there had been no prodding from the Trump administration on the Russia investigation, all of them rejected the idea that Trump or his team did anything inappropriate.
“In the three-plus years that I have been director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” said Adm. Rogers. “And to the best of my collection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”
Former House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra says that is the most important takeaway from Wednesday.
“What the senators did learn is exactly what they needed to learn, that the heads of these agencies and these departments did not feel any pressure at all from the president or from the White House to stop their investigations of what Russia did in the 2016 election, said Hoekstra, who served 18 years in the House. He is now chairman of Hoekstra Global Strategies.
He says those hoping for a room full of smoking guns came up empty.
“It really ended up being all about nothing. I think there were people expecting that they’d hear more about conversations between President Trump and some of these individuals who work with him and that there might have been a revelation that said they felt pressure from the president. Really, nothing materialized today,” said Hoekstra.
However, Hoekstra says he is glad to see strong bipartisan cooperation from the Senate committee, a process he says ought to bring confidence to the American people that the investigation is being handled responsibly.
That’s also what Hoekstra expects to materialize on Thursday, when the immensely hyped Comey testimony takes place before the same Senate committee. On Wednesday, the committee released Comey’s opening statement for Thursday.
Both parties are already seizing on different passages. Trump critics cite Comey’s contention that Trump demanded loyalty from Comey and repeatedly asked Comey to find a way to ease up on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
At the same time, Comey seems to confirm that Trump himself was never personally under investigation and that Trump’s comments to him, while awkward and possibly inappropriate, did not constitute obstruction of justice or any other crime.
In the end Hoekstra suspects few minds will be changed.
“What the American people will probably see as a result is that the talking heads, for the next 24-48 hours, will both claim victory and some justification for their points of view. Then we’ll get to next week and something else will take over the headlines,” said Hoekstra, who says investigators should then focus on where the evidence is screaming for them to go.
“(Special Counsel Robert) Mueller’s got to focus on what the original intent of this investigation was: the Russians. What did the Russians do, not what did Trump do or what did Hillary do, what did their teams do or anything. What did the Russians do? That’s where the focus will hopefully now move to,” said Hoekstra.
Hoekstra says the American people will be the ultimate judges on whether the Democrats take their accusations too far. He admits Republicans would be fiercely critical if Comey had ever suggested President Obama had asked for his loyalty or to go easy on a political ally.
Still, he says Republicans could do themselves a world of political good by actually doing what they promised to do, rather than letting the Russia story suck all the oxygen out of Washington.
“They’d like to have better roads, better bridges, more income, more jobs and those sorts of things. They’re sick and tired of Washington,” said Hoekstra, who says there’s not reason for the GOP not to plow ahead on its legislative agenda.
As for the ongoing intelligence probe, Hoekstra says we also need to dig deeper into reports of extensive Obama administration surveillance on American citizens.
“I think there should be a lot of focus on the surveillance issue. This is an issue that I’m not totally comfortable with. I’d really like to better understand where NSA has evolved in terms of monitoring and unmasking Americans, where that has evolved to over the last seven to eight years since I’ve left the Hill,” said Hoekstra.
Paris Pullout and Panic, Georgia Nail-Biter, Griffin Plays the Victim
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss President Trump making good on his promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord and the liberal hysteria that followed. They’re also analyzing the very close run-off election between John Ossoff and Karen Handel in a normally red district in Georgia. And they express their disgust with Kathy Griffin as she plays the victim following the fierce bipartisan backlash in response to her photo stunt depicting her holding President Trump’s bloody head.
Dem Money Dilemma, Berkeley Buckles Again, Left’s Red Scare
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss the pressure mounting on the Democratic National Committee to spend big on every special House election, despite long odds in most of them. They also unload on University of California-Berkeley administrators for cancelling a speech by Ann Coulter over security concerns instead of cracking down on students and faculty threatening to disrupt the event. And they address the latest twist in leftist conspiracy theories, as liberals contend Rep. Jason Chaffetz decided not to seek re-election because he’s being blackmailed by Russia.
Feds Trying to Grab Election Power from States
The Obama administration is using the intelligence reports of Russian hacking influencing the 2016 campaign as the premise for asserting more power over the states in running elections, but a top election fraud expert says federal involvement would make elections more vulnerable to mischief and is really just a way to insert the federal government where it doesn’t belong.
Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution is clear about the roles of the federal and state government in overseeing elections.
“The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations,” it reads.
However, on Jan.6, the Obama administration – not Congress – decided to give the government more power in running elections. President Obama has been very busy cramming in many new regulations before he leaves office, but elections expert and columnist John Fund says this one is particularly alarming.
“One of the most troublesome (orders) came last Friday and gave the federal government the power to begin centralizing our election systems. The Constitution explicitly gives states the power to set the ‘times, manner and places of holding elections,'” wrote Fund in National Review Online on Sunday.
“But Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson used the excuse of Friday’s release of a report on Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee to declare that state and local voting systems will be designated as ‘pieces of critical infrastructure’ so that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can protect them from hackers,” Fund continued.
Fund closely chronicles election fraud and is the author of books such as “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens our Democracy” and “Who’s Counting?” How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Are Putting Your Vote at Risk.” He says this is another clear-cut case of Obama violating the Constitution to further an agenda.
“It’s once again the Obama administration reaching beyond it’s constitutional limits. The states have the authority in elections in the Constitution. If the federal government wants to intrude, wants to take over part of it, it has to negotiate with the states who are sovereign entities in their own right and come to some sort of compromise,” said Fund.
“Instead, it’s an ‘Our way or the highway’ approach and the states are naturally resentful of the fact that the federal government is now holding over them the sword that anytime there’s a problem in any election system, the federal government is aggregating to itself the power to step in and who knows what they’re going to do,” said Fund.
In addition to what he sees as a blatant violation of the Constitution, Fund says the Obama administration is taking action to address a problem that does not exist.
“The actual voting isn’t tied to the internet. It can’t be hacked, except in a very few exceptions. The voter registration rolls might be a problem because they often are connected to the internet. But that’s not the votes. So people are confusing what the hackers have been able to do with voter registration systems with the actual voting machines,” said Fund.
“If you wanted to hack them, you’d have to hack them individually one by one. You can’t do it through the internet. You can’t do it nationally,” said Fund.
So what’s really at work here? Fund says the federal government instinctively bristles at the states have sovereignty in certain areas and have recently lost power on elections.
“The feds have always been angry that the states sometimes don’t listen to them. For example, the feds lost the power just a couple of years ago in the Voting Rights Act to force 14 states to run all of their election changes through Washington. The Supreme Court said, ‘It’s been 50 years since the civil rights revolution. It’s time to let that go. If Congress wants to pass a new law, they have to do that,” said Fund.
“The feds have chafed on that because it means they can’t send monitors to certain states. They can’t intrude. They can’t physically interfere in elections unless the states invite them in,” said Fund.
He says this new rules gives them a foot in the door again.
“This means the federal government has a new excuse, now that they’ve lost the voting rights excuse. They have a new excuse to step in any time they want and dictate or second-guess what the states and counties are doing,” said Fund.
Fund is convinced that the the premise of the federal government coming in to make sure elections are not hacked is simply one step in a long-term endeavor to choke the sovereignty out of the states.
“This is a lot like the frog in the pot of boiling water. The feds are turning up the heat on the states. They hope that if they do it slowly enough and carefully enough, the states won’t be able to squawk enough. Finally, the feds will be in charge and the states will be a secondary player in elections, not the primary player as the Constitution envisioned,” said Fund.
Even before the new rule granting DHS new power to get involved with state and local elections, some states accuse the department of trying to hack their systems unannounced in 2016. Georgia is making the most noise about it. Kentucky and West Virginia have reportedly expressed similar concerns.
Fund says the details on those stories are murky.
“We know very little because the feds aren’t talking,” said Fund. “Apparently they didn’t tell the states even after they’d made the attempt. It’s one thing to make a surprise attempt to hack into a state system. It’s another thing after the attempt has been made not to tell the state about it,” said Fund.
“So once again, the feds are playing sneaky, not telling the states what they would normally be expected to tell them, and all because the feds think they know best,” said Fund.
The silver lining to the Obama administration’s action is that it can be easily reversed.
“With the stroke of a pen, it could go away tomorrow if tomorrow was Jan. 20, which is the day Donald Trump is inaugurated,” said Fund.
However, he warns not to assume Trump will scrap the new federal power right away.
“I suspect at the very least he should have his appointees ask some very searching questions about, ‘Was this really justified? Couldn’t they have worked with the states toward some sort of compromise solution? Does the government always have to bigfoot in if there’s a perceived issue involved?’ The answer to those questions is no it doesn’t. The feds should get in the habit of cooperating with the states, not commanding the states,” said Fund.
Critics contend that compromised voter registration information online ought to be a major concern. Fund says there’s an easy solution.
“The smartest way to stop hackers from getting into voter registration systems, which are online, is to stop online registration. Go back to the old system where you have to fill out a postcard and send it in. The records are kept. It’s a little cumbersome, but you can’t hack a piece of paper,” said Fund.
“I’m not saying hackers aren’t a problem,” said Fund. “I’m saying that if we keep our systems simple, don’t go to internet voting which would be a potential disaster, and if we maintain vigilance, we don’t have to surrender our traditional control of state and local elections and federal elections to Washington,” said Fund.
Three Martini Lunch 12/12/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America not enjoy watching the quixotic Jill Stein recount come to a whimpering end but applaud Michigan for using the episode to push for stronger voter ID laws. They also groan as Donald Trump says he doesn’t need daily intelligence briefings. And they wade into the growing furor over what role Russia played in hacking the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta – and what to do about it if it’s true.