Mediaboss Marketing

Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.) criticized the increased polarization of both political parties on Sunday after he dropped out of his reelection race following his voicing support for gun control proposals.

Appearing on CNNs State of the Union, Jacobs told co-anchor Dana Bash that he is the only sitting Republican lawmaker in favor of an assault weapons ban, comparing himself to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), the only anti-abortion Democrat in the House.

Our parties are very polarized right now, Jacobs said. And I dont think thats good for the parties. I dont think thats good for democracy, and I think thats one reason why Washington is not working.

Jacobs had announced his support for an assault weapons ban in the wake of high-profile mass shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., which is close to Jacobs district.

In the days after voicing his support for such a ban, GOP officials who endorsed Jacobs rescinded their support. Jacobs announced he would not run for a second term about a week later.

Jacobs said on Sunday he supports an assault weapons ban because proposals put forth by his Republican colleagues felt hollow.

Last week, Jacobs bucked his party by voting for both gun control packages put to a vote on the House floor by Democrats.

The first package, dubbed the Protecting Our Kids Act, included provisions to raise the minimum purchasing age for semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21 and to ban civilians from using high-capacity magazines.

Jacobs also voted in favor of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would create a national red flag law, alongside four other Republicans.

Those bills wont pass the Senate, but Jacobs on Sunday said he was hopeful that a bipartisan group of senators that has been meeting in recent days could find common ground on a gun-related package.

Jacobs told Bash that the longtime debate over gun control has broken down over a lack of trust between gun owners and lawmakers favoring more regulation, arguing gun control is an urban-rural debate.

Theres not a trust right now between those people and others on this discussion, because its been so heated,

Read more here:
NY Republican decries polarized parties after dropping out of reelection race - The Hill

In Ohio, state-level candidates have raised $39.6 million between Jan. 1, 2021, and Apr. 13, 2022. Democratic candidates have raised $9.5 million and Republican candidates spent $29.4 million.

In the 2022 election cycle, 172 state-level Democrats have filed campaign finance reports with the Ohio Secretary of State. Here are the 10 Democratic candidates who have raised the most.

During the same time period, 197 Republicans have filed campaign finance reports with the Ohio Secretary of State. These are the 10 Republican candidates with the highest reported donations for the 2022 election cycle so far.

In some states, officeholders may accept donations to their campaign accounts when they are not up for election. Those donations are included in candidate campaign finance numbers.

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active Ohio candidate PACs submitted to the Ohio Secretary of State. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.

See the article here:
Ohio Republican candidates have raised $19.9 million more than Democrats Ballotpedia News - Ballotpedia News

Late nights talking shop in their Lincoln apartments. Shooting the breeze over meals at the Capitol.

Thats how State Sen. Mike Flood and former veteran Nebraska legislators Ed Schrock and Jim Cudaback recall Floods first years, 2005 and 2006, in the Legislature.

Flood, a Norfolk civic leader, businessman, broadcaster and attorney, went on to become Nebraskas longest-serving speaker of the Legislature and one of the youngest (he says another speaker was a month younger). He was term-limited out in 2013 after two terms and, after a required break, returned to the Legislature in 2021 after winning an uncontested race.

Now, he is the Republican candidate in a June 28 special election to fill out the remainder of Jeff Fortenberrys term representing Nebraskas 1st Congressional District. Fortenberry resigned after being found guilty of three felonies related to taking illegal campaign contributions. Early voting is already underway in the race.

People are also reading

Flood, 47, also is the Republican nominee in the November general election for the seats two-year term that starts in January. In both races, hell face Democrat Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks of Lincoln.

Flood said the hours spent listening to the stories of experienced lawmakers like Schrock and Cudaback helped him understand the workings of the Legislature and, in turn, become more effective at his job. He said hed bring the same approach to the U.S. House of Representatives.

To be successful in the Legislature, its about relationships and earning peoples trust, Flood said.

In Congress, Flood would represent all or parts of 12 eastern Nebraska counties, including the communities of Lincoln, Bellevue, Norfolk and Columbus. The 1st District seat is open for the first time since 2004, when Fortenberry was elected to the first of his nine terms.

Leading figures in the Nebraska Republican Party, including Gov. Pete Ricketts and former Gov. Dave Heineman, threw their weight behind Flood even before Fortenberry was found guilty. Their concern had been that Fortenberrys indictment could lead to a Democrat taking the seat.

Nationally, the Republican Party hopes to flip the House of Representatives red, and Republicans say holding onto the 1st Congressional District is key to doing so.

The relationships Flood built in the Legislature have stood the test of time, his former colleagues say.

(Mike) is very knowledgeable and engaged, he is very fair and capable, Schrock said. Id vote for him if I was in his district Id vote for him twice.

Cudaback described Flood as someone who wasnt full of himself and was willing to learn.

The thing I like about Mike is he can see the big picture, Cudaback said.

Floods campaign page mirrors the language of current politics, describing the nation as being at a crossroads between prosperity and socialism; traditional values or liberal wokeness.

Asked about polarization in politics and how, as a congressman, he would represent all the people of his district, Flood said: As a member of my party, I want to effect change that will help everybody in the district by creating opportunities, both economic development opportunities and educational opportunities and by making decisions that will make our nation safe. Ill do that by connecting with people and spending time with all the communities of the 1st District.

The district leans Republican by 11 points, according to the Cook Partisan Voting Index.

Floods business background is in communications and broadcast media. In 1999, he launched the Norfolk-based country music radio station US92. Since then, hes added another 14 radio stations and five television stations across Nebraska. His media network provides local content, from news to high school sports.

These hyperlocal stations help strengthen their Nebraska communities, said Floods friend and business collaborator Dan Spray.

Ive never met anyone as passionate about rural Nebraska or Nebraska in general as Mike, he said.

Flood was born in Omaha and grew up in Norfolk.

At one time, he had his sights on the Governors Mansion, not Congress. In 2012, Flood announced he would run to replace Heineman, who was being term-limited out. The night he announced his candidacy, his wife, Mandi, discovered a lump on her breast. It turned out to be a fast-growing cancer. Flood dropped out of the race to be with his family.

Fortunately, we look back today and shes healthy, everyone is fine, he said.

Flood said he is undaunted by the challenges of serving in Congress, which include splitting time between the district and Washington, D.C., and running on a two-year election cycle. His two children, ages 15 and 12, will finish out their school years in Norfolk. He says he relishes the idea of serving in Congress.

I personally think it takes as much or more skill to be effective in the legislative branch than it does in any other. ... I enjoy the pluralized nature of being in the Legislature. There are so many different voices, he said. It really is the marketplace of ideas.

As a state senator, Flood represents all of Madison County, where Norfolk is located, and part of Pierce County.

Flood said his enthusiasm for the congressional seat has grown as he has campaigned across the district, meeting and talking with people.

Its given my decision to run even more depth, he said. People are really wanting to have a conversation with their congressman.

Abortion: Should be banned in all cases except to save the life of the mother, with no exception for rape or incest. As speaker of the Legislature, Flood successfully promoted a bill that made Nebraska the first state in the nation to ban abortions upon 20 weeks proponents argued that is the point at which the fetus can feel pain. Flood took criticism in campaign ads by Fortenberry for voting to provide prenatal care to prospective mothers, regardless of their immigration status. Its a vote I dont regret, he said. There was only one choice and that is to be pro-life when its hard as well as when its easy.

Immigration: Opposes citizenship and welfare benefits for anyone in the country illegally, including Dreamers those immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. He said Dreamers should have a way of continuing to live and work in the U.S. but without a path to citizenship and not before Americas southern border is secure. Flood favors finishing the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Climate change: Initially said that humans are the dominant cause, which is in sync with scientific findings. Flood subsequently clarified his views by saying humans may be a contributing factor. Other countries such as China and India need to take it as seriously as lawmakers in the United States, he said. Flood sees carbon sequestration as an economic opportunity for Nebraska. He supports the for-now derailed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast, traversing Nebraska.

As a civic leader in the Norfolk area, Flood has focused heavily on economic development in northeast Nebraska and has helped with an ambitious plan called Northeast Nebraska Growing Together. It aims to transform the region, focusing on information technology and young adults. The goal is to make the area attractive to 20-somethings and young families.

It includes a scholarship program that provides students an education at Wayne State College, but requires that they live and work their senior year in Norfolk. Other legs to the program include the arts, housing, retraining workers whose existing jobs are disappearing and providing young families with free child care.

Courtney Dentlinger, who has worked in economic development in Nebraska in various capacities over the years, including two years as Ricketts economic development director, described Flood as an effective partner.

Hes very forward-thinking and pragmatic, she said. Hes great at building coalitions and getting things done. Hes really got Nebraskans best interests at heart.

Jerry Swiercek uses a leaf blower to clear hail and leaves stripped from trees following a hail storm outside the home he shares with his wife, Annette, at 44th Avenue and F Street in Omaha on Tuesday evening.

Haydn Nichols, 9, rides the Musical Chairs ride during Taste of Omaha at Elmwood Park in Omaha on Friday.

Drone photography after a three-alarm fire at the Nox-Crete chemical warehouse in Omaha on Tuesday.

Andrea Vanderheyden, the artist behind this community art project, ties a ribbon to help create a pride flag on the corner of the Ashton building on Tuesday to kick off the start to Pride month.

A man sprays down the roof of a neighboring building while also filming the scene of a three-alarm fire at Nox-Crete, Inc., 1415 S. 20th St on Monday.

Lighting can be seen behind the scene of a three-alarm fire at Nox-Crete, Inc., 1415 S. 20th St on Monday.

Flames shoot up at the scene of a three-alarm fire at Nox-Crete, Inc., 1415 S. 20th St on Monday.

Ben Crawford, a Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act assistant with the Winnebago Tribal Historic Preservation Office, watches as dogs search for the cemetery site.

Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.

Visit link:
Republican Flood says his connections, experience needed in Congress - Omaha World-Herald

James Craig, a former Detroit police chief, is among the Republican candidates for Michigan governor who've been blocked from the ballot after the state's elections bureau said they failed to file enough valid nominating signatures. Paul Sancya/AP hide caption

James Craig, a former Detroit police chief, is among the Republican candidates for Michigan governor who've been blocked from the ballot after the state's elections bureau said they failed to file enough valid nominating signatures.

Several Republican candidates for governor of Michigan, including some of the party's top hopefuls, have been blocked from the primary ballot after signatures the candidates submitted included alleged forgeries.

The five GOP candidates have said they were unaware of any problems with their signatures, and most are pursuing legal avenues to get on the Aug. 2 ballot.

The developments have upended the race to lead a key swing state.

Here's how we got here:

April 19 was the deadline for Michigan candidates for various offices to submit their filing paperwork with the secretary of state to appear on the primary ballot.

With their filing paperwork, candidates also had to turn in a certain number of valid signatures. Those running for governor had to submit a minimum of 15,000 signatures and a maximum of 30,000. That way, they'd have a cushion in case the Board of State Canvassers, an independent and bipartisan group with members appointed by the governor, determined not every signature submitted was valid.

The Republican field for governor initially had 10 candidates, and voters can only sign one campaign's nominating petition. Like in past cycles, campaigns adapted by using a mix of volunteer and paid petition circulators, or signature gatherers.

Within seven days of the filing deadline, the Board of State Canvassers or a county clerk can receive challenges to the nominating petitions.

"It's always prudent to look at [other candidates' signatures]. Until you look at them, you don't know whether it's worth taking a deeper look or not. At least flip through them," consultant John Yob told reporters after filing signatures with Republican gubernatorial hopeful Perry Johnson.

Nearly 30 candidates for offices ranging from U.S. House to a circuit court judgeship eventually faced a challenge by the time that period ended on April 26.

Notably, the Michigan Democratic Party targeted three of the Republicans running for governor: businessman Johnson, former Detroit Police Chief James Craig and businesswoman Tudor Dixon.

Democrats alleged evidence of rampant signature fraud in the nominating petitions for Craig and Johnson, and they also argued that Dixon's campaign had signature fraud and that her forms listed an incorrect date.

"You don't see clean petitions with 10 names. No cross-outs, every sheet completed you know, that's just not the way this works. People make mistakes, they cross things out, you get incomplete sheets," attorney Mark Brewer, a former state Democratic Party chair, said at a press conference.

The Board of State Canvassers agreed to evaluate the candidacy challenges.

Ahead of that, on May 23, the state Bureau of Elections published a report that claimed that 36 individual paid circulators faked thousands of signatures to take advantage of a payout that reached as high as $20 per signature on average.

"Although it is typical for staff to encounter some signatures of dubious authenticity scattered within nominating petitions, the Bureau is unaware of another election cycle in which this many circulators submitted such a substantial volume of fraudulent petition sheets consisting of invalid signatures," the report stated.

Issues included accusations of a practice known as "round robin-ing." That's when circulators take turns signing a petition with names from a list, sometimes switching pen colors. Other times, circulators allegedly turned in similar signature sheets for multiple campaigns.

The signature gatherers had worked across several campaigns. The state attorney general's office is looking into possibly pressing charges against them.

The Bureau of Elections report noted it "does not have reason to believe that any specific candidates or campaigns were aware of the activities of fraudulent-petition circulators," but after throwing out sheets of signatures from the circulators, the bureau found many candidates fell below the required threshold to run for office.

Those included GOP gubernatorial hopefuls Craig and Johnson. Dixon survived her challenges. Michigan State Police Capt. Michael Brown ended his campaign rather than associate his candidacy with signature fraud.

The Bureau of Elections report was sent to the Board of State Canvassers, which, during an eight-hour meeting on May 26, deadlocked on how to handle the affected campaigns for governor.

The two Democratic members of the board voted against allowing the candidates ballot access. The two Republican members voted the opposite way, taking issue with the practice of throwing out sheets of signatures turned in by suspected fraudsters rather than checking every petition sheet line-by-line.

The tie meant that the candidates were to be blocked from the primary ballot.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan group focused on upholding democracy, shared concerns over whether the process was rushed.

"This action is unprecedented, with challengers finding out about their alleged indiscretions just days before pleading their cases to the Board of Canvassers," Quentin Turner, Common Cause Michigan's policy director, said in a statement.

Michigan's Democratic secretary of state is set to certify eligible candidates by Friday, as some blocked candidates have sued to try to get their names on primary ballots.

But on Wednesday, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected lawsuits from Johnson and fellow gubernatorial candidate Michael Markey, a financial adviser. Markey pledged to take his fight to the state Supreme Court.

Then on Thursday, the Michigan Court of Claims denied Craig's appeal. Craig too says he'll take the fight to the state's high court.

"The voters should be deciding who their candidates are, not an unelected board of government bureaucrats," he said in a statement.

If all else fails, running as a write-in candidate is an option for both the primary and general elections.

Michigan is a battleground state with conservatives both in the state and nationwide taking an interest in unseating incumbent Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. The Democrat has repeatedly sparred with the Republican-led state legislature across her tenure so far.

Regardless of pending litigation, Whitmer will take on a relative political newcomer as the Republican nominee.

Despite reported turmoil within the Craig campaign and Johnson's late entry into the race, both appeared in relatively strong positions before last week's developments.

The DeVos family, a heavyweight in Michigan conservative politics, has endorsed Dixon for governor. Any benefits of a DeVos bump, however, haven't yet been seen. In a recent polling, Dixon remained behind.

Originally posted here:
Michigan GOP candidates blocked from ballot: what to know - NPR

Last months vote in the U.S. Congress to appropriate $40 billion in additional military and budgetary assistance for Ukraine laid bare fissures in the Republican congressional caucus: 11 of 50 Senate Republicans voted against the bill, as did 57 of 208 House Republicans.

Was the Ukraine vote a harbinger of Republican national security squabbles to come? Was it a partisan vote against anything associated with President Joe Biden? Or was it a one-off reflecting a poorly drafted bill with too much extraneous baggage? More importantly, who will hold the foreign-policy reins in the likely Republican House (and possibly Senate) majority to come in 2023the isolationists or the internationalists?

Political pundits agree Republicans are likely to win back the House of Representatives and have a good shot at the Senate in the November 2022 midterm elections. That couldcaucus permittingpropel House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to the speakership and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to the post of majority leader. Of the two, McConnell is the known quantityan experienced legislator and parliamentarian and an old-school internationalist whose foreign-policy views were forged in the crucible of the Cold War. McCarthy, not so much. Indeed, its probably most accurate to say his foreign policy was forged in the crucible of former President Donald Trump.

As previous Republican speakers have learned to their displeasure, the Republican Party in todays House is less a caucus and more a raucous battle for primacy. Former Speaker John Boehner struggled against rebellious Tea Party upstarts, his successor Paul Ryan struggled against the self-named Freedom Caucus, and McCarthy is unlikely to have much fun either. In the minority, the Republican Party tendsemphasis intendedto stand together because the Democratic speaker and the executive in the White House are deemed public enemies No. 1 and No. 2. But with the majority comes the battle to control the agenda.

Domestic policy will likely dominate the politicking in Congress: inflation, crime, education, the border. But Russias invasion of Ukraine, like so many conflicts before it, has proved that as much as politicians wish to focus on nation building here at home, global realities intrude. Ukraine is the tip of the iceberg, but Republicans have their eye on plenty of other issues as well, including relations with China, the question of defending Taiwan, the continued isolation of Russia, the Middle East (think energy, Iran, and Israel), and, more broadly, defense spending. But before the substance of the foreign-policy challenge hits the House and Senate floors, the ideological question merits examination.

American Enterprise Institute scholar Colin Dueck divides the Republican Partys foreign policy into three schools: foreign-policy activists, foreign-policy hard-liners, and foreign-policy noninterventionists.

Looking back, its clear that so-called foreign-policy activists dominated Republican national security policymaking for much of the post-World War II era. These were the leaders who believed, as both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush regularly underscored, that the United States is not simply one nation among many but that it is a beacon of freedom to the world, a shining city on a hill.

Foreign-policy activists underwrote the Reagan Doctrine, the principle that the United States should lend a hand to all those hoping to halt the advance of communism wherever they were, including in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, El Salvador, and Grenada. Bush faced different challenges, but his underlying faith in U.S. power and values was similar. Rather than fighting communism, what Bush dubbed his Freedom Agenda took on the tyrannies that he believed fueled Salafi-jihadis. Yet his efforts were neither clearly thought through nor appropriately resourced. Worse yet, Bush could not convincingly argue that he was advancing U.S. national interests in every case. For the activist school, Bushs Iraq War proved to be their swan song.

Though the Iraq War offered an I told you so moment for the Republican Partys isolationist wing, its immediate beneficiaries were President Barack Obama and the Democratic Partys own End the endless wars crowdor so it seemed at first. But the intervening years offered the Republican Partys noninterventionists ample fodder: the disastrous war in Libya and the horrifying killing of a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, the withdrawal from Iraq and the resulting rise of the Islamic State, the civil war in Syria and the ensuing cataclysmic refugee crisis. These crises were not the primary reason for Trumps election, but they didnt hurt his campaign. Rather, theytogether with Obamas self-labeled signature foreign-policy achievement, the Iran nuclear dealoffered an opportunity for Trump.

Donald Trumps political achievement in 2016 was to sense the possibility for a new [Republican] coalition unseen since before World War II, Dueck writes. He did this not by reiterating libertarian foreign-policy preferences. Rather, he combined non-interventionist criticism of endless wars with hardline stands on China, jihadist terrorism, anti-American dictatorships in Latin America, and US defense spending.

This is a sweet spot for Republican foreign policy, and understanding the reluctant internationalism of most of the partys votersa repudiation of the embarrassed anti-Americanism of the Democratic Partys far left and the activist internationalism that has heretofore characterized the Republican Party leadershipwill be key to geolocating a new Republican Congresss preferred national security policy.

A unifying theme for the Republican Party will be the challenge presented by China. It sells well with the base, and with trade liberalization off the table for the moment (for both parties), the question of China will likely come down to economic disengagement and Beijings threat to Taiwan.

A case in point is a recent letter co-written by Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito (respectively the Democratic and Republican senators from West Virginia) urging Biden to include Taiwan in his newly proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Republican signatories to the letter included James Risch, who is likely to be the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a new Republican-held Senate; Roger Wicker, the likely chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Marco Rubio, the likely chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and most of the Republican members of the current Senate Appropriations Committee. Notably, several of the Senates more ardent Trump supporters, including Marsha Blackburn and Kevin Cramer, also joined the letter. (A similar House effort was also joined by likely future national security heavyweights, including probable House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul.)

Defense spending will be another key theme for the Republican Party. House and Senate Republicans have repeatedly slammed Bidens defense spending as inadequate to address the countrys many national security challenges and have only escalated those charges since Russias invasion of Ukraine. McConnell has called for a 5 percent increase in defense spending above inflation, and McCarthy has been equally energetic. Both understandas Trump didthat investing in the military can be cast as a deterrent as well as a down payment on victory in any eventual conflict. And here again, the base is with them.

Ditto for energy security: While there is a bipartisan constituency for pivoting away from the Middle Eastand a growing bipartisan opposition to renewing the Iran nuclear dealRepublicans are less focused on climate change issues and more on basic pocketbook challenges. That will mean more enthusiasm for restoring American energy independence, avoiding unnecessary bickering with Saudi Arabia (still a major swing producer of oil), and easing regulations on U.S. oil and gas production.

But what about Ukraine and cases like it? What about those 11 in the Senate and the 57 in the House? What about the conservative powerhouse think tank the Heritage Foundation and its political action committee drawing a line in the sand against the $40 billion Ukraine aid package? Like Heritage, Sen. Mike Braun finessed his opposition based not on the policy of aiding Ukraine but on the cost of doing so and the spiraling U.S. debt. Sen. Rand Paul, a perennial opponent of U.S. overseas engagement, pinned his no vote on the lack of an inspector general in the bill to oversee how the funds are spent.

Thats fair enough, but its hard to picture every one of those no votes switching tack if presented with a better or cleaner billnot when the Republican Partys rising stars include the likes of Senate candidate J.D. Vance, who during his campaign said, I gotta be honest with you, I dont really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.

Its relatively easy to predict that a Republican majority will continue to support arming and aiding Ukraine, because the vote has already happened. And though a significant minority of the Republican caucus voted no, it was a minority. But there are harder cases (though not just for the Republicans): the looming Chinese threat to Taiwan, for one.

Sure, theres a majority in both houses for including Taiwan in trading arrangements, and there are vocal advocates in both chambers for ending the U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taipei. But where will the Republican Party be on defending Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack? Will isolationists on both left and right actually have the power to steer a course? On its face, the answer appears to be no, but the devil is, proverbially, in the details. Sanctions on China would hit the Republican base hard, raising costs for basic goods even higher.

As with all such crystal ball gazing, sorting the powerful from the merely loud will be a chore. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is ever-so-vocal and enjoys a substantial Twitter following, but she has little clout in the House of Representatives. Paul is consistently isolationist, but few ask how he will vote as they decide their stance on major issues.

More importantly, the majority of the Republican Party is not actually with them. Case in point: The TV host Tucker Carlson, pocket deity of Trump nostalgics, initially came out swinging against NATOs condemnations of Russian President Vladimir Putins attack on Ukraine, but he soon tempered his position once it became clear that ranging himself on the side of the Russian dictator was a losing cause.

Similarly, while all eyes focus on the Vances and Greenes, there actually remains a strong hawkish contingent in the Republican Party that is well represented on Capitol Hill, including by Sens. Tom Cotton, Rubio, and Ted Cruz, as well as Reps. Mike Gallagher, Elise Stefanik, and likely incoming House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Turner, among others. Although these members may not be interventionists in the style of George W. Bush, there should be no question that they are national security hawks keen on defending both U.S. interests and U.S. allies. That will almost certainly mean efforts to increase the defense budget; pressure to increase the quality, consistency, and speed of arms deliveries to Ukraine; and an even harder line on China, potentially including additional sanctions on Beijing (notwithstanding grumbling from certain quarters).

Finally, it pays to recall Trumps term in officenot the tweets, the bickering, the preening, or even the man himself, but rather the actual national security policy of the Trump administration, largely backed by the congressional Republican Party and its base. Trumps administration was tough on China, tough on Russia, tough on failed allied burden sharing, tough on Iran, pro-defense investment, pro-Israel, and, at the end of the day, actually pro-human rights (think troops in Syria to fight the Islamic State and counter the Russians, limitations on support for Saudi operations in Yemen, Magnitsky sanctions over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, sanctions over the Uyghurs, a hard line on hostage taking). That, perhaps, is a better guide to the future than the huffing and puffing of the Charles Lindbergh wing of the Republican Party.

See the rest here:
How US Foreign Policy Could Change If the Republican Party Wins the 2022 Midterm Elections - Foreign Policy