Mediaboss Marketing

Two-term Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-Ringoes) faces a difficult bid for re-election in New Jerseys 7th district under maps proposed by both sides of the New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission, but three other Democratic incumbents could still face tough races if the tiebreaker, former Supreme Court Justice John E. Wallace, Jr., decides to cast his vote for the Republican map when the panel meets at 10:30 AM.

The New Jersey Globe has obtained both of the proposed maps submitted to Wallace, who is expected to share them with the six Democrats and six Republicans on the commission prior to the start of the meeting.

Some takeaways:

* Neither map is especially good for Malinowski, who ousted a five-term Republican in the 2018 wave election. Even the Democratic plan gives Malinowski all of Warren County and nine Sussex towns while taking away the solid blue towns of Millburn, Dover, and Montgomery. Gov. Phil Murphy lost the 7th in both maps by double-digits.

* Democrats propose putting two incumbents in the same district by moving the hometown of 21-term Rep. Christopher Smith (R-Hamilton) into the 3rd district along with Rep. Andy Kim (D-Moorestown), but the new 4th becomes even more solidly Republican and includes most of the municipalities Smith has represented for decades. Their proposed Kim district sheds all of Ocean County and goes into parts of Mercer and western Monmouth County.

* The GOP map keeps heavily Republican Ocean County towns in Kims 3rd district.

* Democrats try to bolster Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-Wyckoff) by adding the Democratic strongholds of Englewood and Fort Lee.

* In the 11th district, Republicans want Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-Montclair) to take on all of Sussex County. Democrats want to give her the heavy blue towns on Millburn, Maplewood and South Orange.

* The Democratic map takes a pass on Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-Dennis), who was elected as a Democrat in 2018 put later switched parties and won as a Republican in 2020. Democrats propose bolstering Van Drew in order to shore up Kim. Republicans protect Van Drew.

* Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. (D-Newark) would represent Essex Fells and Cranford.

Heres a summary of what the two maps are looking to do:

District 3

The Democratic map removes all of Ocean County from Kims district and creates one that includes all of Burlington, except for Palmyra and Maple Shade, and parts of Mercer and Monmouth. Kim would add all of Hamilton, Lawrence, East Windsor, Hightstown, and Robbinsville in Mercer, and Allentown, Englishtown, Freehold Borough, Holmdel, Manalapan, Marlboro, Millstone, Roosevelt, Upper Freehold, and parts of Marlboro and Freehold Township.

Republicans are proposing to keep most the current district intact, except for adding the portion of Hamilton that is South of I-195, Plumsted, Manchester, Lakehurst and Jackson in Ocean, and Maple Shade in the 3rd. A small part of Brick would go into the 4th and Lacey and Barnegat would shift to the 4th.

District 5

Democrats are proposing the addition of eight Bergen County towns: Englewood, Englewood Cliffs, Cresskill, Fort Lee, Leonia, Palisades Park, Ridgefield Park and Tenafly to Gottheimers districts, as well as the entirety of Teaneck, including the portions currently in the 9th. But the 5th will also lose Franklin Lakes, Lodi, Oakland, Rochelle Park and part of Maywood. Gottheimers district would no longer include any Warren County municipalities and the deletion of six Sussex towns Andover Borough, Fredon, Green, Stillwater and Walpack. All of those would shift to the 7th. The 5th would keep West Milford and add Bloomindale and Wanaque in Passaic, but Ringwood would be dropped.

The Republicans are seeking a 5th district that drops all of Warren and Sussex from Gottheimers district, but adds eight towns in Passaic Little Falls, Hawthorne, North Haledon, Pompton Lakes, Totowa, Wanaque, Woodland Park and Wayne. The GOP also wants to add Elmwood park, Garfield, Hasbrouck Heights in Bergen.

District 7

Under the Democratic plan, Malinowskis new district would pick up all of Warren County, and Mendham Borough and part of Mendham Township in Morris. Scotch Plains, which had been split with the 12th, would sit entirely in the 7th, along with the addition of Fanwood and Rahway and part of Linden. Bridgewater and Hillsborough would be split between the 7th and 12th districts. The 7th adds nine towns in Sussex: Andover Township, Byram, Fredon, Green, Hopatcong, Ogdensburg, Sparta, Stillwater and Walpack. Millburn in Essex and Dover in Morris would shift to the 11th, Cranford, Garwood, Kenilworth and the entirety of Union Township in Union would go in the 10th, and Montgomery, North Plainfield, Rocky Hill in Somerset would go to the 12th.

The Republican map remains close to what it is now, but drops Union Township, Millburn and Montgomery and Wharton, adds the rest of Warren County, and Chatham Township, Madison, Mendham Borough and Mendham Township in Morris County. Scotch Plains, which was partly in the 12th, would be completely out of the 7th.

District 11The Democratic plan has Sherrill gaining Belleville, Glen Ridge, Maplewood, Millburn, and South Orange in Essex, and Dover in Morris. Caldwell, Essex Fells, Verona, and all of West Orange would move to the 10th district, and her four Sussex County municipalities would shift to the 5th and 7th districts. Sherill would also shed Bloomingdale, North Haledon, Pompton Lakes and part of Wayne. Montclair remains split between the 10th and 11th.

Under the Republican plan, all of Sussex County would be in the 11th. The district adds Millburn, keeps much of West Orange, would include all of Bloomfield and part of Belleville. The Passaic County portion of the district would be dropped entirely, and Chatham Township and Madison in Morris County would be moved to the 7th. Most of Montclair would be in the 10th.

DEMOCRATIC MAP

REPUBLICAN MAPNJ GOP HOUSE MAP 1

See the original post:
We have the Democratic and Republican congressional maps. Here's what's being proposed - New Jersey Globe | New Jersey Politics

Republican Rep. Tom Rice of South Carolina.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

Rep. Tom Rice said he regretted voting against certifying the 2020 presidential-election results.

He said Trump was a "coward" who "did nothing to stop" the Capitol riot and watched it "with pride."

Rice was among the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for inciting the insurrection.

Republican Rep. Tom Rice of South Carolina said in an interview on Wednesday that he regretted voting against certifying the electoral votes of Arizona and Pennsylvania after the January 6 storming of the Capitol.

"In retrospect I should have voted to certify," Rice told Politico's Olivia Beavers. "Because President Trump was responsible for the attack on the Capitol."

According to Politico, this makes him the first of the 147 House Republicans who voted against certifying the election results to publicly express regret over the vote.

Rice was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection. He was the only one in that group of GOP lawmakers who also voted against certifying the election results.

"He has not visited the injured and grieving. He has not offered condolences. Yesterday in a press briefing at the border, he said his comments were 'perfectly appropriate,'" Rice said in a statement at the time about his vote to impeach Trump. "I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable."

Rice has defended his vote in the months since the attack on the Capitol, comparing Trump to a dictator in a June interview.

"If the president, by force, can intimidate Congress into voting their way, then we might as well do away with Congress and hand it over to a king," Rice told The Washington Post. "What he did, in my mind, is what dictators do."

Rice told Politico that while he thought there were "real issues with the election," he came to change his mind about how he should vote after a mob of Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol. Still, Rice added, he needed to keep his word to voters.

Story continues

"In the wee hours of that disgraceful night, while waiting for the Capitol of our great country to be secured, I knew I should vote to certify," Rice said. "But because I had made a public announcement of my intent to object, I did not want to go back on my word. So yeah, I regret my vote to object."

Rice added that Trump watched the January 6 storming of the Capitol "with pride" and "did nothing to stop it." He said the House was "sacked and defaced."

"There was a coward in that equation," Rice said, alluding to the president's tweet on January 6 that said Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done" because the vice president didn't try to overturn the election results as a mob of Trump's supporters entered the building.

"But it wasn't Mike Pence," Rice said.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read more:
House Republican says he regrets voting against certifying 2020 election results and suggested Trump was a 'coward' on January 6 - Yahoo News

December 22, 2021

A year later, a large majority of Republican voters still refuses to acknowledge that President Biden won the 2020 election, which doesnt bode well for US democracy. The most recent Bright Line Watch survey finds that just 27 percent of Republicans believe Biden is the rightful presidential winner, compared to 94 percent of Democrats.

Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan watchdog group of leading political scientists who monitor US democratic practices, was cofounded byGretchen Helmke, a professor of political science at theUniversity of Rochester, and her colleagues at theUniversity of ChicagoandDartmouth College.The watchdog group started regular surveys about the health of US democracy in February 2017.

For a democracy to survive, parties must be willing to lose elections and politicians must be willing to acknowledge when they have lost, warns Helmke. The fact that the Republican Party is unwilling to acknowledge the 2020 loss fundamentally undermines the most basic principle of our democracy.

The groups latest survey finds that voters confidence in next years midterm elections has already been affected: only 62 percent of Americans said they were very or somewhat confident that votes nationwide would be counted correctly. Divisions along partisan lines have notably deepened. While 80 percent of Democrats generally expressed confidence in fair elections, only 42 percent of Republicans felt that way.

Originally cofounded by the University of RochestersGretchen Helmke and three other political scientistsBrendan NyhanandJohn Careyof Dartmouth College, andSusan Stokesof the University of ChicagoBright Line Watch is a nonpartisan initiative that conducts regular surveys designed to gauge the overall stability and performance of American democracy.Mitchell Sanders97 (PhD), of Rochester-based Meliora Research, is the groups director of survey research.

Tags: Arts and Sciences, Bright Line Watch, Department of Political Science, featured-post, Gretchen Helmke, research finding

Category: Featured

Follow this link:
One year on, Republicans still don't consider Biden the rightful winner - University of Rochester

Yesterday was a terrible day, a legislator wrote in a text to Mark Meadows, Donald Trumps chief of staff, on January7,2021. We tried everything we could in our objection to the 6 states. Im sorry nothing worked. That text was released last week by the House select committee investigating the events of January6th, namely, the assault on the Capitol by a mob that was trying to disrupt the tally of electoral votes. The text itself, though, was referring to a parallel attempt by members of the House to engineer the rejection of the votes of six states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) that Joe Biden had won. Neither effort succeededand that failure, extraordinarily enough, seems to have been a cause of regret for the apology-texting legislator.

The text was released as the committee was recommending that Meadows be charged with criminal contempt for defying its subpoena to appear, and the identity of its author was not made public. The same is true of the identity of the House member who, on November4th, the day after the election, texted Meadows to suggest an aggressive strategy: Why can t the states of GANCPENN and otherR controlled state houses declare this is BS (where conflicts and election not called that night) and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the SCOTUS. Its interesting to think about what might be packed into the phrase declare this is BSthis could refer to the votes in those particular states, the democratic process itself, or really anything that wouldnt result in Trumps running the country.

At this point, its no surprise that Republican members of both the House and the Senate shared the underlying goals of the angry crowd; Representatives Mo Brooks and Madison Cawthorn spoke at the Trump rally that preceded the assault. A hundred and thirty-nine representatives and eight senators voted to reject the electors of at least one state. But there is more to be learned about the level of cordination between Trumps aides and his allies in Congress and the various Trump-aligned groups that helped with the logistics for the rally. What, in short, was the relation between the House members and the mob?

Meadowss contempt referral is an important development for several reasons. As chief of staff, he served as a point of connection, notably in efforts to pressure officials in the Justice Department and at the state level to pursue fake election-fraud cases. (Meadows was on the line when Trump called Brad Raffensperger, Georgias secretary of state, and suggested that he could face criminal prosecution if he didnt find more votes for him.) He was in direct contact with Trump on January6th; he might be able to shed light on an apparent delay in deploying the National Guard to safeguard the Capitol and on why he sent an e-mail the day before saying that the role of the Guard would be to protect pro Trump people. Representative Jim Jordan, of Ohio, forwarded a text to him which made the argument that Vice-President Mike Pence could throw out electoral votes. At a hearing last week, Representative Liz Cheney, of Wyoming, read aloud texts to Meadows from Donald Trump,Jr., who told him in the midst of the assault that the actions had gone too far and gotten out of hand, and from Fox News figures, including Laura Ingraham, who wrote, Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. (Ingraham said that her text had been used misleadingly by regime media.)

But Meadowss case is also significant because of how he and his party responded to the subpoena. He had initially agreed to coperate with the committee and was slated to testify; indeed, the texts were among the material he handed over ahead of his planned appearance. Now he is suing Nancy Pelosi in order to quash the subpoena. Meadows has explained his change of heart by saying that Trump asserted executive privilege, but, as Representative Jamie Raskin, a member of the committee, put it, an ex-President cant just wave a magic wand to exempt an ex-aide from appearing at all. (Steve Bannon, Trumps former chief strategist, made a similar spurious claim, and he has now been charged with criminal contempt.) A key factor seems to be that Trump got mad.

When the committees recommendation that Meadows be referred for charges reached the House floor, though, the Republican members who rose to debate it barely bothered to engage with the legalities. Several used their time to urge the passage of the Finish the Wall Act. You know who doesnt show up for court orders? Representative August Pfluger, of Texas, asked. Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the illegal immigrants who are served those papers. Members spoke about fentanyl, Hunter Biden, mask mandates, empty shelves at Christmas, and the unjust treatment of parents who object to some crazy curriculum, as if the response to any criticism of Trump is to hopscotch from one of the former Presidents obsessions to another.

When the Republican members did address the matter at hand, it was in startlingly vitriolic terms. Representative Mary Miller, of Illinois, said that the committees work is evil and un-American. Yvette Herrell, of New Mexico, said that it is setting the country on its way to tyranny. Jordan called the committee an expression of the Democrats lust for power. And, inevitably, Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia, said that its proceedings prove that communists are in charge of the House. Its tempting to dismiss such rhetoric as overblown, but Congress has become an ever more uneasy place. Last week, Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader, sent the Capitol Police Board a letter asking for clarification on the rules about where representatives can carry weapons in the Capitol.

On Tuesday, Cheney said that the decision about how to deal with the legacy of January6th is the moral test of our generation. A fear is that a growing sector of the Republican side of the aisle is engaged in another sort of test: a probing of just how Trumpist representatives are, and, by implication, how far they might go if a situation akin to what took place on January6th occurs again. Last time, the violence at the Capitol elicited enough shock that some Fox News anchors and leading Republicans texted Meadows, asking forTrump to calm the mob. If there is a next time, the texts to whoever plays Meadowss role might have a different, and more dangerous, message.

Visit link:
Mark Meadows and the Republican Response to the January 6th Investigation - The New Yorker

Raising virtuous men is vital for the continuity of liberty and self-government in the American republic.

There is a notion prevalent among cultural commentators that expressing concern for the welfare of men specifically or reservations about modern societys impact on American men in particular indicates an insidiousand, we are also led to believe, newideology, often called toxic masculinity in telemedia discourse. Even among so-called conservatives, there seems to be a war over whether considerations of masculinity or the pursuit of a particularly masculine politics has a place in civil discourse.

A prominent historian at an evangelical university wrote a book denouncing the 20th-century masculine ideal represented by John Wayne as incompatible with Christianity. David French recently warned of the dangerous politics of manly toughness, and accused national conservatives of holding up Trump as the masculine ideal. (They didnt.) It seems that those conservatives angry about sociological changes in the Republican political coalition since 2016 decided they have no use for masculine politics nor a positive discussion of manliness because of the perceived ever-present threat of Donald Trump. This is short-sighted.

Meanwhile, a rediscovery of masculinity among young American conservatives is well under way. Aaron Renns newsletter, the Masculinist, offers support and advice for traditional Christian men who seek to reclaim natural masculinity, shorn of the goofier evangelical polemics surrounding manliness. Oren Cass has written on mens need, in an era of mass male unemployment, to reclaim their place as the pillar of American vocational life. Senator Josh Hawley recently issued a clarion call for a revival of strong and healthy manhood in America. Healthy concern for a republic that exemplifies the best of masculine (and feminine) virtue should not be merely the province of latter-day Nietzscheans or left to the derision of progressives.

Whatever excesses exist in corners of the movement to reclaim masculinity, it seems clear that societies throughout history have understood men needed outlets for their aspirations and models to emulate. In the 19th century, American intellectuals called great men of the past to their readers attention precisely because they understood male thirsts for achievement, conquest, and excellence as natural aspects of human life. Rather than things to be eradicated, they were seen instead as virtues to be cultivated and rightly ordered. Men needed to learn how to achieve, conquer, and excel in ways that helped the republic as a whole and did not merely aggrandize themselves or feed their egos.

Great American minds of the 19th century knew that men needed great men as models. Ralph Waldo Emerson argued in Representative Men (1850) that it was natural to believe in great men. If the companions of our childhood should turn out to be heroes, and their condition regal, it would not surprise us. All of mythology, said Emerson, opened with demigods, and the circumstance is high and poetic; that is, their genius is paramount. In the legends of the Gautama, the first men ate the earth, and found it deliciously sweet. Masculinity, in Emersons intellectual economy, was not a European or white construction. It was global and transcended race.

Emerson emphasized that the reality and necessity of using great men as models for masculine pursuits and human society were global in character. The world, he declared, is upheld by the veracity of good men: they make the earth wholesome. They who lived with them found life glad and nutritious. Human life was made sweet and tolerable by the beliefs of such an aspirational male society. Actually, or ideally, we manage to live with superiors. Men called their children and their lands by the names of great men, and their names are wrought into the verbs of language, their works and effigies are in our houses, and every circumstance of the day recalls an anecdote of them.

The pursuit of greatness that defined male existence was, according to Emerson, the dream of youth, and the most serious occupation of manhood. Men traveled to foreign parts to find their works, and if possible, to get a glimpse of the great men they might become themselves. But too often, lamented Emerson, men were put off with fortune instead. The pursuit of money and financial success were no substitutes for actual male greatness. Actual greatness needed to be aimed at virtue and the good of society.

The good of society was not necessarily actuated through feats of physical strength or forcing the male will upon an object or person. What determined the quality of republican manhood was the ability to self-govern, what Emerson called mans ability to attend his own affairs, and to pursue a cultivated mind. I count him a great man who inhabits a higher sphere of thought, into which other men rise with labor and difficulty; he has but to open his eyes to see things in a true light, and in large relations. Thoughtful republican masculinity was not bull-headed and unwilling to change. The thoughtful man was willing to make painful corrections, and keep a vigilant eye on many sources of error. Constant thoughtfulness marked Emersons great man.

The notion that greatness was achieved through thoughtfulness meant that any man, no matter his rank in society, income, or temperament, could become a sort of great republican man. Emerson offered great men of all classes, those who stand for facts, and for thoughts as worthy of admiration. This habit of mind led men to exhibit real courage. Real courage was noted by men and women of the early republic because it enabled the thoughtful man in a democratic society to stand up for truth against whatever mob might oppose him. Harriet Beecher Stowe said that no test of personal courage or manliness was greater than a willingness to stand and oppose a mobnot by subduing members of the mob with brute force, but instead by arguing with them.

The aspirations of young men deserve attention precisely because we should shape them to aim at the high objects set by great men of the past. Tolerance comes from a position of strength. A generation of men trained to be willing and ready to stand against the mobs of the 21st century will be better able to choose to do so by thoughtful engagement, and less likely to resort first to brute force and so feed the increasingly violent zeitgeist of the age. This is vital for the continuity of liberty and self-government in the American republic.

In 2019, David French argued that Americans did their sons no favors when we tell them that they dont have to answer that voice inside them that tells them to be strong, to be brave, and to lead. We do them no favors when we let them abandon the quest to become a grown man when that quest gets hard. He noted that American men also did themselves them no favors when they were insensitive to those boys who dont conform to traditional masculinity. But when it came to the crisis besetting our young men, traditional masculinity isnt the problem; it can be part of the cure. Then, David French was exactly right. We should hope for a republican politics that affirms the best of the masculine virtues Emerson celebrated, without regard to the partisan and intraparty squabbles of the moment.

Miles Smithis visiting assistant professor of History at Hillsdale College. His main research interests are 19th-century intellectual and religious history in the United States and in the Atlantic World. You can follow him on Twitter at@IVMiles.

More here:
Raising Republican Men - The American Conservative