Mediaboss Marketing

Lisa Desjardins: I want to tell our viewers, too, Trump's indictment is not the only heated topic, as we well know Washington. Debate over the role of guns in America is again rising after another deadly elementary school shooting, this time in Nashville, where a 28-year-old former student armed with an AR-15 military style rifle killed six people, three of them nine-year-old children.

Republicans in Washington responded to the tragedy by saying it is too soon to judge. President Biden admitted he believes he has exhausted all of his executive authority to act on gun violence.

But Wednesday evening, in a remarkable moment, the growing tension between the two parties boiled over into the hallways of Congress.

Jamaal Bowman: The solution is not arming teachers.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY): We have got guns here to protect us and he does not believe the kids should have somebody to protect them.

Lisa Desjardins: Ashley, I want to talk to you about this first. You had an extraordinary work of journalism that you're part of this week in The Washington Post about the AR-15, the gun that divides us. I want to ask you, why is that gun so politically powerful?

Ashley Parker: Because at this point, as we sort of say, it was a huge -- I should say, it was a huge series of multiple stories across all desks in the newsroom. But it has really become an American icon, which you saw from that video you just played. Everyone has a strong opinion about it. It is incredibly polarizing. Those opinions are incredibly different depending on where you live, what your beliefs system is, whether or not you own one of these weapons.

But it was also -- I mean, it started with a very deliberate marketing campaign by the gun manufacturers. You have to go back to the AR-15 was originally invented as a weapon of war to help our troops in Vietnam. It was not very popular at gun shows. It was sort of -- would be in the back. True gun enthusiasts didn't love it. They thought it was cheap for hunting, not really a sportsman's gun.

And then it has been described as sort of Barbie dolls for men, although men are not the only ones, of course, who have this weapon, but there is tremendous revenue to make in the AR. Because if you buy a handgun, that is kind of the end of it. But you can buy an AR and then you can go back and you can customize it and you trick it out. And so it's sort of like you get the Barbie but then you can get the dream house and then you can get the outfit. So, this is a very deliberate effort that has now become sort of just embedded in the fabric of our nation in how people define who they are and who they aren't.

Lisa Desjardins: Domenico, what's the polling on guns? We had a decade where there was an assault weapon ban in this country. And at that point, that idea was relatively popular. Now, the country is split. Who moved in that? Obviously, people moved more toward gun rights, I suppose. What happened?

Luke Broadwater: Well, we are seeing a couple things happen here when it comes to guns, which is really interesting. I mean, you are seeing more people than ever before be supportive of gun restrictions than we have seen in the past. At the same time, Republicans are headed in the other direction.

So, when you look at -- for example, we did a big poll last year. We talked to gun owners, we talked people writ large on this, and 60-plus percent of people were in favor of an AR-15 ban. The difference was only 40-something percent of independents and 25 percent of Republicans were in favor of that ban. It was really kind of skewed by just how many Democrats were so in favor of an AR-15 ban.

And when you have that kind of split and when you have these districts in the country that are, I would say, maybe three dozen now that are truly competitive districts, when you have that be the case, I mean, when I was covering politics starting out in 2006, I had 129 competitive districts or potentially competitive districts on my list. Now, it is only in the 30s. When you have that, you have way more orthodoxy. And for Republicans, that really means guns as one of the principal issues that they stand from on.

Lisa Desjardins: Mario, what about Democrats? We know that the Democratic base wants more gun legislation, they want more action from President Biden. But he said he has run out of things he can do. But I also don't hear him stumping on this. Is there a reason that we don't hear more from the president on this?

Mario Parker: No. I mean, he has -- we saw him in Monterey Park, California, two weeks, right, two weeks before this latest incident. He has said that he has issued a steady flow of executive orders. And earlier this week, he said, you know what, there is nothing else he can do beyond the executive order. He has to figure out a way to get something done in Congress. And as we just outlined, it is a fraught situation. He pointed to the big money that is involved there, right?

And so we ran some numbers that show that the NRA, for example, spent $16 million in last year's midterms, donated to 257 GOP candidates alone. That's quite a big number, and then spent another $8 million on lobbying as well. So, that is the big money that Democrats and Biden administration are up against.

Lisa Desjardins: Inevitably, this brings us back to our home turf, Congress, Luke. I think a lot of Americans just don't understand why Congress is sort of shouting in the hallways but not actually having real conversation here about it. What is your understanding?

Luke Broadwater: I mean, the parties are so divided on this issue. Even if you could get some kind of consensus around some very minor changes, it is really hard to get the votes to do that with the House now in the hands of Republicans. And you would still need nine Republicans in the Senate to join whatever proposal.

And the party has just embraced the AR-15. I don't know any other way to say it. I mean, it is very common for Republicans to pose for Christmas pictures with their families holding AR-15s. It's like every time there is talk of a ban, sales of the AR-15s go through the roof. I think it's more than one in ten Republicans owns an AR-15. So, we are literally talking about taking the guns from their houses when you start talking about an assault weapons ban.

Lisa Desjardins: Although a ban usually is moving forward. I don't think there's any proposals for -- yes.

Luke Broadwater: Correct. But that is the way they view it, and it activates them.

And so, yes, the parties are so divided. And they did pass some legislation last Congress and almost all the Republican senators who I talked to about in the halls say, we want to see that implemented first before we try to pass anything else.

Lisa Desjardins: Ashley, the NRA has come up here. Mario brought it up. It's not just the NRA anymore, is it, or is it that is motivating this?

Ashley Parker: No, it is not at all. Mario is right about all of those figures, but the NRA, in general, is far weakened, far less of a player than it was a decade ago. But as Domenico was saying, what it really comes down to is this is key orthodoxy in the Republican base. And so it doesn't matter that something might be popular across the nation. These Republicans just feel that they cannot take -- forget about a tough vote, they can barely take any vote for what a lot of people would term common sense gun restrictions and win their party's primary. It comes down to fear from the base and it's also become a political symbol, right?

I mean, Luke was describing the pictures we see of the children with ARs on Christmas cards, but it is also that symbol. Members of Congress are wearing that as lapel pins. They used all where flags. Now, they've added ARs. It is a way to own the libs. It is the closest way to sort of instantly show your political identity.

Domenico Montanaro: I'll say this, though. Politics can be like an aircraft carrier. And sometimes you don't even notice you're on the aircraft carrier, you don't even notice it's turning around when you are on the aircraft carrier because it moves so slowly.

And what we have seen with the NRA, but with the decline of the NRA as well, there have been pro-gun restriction groups that have stepped in like every town, the Giffords Group, and Mike Bloomberg, who is a billionaire New Yorker who ran for president but also has a lot of money to donate to a group like every town, which he has funded.

They have made real differences at the statewide level because when you have politics at the federal level being as split as it is, a lot of these fights of going to the states, and a lot of Democratic groups have kind of gotten hip to some of these strategies that Republican groups have used over the years. And you are starting to see the tide turn somewhat. I'll be really interested in the next 15 and 20 years where we are at then.

Lisa Desjardins: We have just a couple of minutes left, but one last question on gun issue. I wonder is this an issue of, anyone who might know something about this, Republicans just are less familiar with people being harmed by guns and maybe Democrats are less familiar with people who own guns? I mean, is that -- because it seems like people who say, if you know someone who was killed by an AR-15, that is an issue. You don't -- I don't know. Just a theory, everyone is not --

Ashley Parker: Guns at this point have touched every single slice of life, right? Parents, they have been in schools, they have been in churches, they have been in predominately black supermarkets, they have been country music concerts in Las Vegas. It is hard to say that someone cannot imagine a situation they are in where one of these weapons might show up.

Lisa Desjardins: All right. We have just about a minute left. Now, here is a question I am excited to ask to see. We talk about this historic time. Mario and I both agree this is a time we're lucky to be reporters. I want to ask each of you quickly, what adjectives would you choose to describe this time right now?

Domenico Montanaro: Scary, crazy, exciting.

Mario Parker: Extraordinary, exhilarating, critical.

Lisa Desjardins: Nice. Luke? I'll put you on the spot.

Luke Broadwater: I don't know, divisive and fraught.

Ashley Parker: I don't know if deja vu is even an adjective, and I recognize that this is unprecedented, but it all, just having covered Trump since 2015, feels so familiar, every single bit of it.

Lisa Desjardins: I would say, incredible, important, exhausting.

Read more:
Gun debate erupts in halls of Congress between Democratic and ... - PBS

Local efforts mirror the national GOP agenda on parental rights, abortion and gun control despite little chance of success in the Aloha State.

When I first joined the Republican Party in Hawaii, I believed we could be successful despite the national partys agenda by defining our own.

Hawaii needed a credible opposition party, but the national partys individual rights at all costs didnt resonate with Hawaiis, or my own, community-based values.

As House Minority Leader, I tried creating our own path while giving in just enough to keep the broader GOP happy.I left when I realized I was wrong.

This session, the states Republican legislators are proving that national Republican values are alive and well in their local party.

The eight GOP House and Senate members proposals and votes on parental rights, abortion and gun control import the Trump-DeSantis culture wars raging across the country and provide an important reminder that Hawaii Republicans cant dissociate from their national party. And they may not want to.

Parental rights, particularly in education, have become a rallying cry for the right. Across the country, conservatives are pushing these issues atschool board meetings, which are erupting in heated debates and threats of violence.

The most well-known examples are Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis parental bill of rights, also known as the Dont Say Gay bill, and hisIndividual Freedombill. The former bans teachers from discussing gender identity or sexual orientation in the classroom, while the latter bans critical race theory.

While the composition of our Legislature means Republican-led efforts to mirror these bills wont succeed, it hasnt stopped them from trying. Rep. Elijah Piericksclaim thatHouse Bill 877, which would establish an institute for restoration at healing at Richardson School of Law, would promote critical race theory, which is basically racism against white people is the most outrageous. Sen. Brandon Awa and Rep. Diamond Garcias parental rights bills banning instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity are equally offensive.

ButHouse Bill 1393, signed by Reps. Lauren Matsumoto, Garcia and Pierick, may be the most insidious as it establishes a universally applicable, non-specified parent right. The bill defines that as the right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, care, and welfare of their child unless the government proves a compelling interest in restricting that right.

This right would not be limited to a particular educational topic, rather it would allow a parent to exempt their child from most activities unless the government makes a clear case to prevent it.Nearly identical billshave been introduced in Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, Minnesota and Alabama along with 32 other parental rights bills introduced across the country and in theU.S. Congress.

Gov. Josh Green signedSenate Bill 1, a measure that defends a womans right to choose, into law on March 22. The Democrat-led bill was Hawaiis effort to ensure women and medical professionals are protected following this summers United States Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.Civil Beat and others have provided excellent descriptions of the bill, so Ill focus on the attempted Republican amendments.

A floor amendment provides alternative language for a bill when its debated on the chamber floor. Republican-introduced amendments are essentially ideological showpieces in the Hawaii Legislature.

During the final debate, both Matsumoto and Garcia introduced amendments that were rejected by the House.Matsumotos amendmentsought to ban a minors ability to consent to abortion services.Garcias amendmentwould have restricted children younger than 16 from consenting to receive abortion services.

Matsumoto and Garcia and every other Republican in the House and Senate voted against Senate Bill 1. Democrat lawmakers Sen. Mike Gabbard and Rep. Sam Kong also voted no.

Parental rights and abortion are purity test issues for socially conservative Republicans. While their decision to highlight their positions through floor amendments are a little surprising, their unanimous no vote on the Democrats abortion bill isnt.

However, I am shocked this session by Republican lawmakers decision to mirror my former partys national positions, particularly as support for stricter gun laws reacheda new highin February amid a wave of mass shootings. While most Republicans dont believe new gun laws are needed, their numbers are dwindling too. Further, Hawaii Republicans depend on non-Republican votes to win, making their introduction of a Stand Your Ground law even more remarkable.

These laws came to the nations attention in 2005 when a jury found George Zimmerman not guilty for fatally shooting unarmed Black teen Trayvon Martin. Citing an increase in violent crimes, the House Minority Caucus legislative package included a bill that would bring Hawaiis self-defense law in line with FloridasStand Your Ground law.

Hawaii RepublicansHouse Bill 636would allow a person who believes they are in immediate danger of significant physical harm to use deadly force even if they know they have a chance to walk away. It operates on the exact same premise that led to Zimmermans acquittal. It didnt receive a hearing this session.

Also notable is Republican lawmakers unanimous decision on Friday to voteagainst a billthat would prohibit the carrying of firearms in certain areas, including schools, movie theaters and government buildings in Hawaii.

While Hawaii has some of thestrictest gun lawsin the nation, the U.S. Supreme Courts2022 rulingthat declared New Yorks concealed carry law unconstitutional could threaten them, andSenate Bill 1230was drafted in response.

To be clear, I do believe that logical people can view decisions about rights as a difficult balancing act.I signed a bill allowing parents to exempt their children from sexual education because I believed that most parents, like mine, would have the closest view of what their child was ready to process.

But Ive since understood that I should have taken a wider perspective. Not every parent is like mine. Laws are tools, and as lawmakers, we should always consider how someone might abuse the tools were putting into their hands. Hawaii Republicans should remember that.

As leading Republican presidential hopefuls, DeSantis and Trump are setting the tone on these culture war issues, and Hawaiis Republicans are following their lead. I know better than most how hard it is to defy the national Republican agenda, but I strongly encourage my former colleagues to do it anyway. Come what may.

Sign Up

Sorry. That's an invalid e-mail.

Thanks! We'll send you a confirmation e-mail shortly.

Originally posted here:
Beth Fukumoto: Hawaii Republicans Sound A Lot Like Their ... - Honolulu Civil Beat

One of these things is not like the others,

One of these things just doesnt belong,

Can you tell which thing is not like the others

By the time I finish my song?

The old Muppets song comes to mind when considering the issue of parental rights in the Indiana General Assembly this session. We have heard it over and over in bill after bill.

For instance, parental concerns led to language in House Bill 1635 to separate vaccine records from high school transcripts.

Senate Bill 321 was originally filed and amended last week to require a parent give consent for the student to receive services at a school-based health center. It also requires the parent be present at the time the student receives services.

Senate Bill 12 empowers parents to object to inappropriate materials in schools not just obscenity.

Heck, House Bill 1407 had an entire preamble about parental rights (thought it has died).

The state of Indiana, a political subdivision or other governmental entity of the state of Indiana, a government official, or any other person acting under the color of law shall not infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of the parents child without demonstrating that the infringement (1) is required by a compelling governmental interest of the highest order as long recognized in the history and traditions of the state of Indiana; and (2) as applied to the parent and the child, is narrowly tailored and not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.

But Republicans pushing these bills havent always been consistent. Thats because they are also ignoring or taking away parental choice in several cases.

For instance, under House Bill 1608, a parent who has accepted a childs gender identity must give their explicit consent to change the childs name or pronouns. But the legislation goes on to say that school staff can ignore the request of the parent and cant be disciplined for identifying a student consistent with the students legal name.

But the biggest example of spurning parental choice and rights is Senate Bill 480, which eliminates the right of a parent to direct the medical care of their minor child. But only if the child is transgender.

A parent can still consent to puberty blockers or hormone therapy for another medical diagnosis. But not if the same medications or therapy are used to help their child with gender transition.

In the General Assembly, Indiana lawmakers trust parents to choose their childs school; waive vaccination requirements and consent to all other medical care.

And I have yet to see a good explanation for this contradiction.

When Sen. Tyler Johnson, R-Leo the author of the ban on transgender minor care was asked about parental consent, he said, Im not here to attack parents. We have the medical, moral and legal obligation to protect Hoosier children and thats where Ill leave that at.

Rep. Renee Pack, D-Indianapolis, got to the heart of the matter on the House floor last week, saying Hoosiers are confused by the differing stances. She said there are times when lawmakers want to listen to parents and protect their rights and there are times when we want to say listen to us. We know better than doctors.

I have a daughter myself and believe parental rights are important and should be protected. But it appears that only goes so far. Because parents making informed decisions in consultation with their child and medical professionals are being second-guessed by the state of Indiana.

One could argue a parent who refuses to immunize their children is hurting the child. But I dont see a bill outlawing that decision.

Consistency is key in these types of debates, and Senate Bill 480 doesnt match the parents rights rhetoric.

Niki Kelly is editor-in-chief of indianacapitalchronicle.com, where this commentary first appeared. She has covered Indiana politics and the Indiana Statehouse since 1999 for publications including the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. Send comments to [emailprotected]

Read the original:
Niki Kelly: Republicans champion parental rights, except when they ... - The Republic

A formerly well-connected Republican donor was convicted on Friday of enticing teenage girls with gifts, cash and money in exchange for sex.

A federal jury found Anton Tony Lazzaro, 32, guilty of seven counts involving commercial sex acts with five girls aged 15 and 16 in 2020, when he was 30 years old.

The charges carry mandatory minimum sentences of 10 years with a maximum of life in prison.

The jury will return to court on Monday to determine what property the government can seize based on each conviction, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported.

Lazzaro who contends the charges against him were politically motivated plans to appeal, a spokesperson for his attorneys said in a statement to the Associated Press.

The unusual application of this federal sex trafficking statute to his activities is frighteningly broad, conflating what is nothing more than arguably an act of prostitution with federal sex trafficking, Stacy Bettison said. He believes he has strong grounds for appeal, and he will vigorously seek reversal of his conviction. Mr Lazzaro trusts he will be vindicated.

Lazzaros indictment led to the downfall of Jennifer Carnahan as chair of the Republican party of Minnesota.

His co-defendant, 21-year-old Gisela Castro Medina, who formerly led the University of St Thomass College Republican chapter, pleaded guilty to two counts last year. She testified against Lazzaro.

Prosecutors argued during the trial that Lazzaro enlisted Medina, who he initially paid for sex, to recruit other teenagers preferably minors who were white, small, vulnerable or broken.

He wanted sex, and not just any sex, federal prosecutor Melinda Williams said during closing arguments on Friday. He wanted sex with minor girls under the age of 18. And he had a plan to get it.

Lazarros attorney, Daniel Gerdts, argued that the governments salacious prosecution was based on completely unfounded allegations.

The prosecution clearly disapproves of Mr Lazzaros playboy lifestyle, Gerdts said. And frankly, as the father of three daughters, so do I. The opprobrium is well deserved, but that is not why were here.

Carnahan, the widow of former Minnesota Republican congressman Jim Hagedorn, resigned a week after the charges against Lazzaro were unsealed. She denied knowing about Lazzaros crimes but his arrest prompted outrage among party activists.

Pictures on Lazzaros social media accounts showed him with prominent Republicans, including ex-president Donald Trump and former vice-president Mike Pence. He gave more than $270,000 to Republican campaigns and political committees over the years.

Read more from the original source:
Republican donor convicted of sex trafficking teenage girls - The Guardian US

WASHINGTON A Republican senator has single-handedly held up promotions for the militarys senior commanders at least through mid-April as he attempts to pressure the Pentagon to change a new abortion policy created to ensure access to abortions for service members after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The weekslong push by Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, which is threatening to drag on into its third month after the senators left town on Thursday for a two-week holiday recess without resolving the matter, has prompted the first major clash of the new Congress over abortion access in the wake of the Supreme Court decision last year overturning abortion rights.

The Republican-led House passed a measure in January that would lay out criminal penalties for abortion doctors in some cases, but Democrats in the Senate, who control that chamber, have no intention of allowing the bill to be considered. Mr. Tubervilles move, by contrast, has forced a debate on abortion access to the forefront of the Senate agenda.

Mr. Tuberville, a right-wing freshman, began blocking the promotions of generals and admirals across the services in mid-February, after the Pentagon announced it wouldgive U.S. service members up to 21 days of leave for abortions or fertility treatments and reimburse travel and transportation costs incurred while obtaining such treatments.

The Pentagon created the policy in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization last year, which overturned the precedent that enshrined abortion rights nationwide and gave rise to a national patchwork of laws. That left Americans including military personnel who are housed at bases throughout the country, sometimes with little control over where with unequal access to abortion.

Under the new policy, a service member living in a state where abortions are banned or severely restricted would have time off and reimbursement to travel to a place where the procedure is legal and accessible.

Mr. Tuberville, whose home state hosts six military installations and has laws banning abortion even in cases of rape or incest, has insisted that his objections have nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision to the access of abortion, but instead are about not forcing the taxpayers of this country to fund abortions.

The militarys health care plan covers abortions in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother, but under the new policy, service members would be able to request travel reimbursement for any reproductive health procedure, including those not covered under the official plan.

Yall got the American taxpayer on the hook to pay for travel and time off for elective abortions, Mr. Tuberville said to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this week, arguing that thePentagons policy ran afoul of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits spending federal dollars on abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. Congress will write the laws not the secretary of defense, not the Joint Chiefs.

The protracted impasse has left Democrats and some Republicans wringing their hands over the potential national security repercussions of leaving the senior ranks of the military susceptible to depletion by attrition until the Pentagon either capitulates to Mr. Tubervilles demands, or he is convinced to relent.

It may not be his intent, but he is effectively accomplishing what our adversaries could only dream of: denying our military of its leadership and degrading our ability to fight and win the nations wars, Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and the Armed Services Committee chairman, said during a floor speech this week. He accused Mr. Tuberville of a profound assault on the professionalism of the men and women of the armed services.

Military promotions are not a political matter and they are not toys for political gains, Mr. Reed added.

He noted that Mr. Tubervilles blockade could affect not just the 150 to 200 pending nominations for generals and admirals, but potentially 650 more that are expected over the next eight months including a replacement for the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If this policy continues or this practice continues, we are wiping out the leadership of the Department of Defense, Mr. Reed said.

Yet such arguments failed to sway Republicans, who argued that the burden was on Senate Democrats and the Pentagon to address Mr. Tubervilles concerns, even as some personally distanced themselves from his tactics.

What I dont understand is why it doesnt appear that anybody is reaching out to find a compromise with him, said Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, who sits on the Armed Services panel. The military should probably sit down and visit with the senator and find a path forward.

Senator Todd Young of Indiana, who served in the Navy and the Marines, said Mr. Tuberville was rightly using his power in the Senate to raise an important issue.

We shouldnt abuse that prerogative that we have to insist on votes and use this gratuitously and frequently, but in this case I think he has an important point on behalf of his constituents which is that he deserves a vote, Mr. Young said. Democrats, he added, should give him a vote. Why cant we go on record about this matter?

The most obvious forum for such a discussion would be during debate on the annual defense authorization bill, which frequently dictates policy changes that touch on matters of national political debate.

If he wants to put up an amendment into the N.D.A.A. to disallow this rule, then that is a path, said Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, referring to the National Defense Authorization Act. I hope that at some point hell say, OK, I made my point.

But that debate is still months away, and for now, it appears Mr. Tuberville is digging in.

This has been a coordinated campaign to pressure me to lift these holds, Mr. Tuberville said on the floor this week. That doesnt bother me one bit, and it is not going to work.

On Thursday, the Senate passed a package approving the promotions of rank-and-file members of the armed services by unanimous consent. But Mr. Tubervilles hold means the Senate would be forced to go through the nominations he is blocking one by one, holding a series of votes on each in order to circumvent his objections. Democrats argued that such a path would be untenable, as it would probably consume months of floor time.

Mr. Tuberville also has defended his objections by arguing that Democrats have used a similar tactic in the past, such as when Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois blocked a similar cohort of nominations over concerns that then-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness in the first impeachment of former president Donald J. Trump, would not be promoted. Her blockade lasted less than two weeks.

Yet Mr. Tubervilles stand over abortion policy comes at a time when Republicans have been jeering the military for policies that they deem to be too woke, decrying the Pentagons most senior leaders over efforts to tackle far-right extremism in the ranks and demanding that they account for reports of drag queen story hours at some installations. Democrats also argued that placating Mr. Tuberville would set a precedent encouraging other senators to use the perennial task of approving military promotions as a forum to grandstand for other political pet issues and called on Republican leaders to talk him down.

If one person plays this game, everyone is going to play this game, Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said Thursday. It is my view that sensible Republicans, maybe quietly, will go to Tuberville and say this is a real danger to American security and a loser for the Republican Party.

Link:
Republican Senator Blocks Military Promotions Over Abortion Policy - The New York Times