Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

On Eve of Confirmation Hearings, G.O.P. Steps Up Attacks on Jackson – The New York Times

WASHINGTON Republicans are intensifying their attacks on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson after weeks of publicly reserving judgment on President Bidens Supreme Court nominee, ahead of historic hearings on the first Black woman to be put forward as a justice.

Republican leaders, wary of engaging in a potentially racially charged spectacle that could prompt a political backlash, have promised a more dignified review of the latest Supreme Court candidate, after a series of bitter clashes over the court. But in recent days, with the approach of the Senate Judiciary Committees hearings on her nomination that begin on Monday, their tone has shifted.

Last week, Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican who sits on the panel and will question Judge Jackson, claimed his review of her judicial record had determined that she had been lenient in sentencing some sex offenders and those convicted of possessing child pornography. He also suggested that, as a member of the United States Sentencing Commission, she worked to reduce penalties for those caught with child pornography. A detailed background paper prepared for the Judiciary Committee made a similar case.

At the same time, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, has doubled down on his suggestion that Judge Jacksons experience as a public defender could influence her view of the law and lead her to favor criminal defendants.

Her supporters look at her rsum and deduce a special empathy for criminals, Mr. McConnell said in a lengthy floor speech in which he argued that her work on behalf of the accused was a blot on her record. I guess that means that government prosecutors and innocent crime victims start each trial at a disadvantage.

The increasingly hostile critiques of Judge Jackson suggest that her confirmation hearings might not be the sober, drama-free proceeding that many had anticipated when she was nominated to replace Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who has announced he will retire at the end of the courts current term this summer.

Her confirmation would not change the ideological composition of the court, which is tilted 6-3 toward conservatives. And Judge Jackson has previously been confirmed three times by the Senate for two judgeships and a spot on the sentencing commission. Nothing surfaced on those occasions to impede her approval. Republicans concede she has the legal experience and educational qualifications for the lifetime position.

Mr. Hawley, who is regarded as a potential Republican presidential contender and has not voted for a single Biden administration judicial nominee, was never considered a likely supporter of Judge Jackson. Still, his detailed takedown of her record on sex crimes has generated concern among Democrats, who worry it could deter some Republicans who are considering supporting her, or even rattle some senators in their own party, all of whom will likely be needed to win confirmation.

The White House and Senate Democrats have pushed back forcefully, accusing Mr. Hawley of intentionally disseminating misleading information and taking material out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Jacksons record.

Attempts to smear or discredit her history and her work are not borne out in facts, said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary.

Administration and Senate officials say that Judge Jacksons sentences in pornography cases were at or above recommendations from probation officials and comparable to what other federal judges were handing down under guidelines that were considered badly outdated. They also point to her strong support from law enforcement groups and prominent police officials.

Those individuals would be surprised to learn that they are supposedly soft on crime, said Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman who has been working on the confirmation. He called Mr. Hawleys allegations toxic and weakly presented misinformation that relies on taking cherry-picked elements of her record out of context and it buckles under the lightest scrutiny.

As for the criticism of the sentencing commission, the White House and Senate Democrats note that the sentencing recommendations it made during Judge Jacksons tenure were approved unanimously by the bipartisan panel, with members appointed by presidents of both parties and ultimately accepted by Congress.

One Republican-appointed member of the panel who served with Judge Jackson, Judge William H. Pryor Jr., the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, confirmed that the recommendations of the commission were almost uniformly supported by all its members as the panel sought to eliminate disparities and improve sentencing.

We worked by consensus, and that is the tradition of the sentencing commission,, he said in an interview. Virtually all of our votes were unanimous and data-driven.

Judge Jacksons service as a federal public defender, and her work for some detainees held at the U.S. prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, was always going to be an issue in her confirmation. But Mr. Hawleys accusation added a new element to the debate, focusing more on her time as a federal district court judge and a member of the sentencing commission. Other Republican members have said they intend to pursue the issue with Judge Jackson.

The days of broad bipartisan support for Supreme Court nominees are long gone, but Democrats have held out hope that Judge Jackson could get at least a handful of Republican votes given her experience and the possibility that some would want to be counted in support of placing a Black woman on the court.

But just three Republicans backed her last year when she was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and persuading senators to support a candidate for a higher court after opposing her for a lower one is a difficult task.

Still, Judge Jackson, with her White House entourage in tow, has engaged in a charm offensive in the Senate, meeting with 44 senators of both parties and all 22 members of the evenly divided Judiciary Committee.

Democrats have been effusive in their praise and support of Judge Jackson, calling her an ideal candidate for the court with the capacity to work with other justices to try to develop more consensus rulings.

Republicans who have met with her report privately that she is very engaging, presents a memorable life story of achievement and speaks admiringly of Justice Antonin Scalias view that judges should interpret, not make the law. But they say they have also been frustrated by her unwillingness to lay out a specific judicial philosophy and her refusal to take a stance on whether the Supreme Court should be expanded, as progressive groups have proposed.

She will be pressed on those subjects and many more during questioning by senators on Tuesday and Wednesday, after a session on Monday in which each of them will deliver statements, Judge Jackson will be introduced, and she will make opening remarks.

Despite the historic nature of her nomination, Supreme Court confirmations have become intense struggles, and the recent shift in tone among Republicans suggests this weeks proceedings could be no different.

Given the increasing role of the court in settling political and social questions, activists on both sides of the ideological spectrum are deeply invested in its makeup. Democrats are still livid at Republicans blockade of Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obamas 2016 nominee to the court, and the rapid manner in which they rammed through the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, former President Donald J. Trumps pick, just before he lost the 2020 election.

Republicans remain irate about the confirmation hearings for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, which were marred by allegations of sexual assault.

Against that backdrop, Senate veterans say a fight over Judge Jackson is probably inevitable.

It's a fact that we are now living in very partisan times, said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who will for the first time be overseeing a high court confirmation.

More:
On Eve of Confirmation Hearings, G.O.P. Steps Up Attacks on Jackson - The New York Times

Republicans Think They Can Win the COVID Funding Fight – The Atlantic

If a new coronavirus variant surges in the United States this yearperhaps the one currently tearing through Europetheres a reasonable chance that the country will be unprepared to fight it. You can thank Congress for that.

Last week, lawmakers passed a massive spending bill without any additional funding for COVID-19 relief, despite White House pleas for more. Democrats would like to fulfill the administrations request. But Republicans have taken the position that Congress has already done enough. We dont need COVID funding, GOP Representative Randy Feenstra of Iowa told me. Most people would say were done. We have more issues with inflation than COVID right now.

Politically, Republicans feel safe making this argument. New cases of COVID have been decreasing for weeks, and hospitalizations are on the decline too. Most cities that had mask mandates have gotten rid of them. Many Americans tell pollsters that theyre ready for the country to move on; people are focused on other issues, such as Russias war in Ukraine and rising gas prices. But more than 1,000 people are still dying every day from COVID. Experts predict that the new BA.2 subvariant could be the dominant strain in the United States in a matter of weeks.

Read: Another COVID wave is looming

In other words, refusing to approve new funding is a risk. People want us to be prepared in advance and stabilized, the Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told me. Republicans are voting against both. If COVID gets much worse over the next few months, Democrats will rush to blame the GOP, especially if Republican members strike down a stand-alone vote on COVID relief. Theyre forcing a situation thats going to make it worse for them in November, Lake said. Of course, by election season, a spring debate over COVID funding will be a distant memory. If a new variant has overwhelmed the country by then, the partisan discourse will probably center on mask mandates and vaccines instead. Perhaps Republicans are right to bet that voters wont punish them for blocking new funding.

Republicans were skeptical about approving more money to combat the virus; theyd suggested that the government simply repurpose any funds that states hadnt yet spent (but may have already earmarked). After many Democrats balked at this idea, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stripped COVID aid from the funding bill entirely, hoping to deal with it separately later. Democrats may soon try to pass COVID relief as a stand-alone bill, but the chances of getting it through the tied-up Senate are slim.

The White House is now warning that as soon as next week, the government will have to cut shipments of monoclonal-antibody treatments by a third, as my colleague Ed Yong wrote earlier this week. By next month, it wont be able to reimburse health-care providers for treating uninsured Americans with COVID. By the summer, itll have to cut funds for test manufacturers. Perhaps most crucially, itll scale back global vaccination efforts that would help keep new variants from emerging.

Democrats want to answer the White Houses call, though theyre divided on how to do it. Some members are a bit more closely aligned with Republicans, and would prefer to take an accounting of current COVID funds and redirect them to fulfill the White Houses needs. There is a lot of money sloshing around, Representative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan told me. People understand the desire to sweep unspent funds; I just want that conversation to be fair. Others, mainly progressives, support new spending, and even authorizing emergency funds for COVID relief. We just put enormous amounts of money into defense spending for Ukraine, Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told me. Were literally asking for very little money here to deal with this global pandemic.

Republicans, on the whole, believe that Congress has already spent enough money combatting COVID in the past two years. Everybody obviously is tired of all this, and I dont mean that in a dismissive way, Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma told me. The administrations requests are legitimate, but we have the money; we dont need to go deeper into debt. Using up resources that have already been allocated is more important, GOP members argue. When I asked Representative Ron Estes of Kansas whether the possibility of a surge in cases due to a new variant would change Republicans views on funding, he told me that its one of those things that well have to see how it plays forward. Estes also suggested that more Americans have natural immunity now, after so many contracted the most recent Omicron variant.

Read: Bidens uncertainty principle

To pass COVID relief on its own, rather than tucked into some larger package, Democrats would likely have to pair any new funding with spending cuts elsewhere to get it through both chambers of Congress. All epidemics trigger the same dispiriting cycle, Yong wrote earlier this week. First, panic: As new pathogens emerge, governments throw money, resources, and attention at the threat. Then, neglect: Once the danger dwindles, budgets shrink and memories fade.

In Washington, D.C., the easiest thing to do is nothing. If lawmakers fail to pass any more money for testing or research or monoclonal-antibody treatments before another variant is raging through the United States, their neglect wont be a surprise. But their panic might come too late.

Link:
Republicans Think They Can Win the COVID Funding Fight - The Atlantic

Letters to the editor: Upgrade Redmond swim center; Why Republicans dislike Biden; What next for the mortgage deduction; Dear President Biden – The…

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

See the article here:
Letters to the editor: Upgrade Redmond swim center; Why Republicans dislike Biden; What next for the mortgage deduction; Dear President Biden - The...

US House moves to revoke Russia, Belarus trade status; 8 Republicans vote no – Idaho Capital Sun

WASHINGTON The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to revoke normal trade relations with Russia and Belarus, another step the federal government hopes will end the Russian war in Ukraine.

The 424-8 vote sends the measure, which refers to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian President Aleksander Lukashenko as ruthless dictators, to the Senate.

GOP Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Chip Roy of Texas all voted against the bill.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, urged lawmakers to vote for the package during floor debate Thursday, saying it would tell Vladimir Putin that norms still matter.

This House is being asked today whether to repeal Russias permanent, normal trade relations status. The question ought to be: Is Russia behaving like a normal, law-abiding nation? And of course, the resounding answer of the world has been No, Hoyer said.

Texas Republican Kevin Brady, the ranking member of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, also urged members to vote for the bill, saying it was a crucial step in standing up for Ukraine and democracy.

It takes an important bipartisan step forward to make sure Russian products dont enter into the U.S. with the same treatment that the invaded country, Ukraines products, come into the United States, Brady said.

Grothman said before the vote that while he believes suspending normal trade relations with Russia is important, he had concerns about the part of the bill that would alter a human rights law, known as the Magnitsky Act.

Grothman said he was concerned that the changes to part of that law, defining human rights abuses, could possibly be used to apply economic sanctions to countries over their stance on LGBTQ rights or abortion laws.

Brady said he also opposed Democrats adding changes to the Magnitsky Act to the legislation, saying the new language is unnecessarily vague and could lead to future abuses.

I understand this expanded language may have been included in the temporary executive order by the previous administration to address human rights, but I dont believe its warranted in a permanent expansion of this law, Brady said. Im confident there are senators who share my concerns. And I strongly urge them to remove that provision.

Biden announcement

The bill follows through on President Joe Bidens announcement last week that the U.S., European Union and Group of 7 nations would all remove permanent normal trade relations or most favored nation status with Russia as part of Western democracies response to its war against Ukraine.

Biden said last week that he supported Congress taking the steps needed to remove Russias favored trade status, saying revoking PNTR for Russia is going to make it harder for Russia to do business with the United States.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said Thursday morning hes working with Republicans to quickly move the 23-page bill through the Senate.

For weeks members of the Senate, the House and the White House have been working together to draft a strong and effective bill that will increase the pain on Putins Russia and that our European allies will accept, he said on the floor.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

To date, both parties, Democrat and Republican, remain united in sending Putin a clear message: His inhumane violence against the Ukrainian people will come at a crippling price, and todays step by the House is another way we are making that come true, he continued.

Once the Senate clears the measure and Biden signs it, Russia and Belarus will join Cuba and North Korea as the only nations without most favored nation status with the United States.

Most favored nation status generally means a country enjoys preferential trading relations, including low tariffs on their goods.

Go here to read the rest:
US House moves to revoke Russia, Belarus trade status; 8 Republicans vote no - Idaho Capital Sun

How Republicans Are Thinking About Trumpism Without Trump – FiveThirtyEight

Like most presidents, Donald Trump changed the political party he led. But Trump was hardly a normal president.

That was apparent while Trump was president, but in many ways thats even easier to understand now that he is out of office. Unlike previous presidents, Trump has refused to take a step back from the limelight. Instead, he has continued to try and be the partys kingmaker, playing a far more active role in the 2022 primaries than he did in 2018 and 2020. His endorsements have gotten bolder and more aggressive down ballot, and hes often used them to root out those who oppose him or his false claims about the 2020 election results.

He also still commands considerable personal loyalty among voters within the party. But as Ive written before, there is evidence that the alliance between Republicans and Trump is uneasy, and it could test how much clout he carries in the party. To be sure, that doesnt mean we should expect Republicans to break from Trump en masse, but nevertheless, there are signs that both Trumps style and ideas are evolving as other politicians take them up and inevitably change them.

In the last few years, a number of ambitious politicians have established a national name for themselves by claiming the Trumpist mantle all while offering voters their own interpretations of Trump-style conservatism. This group includes governors like Ron DeSantis of Florida and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia; senators like Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri; and even erstwhile members of the Trump administration like former Vice President Mike Pence and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

Though a few of these figures, like Cruz and Haley, had national ambitions prior to the Trump era, many became national figures starting in 2016 and thus created political profiles inextricably linked to Trump. Lets take a look, then, at how these aspiring GOP leaders are reinventing or resisting Trumpism and what this might mean for the future of the Republican Party.

The first category of note is politicians who have tried to distance themselves from Trumps political style without really rejecting any of his views. The most prominent example of a GOP politician in this group is probably Youngkin, whose November 2021 victory in the Virginia gubernatorial race could serve as a model for Trump-style candidates running in purple states. What remains to be seen is whether this type of Trumpian politician will be any more successful at governing than Trump was. Youngkins administration so far has veered to the right and relied heavily on culture war tactics like going after critical race theory in schools, which hasnt proved popular among voters in the state. Its possible that this approach isnt a political winner in a purple state, even when the Democratic brand is struggling.

Some Republicans have gone further than Youngkin, though, explicitly trying to separate loyalty to Trump and his policy positions from believing in the Big Lie, the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Former New Jersey Gov. and Trump transition leader Chris Christie, who has also criticized Trumps general approach to politics, has said, for instance, that the Republican Party needs to move on from false beliefs about the last presidential election. He also recently told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt that Trump incited the Jan. 6 riot.

Pence has also publicly contradicted Trump, suggesting that Trump was wrong to claim that the vice president could overturn the results when Congress met to count the Electoral College votes. Hes also repudiated Trumps embrace of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, Haley has tried to strike more of a middle-of-the-road approach, criticizing Pences rebuke of Trump while maintaining publicly that Biden won the 2020 election. In other words, theres a not-so-insubstantial faction of Republicans trying to split the difference when it comes to Trumpism. They derive some of their national stature from their affiliation with Trump but disavow some of his more extreme positions.

Some Republicans, though, have broken even more decisively with Trump. Members of this group vary in their relationship to Trumps legislative agenda some actually backed core components of his policy goals but theyre nonetheless distinct from others in the party in that theyre not trying to reinterpret Trumpism; rather, theyre aiming to distance themselves from it. Some prominent Republicans who fall into this group include Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

A key distinction, though, between these figures and Republicans like Christie, Pence or Haley is that its even harder to imagine any of the former entering or gaining traction in a GOP presidential primary. The presence of a more outwardly anti-Trump faction is still significant, though, as it raises questions about the viability of the larger party coalition. Currently, it appears that members of this group will be ostracized. For instance, Cheney and Kinzinger have been censured by the Republican National Committee. Cheney also lost her leadership position for her comments about the 2020 election and support for Trumps second impeachment, and Kinzinger, who also supported Trumps second impeachment, isnt seeking reelection.

Finally, the polar opposite of the firmly anti-Trump group are those in the party who seem to be trying to out-Trump Trump, or leaning into the most bombastic reimagining of Trumpism possible. This group most prominently includes DeSantis, who has tried to establish himself as the 2024 front-runner of this wing of the party. As such, he has positioned himself as a leading figure in the GOPs fight to curtail abortion rights and LGBTQ rights and voting rights. He has even criticized Trump from his right, saying in January that he regretted not speaking out in 2020 against Trumps COVID-19 recommendations.

In Congress, this group includes legislators like Sen. Ron Johnson and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn and Paul Gosar. Trying to out-Trump Trump has a lot of different expressions, but among this group of Republicans, it broadly refers to their attitudes toward COVID-19, the 2020 election and electoral democracy in general. This groups rise to prominence illustrates the appeal of a constituency for an even more extreme version of Trumpism. That said, its not clear how broad the appeal is Greene faces several primary challengers (though she is likely to keep her seat) and is unpopular nationally. Meanwhile, Johnsons popularity in his home state of Wisconsin has declined since 2020, and he is up for reelection in November.

At this point, there is a lot of uncertainty about what the post-Trump Republican coalition will look like moving forward. Its possible that the GOP is now completely dominated by one individual, as evidenced by the purge of those who pushed back on the 45th presidents fraudulent claims that the election was stolen from him. But there are still other voices in the party, including some that have pushed back on some aspects of Trumpism.

In fact, if the largest group of Republicans prove to be that which seeks to reinterpret Trumpism in some way, its possible itll end up wielding a lot of influence in the party. The key question here is whether these Republicans can carve out their own political identities while still drawing on the past president, as Trump and Trumpism now define the the partys factions. This is a common dilemma for politicians after an influential presidency. And it still remains to be seen whether Trumpism is open to reinterpretation by others, or whether, as is often the case in highly personal political movements, the ideology proves impossible to separate from the leader.

In 2021, political scientist Hans Noel wrote that Republicans could agree to disagree about democracy, citing the need for parties to form broad coalitions in the U.S. political system and the many historical examples of such coalitions exiting despite deep differences within them. But disagreeing over the basic tenets of democracy might prove too much of an intra-party fissure for Republicans to overcome to form a coalition.

The fact, too, that it is so hard to imagine a post-Trump Republican Party speaks to just how successful Trump has been in seizing control of the party, whether its from election officials at the state and local level or from the RNC. And its perhaps the biggest reason why in 2024, as was the case in 2016, a well-known but divisive figure including Trump himself might once again step in and fill the void.

The rest is here:
How Republicans Are Thinking About Trumpism Without Trump - FiveThirtyEight