Login
For the past 18 years, Senate Republicans have had one leader: Mitch McConnell took the job in 2006 and has retained it ever since. But with his decision to step down from the post after November’s elections, there are three Republicans vying to replace him.
One of them is Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. He was first elected to the Senate in 2018 and ran against McConnell two years ago.
He’s now competing with Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and John Thune of South Dakota to win the support of his Senate Republican colleagues.
The Daily Signal invited all three senators to discuss their plans, and Scott was the first to accept our request. Read a lightly edited transcript below.
Rob Bluey: Senator, why did you decide to enter the race for Republican leader?
Sen. Rick Scott: First off, we’ve got to have big change. Let’s think about just the citizens we represent. They’re fed up with a budget that’s not balanced. They’re fed up with an open border. They’re fed up with all this wasteful spending. They’re fed up, basically, with the federal government that’s out of control.
If you want change, you’re going to have to change your way the Senate is run. We need to go back to represent our states. We need to be fighting over issues. The bill shouldn’t be decided by McConnell and [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer. We should go through a committee process. There’s so many things we’ve got to do to get this country back where it needs to go.
We need to have a Republican leader that has a relationship with President [Donald] Trump. He’s going to win. He’s going to have an agenda. We got to do everything we can to help him get his agenda done.
Republican Senators Pledge to Block Democrat Agenda Following Trump Verdict
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) June 1, 2024
Via Rob Bluey:https://t.co/eW5hAc59Ld
Bluey: When you talk about those big changes, in some ways, it seems that you’re suggesting the Senate is broken right now and needs fixing. What are some of the ways that you would go about making sure those reforms are put into place?
Scott: No. 1, I don’t think a leader should have a term of more than six years. No. 2 is the bill shouldn’t be done by McConnell and Schumer. They should be done at the committee level where everybody has the opportunity to have input that are on those committees.
And then after that, we ought to have a robust amendment process on the Senate floor. So, if I would like an amendment that’s going to represent my state better, I ought to be able to do that.
If I can’t talk people into it, that’s my problem. If I don’t even have a chance because the bill never went through a committee or we never had any amendment votes, I have the opportunity to say yes or no. That’s not the way the Senate is supposed to represent work. I’m supposed to be able to represent my state and fight for the issues that are important to my state. That’s not how the Senate works right now.
Bluey: As you’ve observed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer‘s approach to running the Senate, what you see as some of his biggest or most glaring failures?
Scott: He wants to, and he does a lot of this with McConnell, but they want to write the bills. It’s not written out of a committee. It doesn’t come up through a committee.
There’s one or two people who have input and then if they put them on the Senate floor where you just have an up-or-down vote, you don’t even have a chance to improve it. We all have ways we could improve these bills and we don’t even have a shot at trying to improve the bills.
That’s not the way the Senate is supposed to work. I’m supposed to be able to fight like hell for my state. Every senator should have the opportunity to fight for their state, but if you don’t go through a committee, you have no input on the bill, and you don’t have any amendment votes, it’s pretty hard to represent your state.
Bluey: Some of the early chatter in Washington seems to revolve around a leader’s role in raising money for members of his party. I’m curious to know your thoughts on that and perhaps why that shouldn’t be the sole qualification for somebody to get the job as leader?
Scott: Any leader is going to be able to raise money. A lot of the money flows through PACs that the leader might be or is tied to. Anybody is going to be able to raise the money as long as you’re willing to do the job.
As you know, I’m from a big state, so for my governor’s race I had to raise a lot of money and my Senate race. But the real job of the Senate leader is to represent the conference. Our bylaws, Republican bylaws, require us to have a legislative agenda. We haven’t had a legislative agenda since I’ve been up here for five years.
We need to come together as a group and say, “What do we want to get done the next two years?” And then let’s say, “OK, so now this is what we want to get done. How do we get it done? What’s going to be our strategy? What do we have to do to get these things done?”
That’s what we ought to be doing every day. We shouldn’t be sitting there and be reactive to what Chuck Schumer does.
And then, if we can get the majority, which I’m very optimistic, then let’s lead. Let’s focus on how do we secure the border? How do we balance the budget? How do we improve our foreign policy and have a positive agenda to solve the problems that the American public has sent us all to D.C. to do?
Bluey: Conservatives were clamoring for that legislative agenda back in 2022 for the midterm elections. You offered one, Sen. McConnell rejected your idea, instead said he wanted to merely run against President [Joe] Biden. Looking back in retrospect, why was McConnell’s strategy a mistake?
Scott: He has the belief that you shouldn’t stand for anything. You should just talk about how bad the Democrats are. And the Democrats are bad, there’s no question about it.
But my experience as a business guy is I was able to attract talent to work with me on my management teams because I had an agenda to get done and they bought into the agenda. If they didn’t like my agenda, they wouldn’t come to work with me. The public wants a plan. The public wants a plan. I had a plan when I ran in 2010 to be governor to turn the economics of our state around, give people a job. When I came to D.C., I had a plan for how to make Washington work for you.
The public is clamoring for a plan. The public is clamoring for somebody that’s going to fight like hell to defeat the policies and the ideology of the radical Left, which we all know is destroying this country. That’s what the public wants. That’s what we all talk about when we run. While we ought to do it when we’re here.
Bluey: You’ve mentioned your role as a successful businessman. You have served as Florida’s governor. You have also worn the hat of being chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In all three of those roles that you’ve had, what is your leadership style? What can people expect from you as somebody who is aspiring for this job?
Scott: First off, I’m very goal-oriented. I want to accomplish something. I became the governor, I built businesses because I wanted to accomplish something. I ran to the Senate because I wanted to accomplish something.
I’ve been very clear with my Senate role, we’ve got to change the way Washington works. It’s not working the American public right now. What they’re going to see is somebody that’s very focused on getting a result. That’s No. 1.
No. 2, if you look at my business career, my government career, this is a team event. You’ve got to bring people together to find a common goal to get anything done. And it’s not going to be just your ideas. You have to have a consensus. And so, you’ve got to figure out what it is and then you have to work and have a strategy to accomplish it.
If you look at any successful business, if you look at successful governors, that’s what they do. They have a plan and they work their plan. They surround themselves with people that believe in what they’re trying to accomplish.
That’s what they’ll see. If I can become the Republican leader, hopefully the majority leader, you’ll have a Republican conference that is very results-oriented and the goals will be very clear.
We will solve the problems that the country believes are the most important problems today. Those are securing the border, making sure that we get inflation under control, balancing the budget, making sure we fix our foreign policies so we don’t have wars going all around the world.
Bluey: On that specific note, what are some steps that you would like to take to empower those individual Republican senators to have a greater role in the legislative process?
Scott: The biggest thing is ask for their opinion, ask for their advice to get them in the middle of everything.
We have very talented Republican senators. And we are to say, “OK, with your background, would you like to be involved in this?” And you get people in the middle of it, of the issues.
And guess what? You bring out new ideas, you bring out new energy, and you get a lot of things done. But the biggest thing is, you get people in the middle of the problem. Republican senators, they want to solve problems, so let them do it, get them in the middle of it.
Bluey: What is your vision for reducing this reliance that it seems that Washington has year after year for omnibus spending bills and emergency supplementals?
Scott: Not having a budget to me is foolish. It’s not fair to the American public. Not having a budget is just basically having spending bills. What that means is we’re going to have more inflation.
That’s wrong. We should do everything we can to help all of our families by getting inflation under control. You cannot do it with a balanced budget, so we now have almost $35 trillion worth the debt. We have interest expense that exceeds our national defense budget. We have a Federal Reserve whose balance sheet is out of control.
What’s going to happen is, in that environment, interest rates can’t come down. That means that if you think you’re going to get a lower interest rate for a house, you’re foolish. Your credit card rate, interest rates are not going to come down. On top of that, we’re not going to see a reduction in gas prices and food prices and these things. So, spending matters.
I’ve always, my business life, I balanced the budget. The governor’s job, we balanced the budget every year. We actually paid off a third of the state debt in my years as governor. We can do this at the federal level.
The way you do it, is you say, this is my anticipated federal revenue, so that’s how much money we’re going to spend. You can do it, but if you just always say to yourself, “I don’t think I can get that done,” that’s going to be reality, you will not get it done.
Bluey: Will there be any backroom deals with a Leader Rick Scott in charge of things?
Scott: No, no. We all are part of this. You need to be transparent, you need to tell everybody what’s happening. If you want people to support what you’re doing, you don’t do it behind closed doors. You do it by talking to people, by getting their information, by getting them involved in what you’re trying to accomplish.
Bluey: You challenged Mitch McConnell for this job in 2022. What lessons did you learn from that race that you hope to apply this time?
Scott: Unfortunately, in that race, they rushed the vote to the next day, so we didn’t have time to actually go and sit down with everybody.
What I’m hoping to do is sit down with every Republican senator and say, “What do you want to accomplish?” And then my role will be if I can win is to say, “How do I help you accomplish your goals? How do I help you represent your state?”
The Republican leader’s responsibility is to help each senator be successful. A successful senator is somebody that is successfully representing their individual state.
Bluey: Sen. McConnell has served 18 years as leader. You would like to have a six-year term limit for this position. Why is that change important to you?
Scott: I’ve always believed in term limits because, No. 1, nobody consolidates power for a long time that way. No 2 is everybody realizes that you only have six years to get what you want to accomplish, so everybody gets more results-focused.
We have term limits for the governor, we have term limits for our legislature, and what that means is you’re going to get new leadership with new energy every few years, you’re going to have people very focused on what they can get done in their time in leadership or their time in office.
Bluey: Two of your colleagues, Sens. John Thune and John Cornyn, are also in the mix for Republican leader. What distinguishes you from each of them?
Scott: First off, they work hard to represent their state. Probably the difference to what I bring to the table is my business background. I built the largest hospital company; I built a variety of manufacturing companies. I’ve been involved in a variety of businesses. My first business was a donut shop when I was 22 and I got out of the Navy, so my mom could have a job. I had the opportunity to serve in the military. I had the opportunity to be the governor.
Those are the types of things I bring to the table, but the biggest thing is, and I tell people, I’m a turnaround guy. If you think the country’s headed in the right direction and you don’t think there has to be dramatic change, no one should vote for me. I believe the country’s in trouble. I believe there’s so many people in the American public who are struggling. The only way we’re going to make their lives better is if we have dramatic change. And that’s what I bring to the table.
Bluey: Have you seen examples of your entry into the race or even just the chatter about you potentially entering the race before you formally did that has moved either of them in your direction when it comes to some of the reforms that maybe Mitch McConnell has not necessarily endorsed in the past?
Scott: One thing everyone has started talking about is term limits. Most people who are elected don’t really believe in term limits, but the average person believes in it. I know the public believes in it. Now we’re having a real conversation about. Should there be a six-year term?
We have a six-year term for every other leadership position in the Republican Senate. We ought to have one for the leader. There’s no reason it should be different. I think that’s No. 1.
No. 2, we’re starting to have conversation about it. How should we be managed? Because the leader’s role is not to be a dictator. The leader’s role is to be a leader of a group of individuals that get to represent their individual states.
Bluey: I recently had the opportunity to talk to Sen. Roger Marshall about the Republican-wide discussion that took place. It seems that those types of events may occur more frequently in the future, should this play out the way you hope.
Scott: I believe in it. I believe we ought to have real conversations and then have real discussions and let everybody bring their ideas to the table without any negative ramifications.
I don’t get why I was kicked off and [Sen.] Mike Lee was kicked off the Commerce Committee just because I ran against McConnell. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I think I’ve run the biggest company of any person ever in the history of the Senate that’s served. And then Mike and I got kicked off because Mike nominated me to be the Republican leader. That stuff is wrong.
>>> Sen. Roger Marshall Prescribes Solutions for Congress’ Budget Woes
We ought to say, “Hey, Rick, you bring this to the table. Mike, you bring this to the table.” Whoever it is, “This is what you bring to the table. You ought to be really active in those ideas. And let’s fight over who’s got the best idea and then let’s come together with the goal that we get a result.”
I know that we have to secure the border. I know that we have to get inflation under control. These are things that are so simple to me that the public needs and deserves.
Bluey: Those, of course, are big priorities of former President Donald Trump as well. You sound confident that he’s going to be victorious in November. Why are you the one who’s best positioned to not only advance his agenda, but also those critical votes on the nominees he puts forward to serve in his administration.
Scott: I knew President Trump before either of us ran for office. I’ve known him for a long time. I believe in what he’s trying to accomplish. He’s in the same position I am, that we have to have a dramatic change. We can’t nibble at the edges. There has to be a significant change in how our federal government is run. The public realizes that, that’s why he’s going to win.
What he’s going to need is a partner in the Senate who wants that to happen and help to make sure that’s exactly what happens in the Senate, not just in the White House.
Bluey: And finally, what kind of reaction have you received either from your constituents in Florida or some of your colleagues in the Republican conference since making the announcement?
Scott: I’ve had a lot of positive feedback. No. 1, my colleagues that want to sit down and talk about where we go, so that’s a positive. No. 2, in the state of Florida, people are excited that there’s a possibility of a Republican leader and hopefully the majority of their leaders are coming from our state.
The post Battle for Senate GOP Leader: Rick Scott Aims to Shake Up Status Quo appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The story of America is scrappy, daring, and revolutionary. Our Founding Fathers took an idea—democracy—that had been dead for centuries and revived it with little more than an amateur militia and a dream for a better world.
The great American experiment has been led by consequential presidents. They were warriors, leaders, and titans. Some of them, like Abraham Lincoln, literally stood above the crowds with imposing height. Military heroes such as Ulysses S. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt had the kind of courage you only read about today.
Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence. Ronald Reagan, an actor before entering the political sphere, pioneered conservative policies and paved the way for the modern conservative movement.
From innovators, thinkers and writers to generals, orators, and businessmen, the presidency of the United States used to be a job that attracted the best of the best.
Fast-forward to 2024. America’s president is the butt of jokes around the world. President Joe Biden gets lost on stage, forgets what he’s saying in the middle of a sentence, and bears little resemblance to the charming “Uncle Joe” that many Americans admired during the Obama administration.
Adding insult to injury, the Biden administration makes wrong decision after disastrously wrong decision. It’s been four years of failure and intentionally destructive policies.
To put it plainly, Biden does not measure up to the legendary presidents of American history.
Just this week, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre admitted from the podium that the Biden administration could take executive action to fix the border crisis, but it won’t. In fact, she bragged about the executive actions Biden took early in his presidency to destroy the progress of President Donald Trump‘s administration.
Biden stumbled through nine errors in a recent speech that White House staff had to clean up afterward.
Biden’s White House issued condolences for the death of the Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi—a man nicknamed the “Butcher of Tehran” for his human rights abuses and whose leadership led to a rise in terrorism and instability in the Middle East.
In another gaffe, Biden claimed to have been vice president during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also gave some bizarre marital advice: Marry a woman with a lot of sisters. He incorrectly announced that a person being held hostage by Hamas terrorists since Oct. 7 was in the crowd at an event.
He repeatedly stumbles up the stairs of Air Force One. He slips and falls on stage. He crashed his bike while riding at a slow pace. He reads aloud, with squinting eyes, the speech cues on his teleprompter.
He tells strange, inconsistent, and false stories about vague family members and friends.
Rather than cause alarm, Biden’s gaffes have become a punch line for late-night television. Hollywood brushes it off. Mainstream media happily provides him cover.
Unlike the media elites, the American people are horrified. They don’t think that Biden is truly capable of running the country. The chaos erupting around the world—in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Israel, and Taiwan, to name a few—doesn’t calm any of those fears.
Biden is a liability on the campaign trail—and his team knows it. That’s why they’re trying so hard to keep Trump tied up in court, because when you put these two side by side, there’s no comparison.
The president shouldn’t be a punch line. He’s the most powerful person on the planet and leader of the free world. Presidents are supposed to inspire hope; they don’t hide in a basement.
The upcoming debates between Biden and Trump will make the choice explicitly clear.
When Americans head to the polls on Nov. 5, they will be reminded of the American presidents who have changed the course of history, some for better and others for worse.
Our great American revival can only happen when we embrace true leadership and put America first. Our next president must bring us closer to the promise of “E Pluribus Unum”—out of many, one.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
The post The Many Ways Biden Doesn’t Measure Up appeared first on The Daily Signal.
New polling from Scott Rasmussen reveals that America’s elite 1%—those with high incomes, urban residences, and postgraduate degrees—are significantly out of step with the rest of the country on a range of issues.
It’s a troubling trend for America, and it doesn’t bode well for our future considering the elite 1% occupy many of the leadership roles in our cultural, educational, and government institutions.
There’s perhaps no statistic more shocking than the 69% of politically obsessed elites who think it would be better if only people with college degrees could vote. By comparison, just 15% of all voters hold that view. (Rasmussen defines “politically obsessed” as elites who talk about politics every day.)
Rasmussen’s latest survey, conducted by RMG Research, asked other questions ranging from government censorship to gun ownership. On nearly every issue, there’s a wide gulf between the ruling class and everyday Americans.
You can learn more about work on the elite 1% by tuning into “The Scott Rasmussen Show,” which airs Sunday at 10 a.m. ET on Merit Street Media.
In the meantime, listen to our full interview on “The Daily Signal Podcast” or read an edited transcript below.
Rob Bluey: What are the headlines coming out of your latest research?
Scott Rasmussen: As a reminder, the last time we talked about how the politically obsessed elites think the American people have too much individual freedom and people in this elite world really trust the federal government.
What we did this time is began to ask some of these same groups, the elite 1 % and the politically obsessed, what do they think America looks like?
Perhaps the funniest finding of all is we ask the question, “Do most Americans agree with you on most important issues?” Now, if we ask voters, about half say, “Yeah, I think most people agree with me.” Among the politically obsessed elites, 82% of that group thinks that most Americans agree with them on most issues. It’s not even close to true, but they’re looking in a mirror. They see what they want to see.
What’s scary about that, if you think about it in context of the administrative state, if these people believe that their views are representative of America, it justifies them cheating a little bit or bending the rules because they can say, “We’re fighting for the American people.” In fact, they’re fighting against the American people.
Bluey: Are there particular policy issues where you see that playing out more so than others? For instance, one that comes to mind is climate change.
Rasmussen: It’s actually harder to find places where the American people are with the elite. You mentioned climate change. About 2 out of 3 of this politically obsessed elite think that most voters are willing to pay $250 a year or more to fight climate change.
When we do polling to ask people how much they’re willing to pay—in terms of taxes or higher prices—about half say they’re not willing to pay anything, and 72% say nothing more than $100.
If you think about that in a policy sense, these influencers believe the American people are willing to pay something they’re not, and that’s why they can support some different policy ideas.
But look, it’s starts with a very basic thing: 71% of the politically obsessed elites think most Americans trust the federal government most of the time. That has not been true for 50 years. It’s been a half century since people tended to trust the government that much. Today, only 22% of voters voiced that much trust in government.
That is one of the core distinctions. If you trust the federal government, you trust the regulatory apparatus a lot more. You trust other rules and regulations, and voters just aren’t there.
Bluey: Another area that you polled had to do with social media. What did you find when you surveyed the elite 1% on that particular topic?
Rasmussen: Everybody, whether you’re in the elite or not, has some concern about disinformation and fake news. Where the difference comes is what to do about it.
Among most voters, they say that having the government decide what is misinformation and fake news is a bigger threat than the fake news itself. Among the elites, they say just the opposite.
Should the federal government be allowed to censor social media posts? Among all voters, 16% say yes. Among the politically obsessed elites, just over 50 % say, “Of course, we should have the right to censor social media.” Fundamentally different views.
The views of the elite 1% amount to a rejection of America’s founding ideals. Even on something as simple as, “Does the federal government listen too much or not enough to the American people?” Overwhelmingly, voters say the government is not listening to us and the elites are saying it’s listening too much.
Bluey: There seems to be a wide discrepancy of views when it comes to who should vote and who should have a say in our country’s future. That number to me was one that stood out and was quite alarming.
Rasmussen: Absolutely alarming.
We asked a question that seemed to me to be absurd, Would it be better if only people with a college degree were allowed to vote?”
Appropriately, most Americans just soundly reject that idea. But among the elites, they heavily believe this country would be better off if all those deplorables who didn’t go to college weren’t allowed to vote.
Bluey: And one issue where there’s also quite a big disparity is gun ownership. How do the elite view guns?
Rasmussen: Consistently for decades, voters say they want to live in a community where guns are allowed. Sometimes it’s in the low 60s, sometimes after a horrific shooting event, it moves down to the low 50s, but consistently a majority of Americans can support that.
Among the elite 1 % that politically obsessed portion of it, about 70% of them say, “No, we want to live where guns are outlawed.” And 76% of them want to ban the private ownership of guns.
If you are in that politically obsessed elite and you believe strongly that we should ban guns, and if you believe that most American people want to live in a community where guns are outlawed, then you take an almost religious fervor to the fight to ban guns because you can convince yourself that you’re fighting on behalf of the public. And once again, you’re actually fighting against what the American people are looking for.
Bluey: Do you feel that the elite 1 % are more out of touch in 2024 than maybe they were in past generations?
Rasmussen: First, I don’t have data from past generations, so I can’t make a clear assessment on that. But I think it’s probably a little bit different.
There have always been elites. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were clearly elites of their era, but they also had a commitment to something larger than themselves. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, said he was just articulating what the American people were feeling. At the same time, Alexander Hamilton said, “We need to establish a monarchy.” If you actually read his plan, it’s horrific.
So there have always been some people and elites who kind of rejected the founding ideals, who rejected the concepts of the Declaration of Independence.
>>> ‘Most Terrifying Poll Result I’ve Ever Seen’: Scott Rasmussen Surveys America’s Elite 1%
What’s changed in the last couple of generations are two things.
No. 1, we’re a little bit more sorted geographically. Members of the elite aren’t encountering non-elites on a regular basis. It’s not just that we live in gated communities or separate areas. Public transportation has been replaced by Uber. There’s not a lot of contact with people who aren’t like you.
The second part is there has been the rise of what a lot of people view as the global elite, where people begin to see others from other countries as more like them than they do their own countrymen.
Bluey: The use of pronouns has become quite pronounced in a lot of corporate settings, even in our federal government. There are some departments and agencies that now include them in email signatures and things of that nature. Is there a difference of how elites view pronouns vs. the rest of America?
Rasmussen: Let’s start with the fact that most Americans don’t even know what you’re talking about when you’re expressing your preferred pronouns. Only about 1 out of 10 voters has ever introduced themselves in that manner.
When they hear talk of it, it seems very foreign. But among the politically obsessed elite, about 60%, have introduced themselves expressing their preferred pronouns. And it’s hard to overstate the cultural difference at that point.
If you’re in this elite world—if you’re in the elite schools or many agencies of the federal government—it is absolutely normal and an everyday occurrence that you meet somebody and they tell you not only their name and their position, but their preferred pronouns. In the rest of America, that just doesn’t happen.
When you get into discussions about misgendering somebody, there are regulations being pushed right now that would require employers to punish somebody for misgendering—for not using somebody’s preferred pronouns. Only 9% of voters think that’s a fireable offense, but even more than that, they don’t even know what the discussion is about.
This is where that glaring gap between the elites and most Americans is quite visible. It is the cultural world they’re in, whether we’re talking about guns, or climate change policies, or preferred pronouns, or even the topic of should biological males be allowed to play in women’s sports.
Among the politically obsessed elite, 41% say they should. Now, that’s not a majority, but essentially, the politically obsessed elite is evenly divided on this question, whereas to most Americans, it’s ridiculous. Of course, biological males have a physical advantage. Of course, it is dangerous to let biological males into the women’s locker room. But the elite is having a discussion about it. That is out of step with the country. It is dangerous.
It’s fine to have different views. We all live on our own bubbles. Your bubble is a little different than mine, but probably has some overlap. But you have to be able to look outside your bubble and see what the rest of the country is doing.
If you’re in this elite world, you have enormous influence and you think your views are reflecting the public at large, that’s a really dangerous combination.
Bluey: One of the most notable examples of the last decade is when Donald Trump was elected president. It seemed that the elites were in shock. What might happen if Trump is victorious in November and how might they react?
Rasmussen: On Election Day 2016, most of the conversation was Hillary Clinton is up by three in the polls, but there’s a margin of error, she’ll probably win by six. There was a shock. They couldn’t believe it. They couldn’t imagine what was happening. And because in their mind, Hillary Clinton was the ideally prepared person.
Looking ahead to this year, first thing I will tell you is if the election is at all close, the way the last nine elections have been in, whichever team loses, they’ll believe the election was stolen. If Donald Trump wins, we will hear an awful lot about how he stole the election from these elites.
But something else is happening that’s playing a part in the election. It’s a distorted view of the public.
When we see the campus protests about the Palestinian situation, 62% of the elites have a favorable opinion. They think it’s great what these protesters are doing. Most voters don’t. Only 24% of voters support the protesters.
That leaves the pundits to misread the way a situation has played out. In fact, since the campus protest started, support for Israel has gone up—not what some of the protesters might have hoped for.
A lot of the elites are misreading the dynamics going on right now. About 80 % of the elite 1% approve of the way Joe Biden is doing his job.
The post 69% of Elites Want to Restrict Voting to College Graduates Only appeared first on The Daily Signal.
As Americans struggle to keep up with the rising tide of prices and feel the squeeze of high interest rates on housing, President Joe Biden continues to claim that the economy is good. “Bidenomics” is working, there’s no recession to see here, so shut up and enjoy the drag queen performances at the White House.
That narrative took a hit back in 2022, however, when America experienced two consecutive quarters of decline in gross domestic product—the traditional definition of a recession. In the first quarter of 2022, inflation-adjusted GDP declined in the U.S. by 1.6%, and it declined by an additional 0.6% in the second quarter of that year.
The Biden administration responded by simply redefining the word “recession.” The move made a bizarre kind of sense coming from a bureaucracy that has redefined what it means to be a woman.
The White House stated in July 2022 that “it is unlikely that the decline of the GDP in the first quarter of this year—even if followed by another GDP decline in the second quarter—indicates a recession.”
The Heritage Foundation, a stick-in-the-mud organization that doesn’t support willy-nilly redefining words to suit the woke movement, decided to get to the bottom of this whole redefining-a-recession nonsense. Heritage’s Oversight Project filed a Freedom of Information Act request in July 2023, asking the Treasury Department for internal communications regarding recessions. (Heritage created The Daily Signal in 2014.)
Treasury asked Heritage to narrow the parameters of the request. It did so. Treasury refused to hand over the documents by the time required by law. Heritage sued. Late last month, Treasury handed over some documents.
The catch? Most of the conversations in those documents have been redacted.
To be sure, we do get little gems like “I’d be glad to discuss tomorrow or Monday,” and “Thank you for forwarding.” These largely meaningless pleasantries are among the few words Treasury apparently deems nonthreatening enough to reveal to the public.
Many pages simply feature a large black box redacting the entire page.
One email shows Treasury staff discussing a quote from the International Monetary Fund stating that a “technical recession” consists of two quarters of economic decline.
“For the United States, some indicators, such as the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s GDPNow forecasting model, suggest that a technical recession (defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth) may already have started,” Gene Sperling, a senior adviser to Biden, quoted the IMF in an email on July 26, 2022.
Treasury redacted Sperling’s own words in his email, along with the substance of every email responding to him.
So, Heritage plans to sue again.
“The Oversight Project sued the Treasury Department to seek answers on why the Biden administration gaslit the American people into changing the definition of recession,” Kyle Brosnan, chief counsel at the Oversight Project, told The Daily Signal. “We have received multiple document productions from our lawsuit showing that there were a lot of communications about this change, but excessive redactions have hampered our ability to determine the truth. We intend to challenge these redactions as we progress in the case.”
The Biden administration’s apparent attempt, yet again, to hide the substance of internal discussions about the definition of a recession raises more questions than answers.
Did Treasury officials intentionally twist the definition in order to politically protect Biden in a midterm election year? Did they develop strategies for hiding negative economic news that might interfere with the 2024 election? If they weren’t trying to monkey with the definition of recession, why are they so insistent on hiding that fact?
Perhaps the Biden administration merely wishes to redefine “transparency,” as well.
The post WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? Biden Admin Redacts Its Justification for Altering the Definition of ‘Recession’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.
On Wednesday, President Joe Biden took the very unusual step of submitting to an interviewer who was an actual journalist (not like Howard Stern or Drew Barrymore). It wouldn’t be long before he started mangling his record—and Donald Trump’s.
CNN reporter Erin Burnett began with how Trump’s promises of new jobs in Wisconsin didn’t come true: “Why should people here believe that you will succeed at creating jobs where Trump failed?” Biden bragged: “He’s never succeeded in creating jobs, and I have never failed. I have created over 15 million jobs since I have been president.” He did it all by himself! He claimed that other than Herbert Hoover, Trump’s “the only other president who lost more jobs than created in his four-year term.”
There’s a massive asterisk; namely, the global COVID-19 pandemic. Trump’s employment record in the first three years of his presidency was strong. The raw number of employed Americans reached records. In October 2018, it had reached more than 156.6 million. The unemployment rate hit record lows across demographics—for women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and youth.
Obviously, the severe lockdowns during the pandemic—most aggressively pushed by the Democrats and their media allies—drove massive job losses. Nonfarm payroll employment in the United States declined by 9.4 million in 2020. So, Democrats blame that on Trump, and when the pandemic was over, they took credit for the economy climbing out of that hole.
But that wasn’t Biden’s worst mangle. He claimed to CNN that “no president’s had the run we have had, in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation. It was 9% when I came to office, 9%.”
That’s ridiculous! It’s a baldfaced lie. Inflation was 1.4%, again, due to the pandemic. Burnett didn’t check his facts, during or after the interview. She pushed him to acknowledge inflation was bad, but she didn’t suggest he was lying.
Fox News contributor Joe Concha tweeted: “And of course, CNN makes sure its pious fact-checker is nowhere to be found afterward.”
And of course, CNN makes sure its pious fact-checker is nowhere to be found afterward… https://t.co/1lgapFWYgp
— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) May 9, 2024
That would be Daniel Dale, who’s almost entirely deployed on TV to “fact-check” Trump. Since Trump’s Manhattan trial began in mid-April, Dale has appeared nine times to “check” him. He has not appeared to check anyone else. On April 18, Jake Tapper said, “He’s handy to have around at times like this.”
Some of these fact checks are “brag checks.” Trump will say he’s ahead in all the polls, when he’s ahead in most polls. But Dale sounds most exasperated when Trump blames Biden for his legal troubles. On April 18, Dale decried “his false conspiracy theory that essentially that Joe Biden is behind this case, which was brought by a locally elected district attorney.”
Dale can’t even disclose that District Attorney Alvin Bragg is a Democrat. He acknowledged Trump’s lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, was a Biden Justice Department official, and then joined Bragg’s team. A “conspiracy theory” between Democrat lawyers looks obvious here and declaring it “false” is a lame spin.
On Tuesday, Dale threw a penalty flag at Trump for saying Bragg is a “Soros-backed” prosecutor—and Trump didn’t say that in the remarks they’d just aired. Dale turned on the spin machine by saying leftist billionaire George Soros is “a frequent target of antisemitic conspiracy theories” and then claimed “at best” the money was indirect: Soros donated to the Color of Change PAC, and then the PAC backed Bragg.
If a conservative DA received big money from a pro-Trump PAC, CNN would call him or her “Trump-backed” without hesitation. CNN deploys Dale not as a “fact-checker” as much as a spin spoiler.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
The post CNN Fails to Fact-Check Biden’s Falsehood-Filled Interview appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Legislation adopted Wednesday by the House of Representatives would restore a question about U.S. citizenship to the 2030 census, potentially reshaping congressional representation and the Electoral College.
Lawmakers voted, 206-202, to pass the Equal Representation Act, a bill championed by Reps. Chuck Edwards, R-N.C., and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio. (See how your representative voted.) Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., introduced the Senate version, which Republicans overwhelmingly supported in a March vote.
With millions of illegal aliens residing in the United States—a problem exacerbated by the Biden administration’s border policies—the legislation aims to protect Americans’ electoral power and congressional representation by ensuring foreign citizens aren’t counted in the census.
“If you are an illegal immigrant, you should not be represented in the U.S. Congress,” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., told The Daily Signal. “It’s a shame that House Democrats are allowing their open-borders agenda to get in the way of common sense.”
One of those Democrats openly acknowledged the benefits of counting illegal aliens. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., admitted, “We have a diaspora that can absorb a significant number of these migrants. … I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.”
Democrat Congresswoman Yvette Clarke on illegal immigrants in America:
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 9, 2024
"I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes."
The end game: Dems are willing to destroy what it means to be an American citizen to help themselves politically. pic.twitter.com/3XmBDqYEsH
After being in all but one census from 1820 to 2000, the citizenship question was abandoned in the 2010 questionnaire during the Obama administration. The Trump administration attempted to restore the citizenship question for the 2020 census, but a divided Supreme Court ruled against its approach, and the idea was abandoned.
The Equal Representation Act would require the citizenship question on the 2030 census and each decennial census that follows.
Heritage Action, an independent partner of The Heritage Foundation, advocated for passage of the Equal Representation Act. The organization scored Wednesday’s vote on HR 7109. (The Heritage Foundation created The Daily Signal in 2014.)
Ryan Walker, Heritage Action’s executive vice president, faulted the Obama administration for undoing nearly 200 years of precedent. Walker said the consequences of inaction are significant, given the ongoing border crisis.
“Illegal immigrants and other noncitizens cannot vote, and should not be given the power to sway our elections or congressional maps—especially in light of Joe Biden’s border crisis that has brought more than 10 million people into our country,” Walker said. “The Equal Representation Act puts electoral power back in the hands of those with the right to vote—American citizens—something every member of Congress must protect.”
The House version amassed 114 co-sponsors and was approved by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability in April on a 22-20 vote.
Illegal aliens should have ZERO influence in our electoral process.
— Rep. Eric Burlison (@RepEricBurlison) May 8, 2024
You don't get to come to our country, break our laws, and then be included in congressional apportionment.
That's why I cosponsored the Equal Representation Act, which the House will vote on tonight.
“Members of Congress represent U.S. citizens, not foreigners,” said Davidson, the bill’s co-sponsor. “Under the Democrats’ open-border policies, sanctuary cities and states inflate their population with illegal aliens. Then they’re rewarded with more congressional representation by a census that counts illegals. The inflated count is then used to draw congressional maps, undermining fair representation for our citizens.”
Edwards stressed only American citizens can legally vote, “so, only American citizens should be counted when determining federal representation.”
Hagerty forced a vote on the Equal Representation Act in March. It ultimately failed, 51-45, although only one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted against it. Three other Republicans didn’t vote.
The post House Passes Bill to Restore Citizenship Question to Census appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Vaunce News 