This is a great bit by Jimmy Kimmel.
He lets Trump speak for himself.
He asks that viewers send it to their Republican friends.
I will but they won’t watch it.
You should.
Now here is another Trump promise that should keep us up at night: He has said that RFK Jr. will have a large role in his administration, overseeing the appointees in the areas that interest him: public health and food.
Melody Schreiber writes in The New Republic:
In June 2019, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. visited Samoa with his anti-vaccine organization, Children’s Health Defense, meeting with local anti-vaxxers and government officials at a time when the country’s measles vaccine was under attack. Prominent anti-vax voices, including CHD, blamed the vaccine for two infant deaths the prior year, even after the true reason was discovered. Amid the swirling misinformation, vaccine rates plummeted from 60–70 percent to 31 percent.
A few months after RFK Jr.’s visit, measles swept through the freshly vulnerable Pacific island nation, killing 83 Samoans—mostly children. Kennedy doubled down, writing to the Samoan prime minister to questionwhether a “defective vaccine” was responsible for the outbreak. Even two years later, in 2021, Kennedy called a Samoan anti-vaxxer who had reportedly discouraged people from getting vaccinated during the 2019 crisis a “medical freedom hero.” Kennedy has also insisted for years, against all available scientific evidence, that vaccines cause autism, blaming them for a “holocaust” in the United States.
This week, Kennedy told supporters that if Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wins, he has promised Kennedy “control of the public health agencies,” including the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump transition co-chair Howard Lutnik later denied that Kennedy would have a job with HHS—although, at the same time, he said Kennedy had convinced him to pull vaccines from the market. Trump himself, at his Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday, seemed to lend credence to the idea of Kennedy leading on health: “I’m gonna let him go wild on health. I’m gonna let him go wild on the food. I’m gonna let him go wild on medicines,” Trump said. Trump also said on a three-hour podcast episode with Joe Rogan last week that he’s told Kennedy, “Focus on health, focus—you can do whatever you want.” It’s not clear whether such a promise would have been made in exchange for Kennedy’s political endorsement, which would be illegal.
But if Kennedy were to be put in charge of HHS, he would be leading the executive department that oversees the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health, among others. In the meantime, Kennedy is an honorary co-chair on the Trump transition team, and claims to be “deeply involved in helping to choose the people who can run FDA, NIH, and CDC.”
In his own speech at Madison Square Garden, Kennedy took aim at Democrats, saying they were once “the party that wanted to protect public health, and women’s sports”—a bizarre pairing that highlights his recent pivot to attacking trans athletes and gender-affirming care. Kennedy, who ran as a Democratic and then independent presidential candidate before throwing his support behind Trump, is also spreading misinformation on chronic health issues such as obesity, diabetes, drug overdoses, and autism; on Tuesday, for example, he said diabetes could be “cured with good food.” In his Sunday speech, Kennedy characterized Trump as a president who would “protect our children … and women’s sports,” as well as “end the corruption at the federal agencies—at FDA, at NIH, at CDC, and at the CIA”—a constellation of bodies rarely joined together, which he implied are conducting surveillance upon and acting against the interests of the American people.
“This unbridled assault on science and scientists, it’s highly destabilizing for the country,” Baylor College of Medicine dean Peter Hotez, author of The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science, told me earlier this year, a few months after Kennedy announced his run. But it’s not just Kennedy—Trump and other Republicans in Congress are also leading the charge to undermine expertise and further erode public trust in the government, he said. “This is what authoritarianism is all about,” Hotez said, lamenting “the collateral damage that it’s going to do to our democracy” and pointing to the ways Stalin portrayed scientists as public enemies during the Great Purge.
Hotez sees the false claims about vaccines causing autism, which first started gaining momentum in the late 1990s, as phase one of the assault on science. When that was thoroughly debunked, anti-science activists began aligning themselves “around the banner of health freedom, medical freedom,” getting a major boost with the Covid-19 pandemic, Hotez said. “Now we’re seeing the next phase, which is not only targeting the science but targeting the scientists and portraying them as public enemies. That is both scary and worrisome.”
The past five years have seen a “substantial” drop of trust in public health and scientists, especially among Republicans, Robert Blendon, Harvard University professor emeritus of political analysis and health policy, told me. At the same time, the anti-vaccine movement—which previously was not tied to politics—swung wildly to the right. “Republicans have become incredibly distrustful of vaccines,” Blendon said. “The Republican Party after the [start of] Covid has become very anti–public health.” They lashed out against what they perceived to be government overreach, which made them receptive to questions about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines—and, soon, other vaccines as well, Blendon said. “This led to a tipping point with this enormous resentment among particularly Republican audiences that the government went way too far.”
Trump’s own short-lived support for vaccines during the measles outbreak in 2019 and Covid in 2020 seems to have been a blip; he has spouted anti-vax views since at least 2007. Although Operation Warp Speed produced highly effective Covid vaccines in record time, one of the Trump administration’s only accomplishments of the pandemic, “the Republicans don’t want to claim it,” Trump said in September. At least 17 times, Trump has pledged to defund schools mandating vaccines. While his campaign says this vow applies to Covid vaccines only, Trump doesn’t make any distinctions in his speeches, opening up the possibility of all childhood vaccines being banned—though it’s not clear how he would carry out this plan. (No states requireCovid vaccines for school attendance.)
It’s hard to notice something that is invisible, but it is indeed obvious that there has been no discussion of education in the Presidential campaign.
It’s not as if education is unimportant: education is a path to a better life and to a better society. It is the road to progress.
The differences between the two candidates are like night and day. Trump supports dismantling public education and giving out vouchers. Harris is committed to funding schools and universities.
Project 2025 displays Trump’s goals: to eliminate the Department of Education, to turn the programs it funds (Title 1, IDEA for students with disabilities) and turn them into unrestricted block grants to states, which allows states to siphon off their funding for other purposes. At the same time that the Trump apparat wants to kill the Ed Department, it wants (contradictorily) to impose mandates on schools to stop the teaching of so-called critical race theory, to censor books, and to impose rightwing ideology on the nation’s schools.
It’s too bad that the future of education never came up in either of the high-profile debates. The American people should know that Kamala Harris wants to strengthen America’s schools, colleges, and universities, and that Donald Trump wants to destroy them.
Randi Weingarten wrote an excellent article in Newsweek about the plans of each candidate.
If you can’t open it, try this link.
Richard Thornton, a teacher in Kentucky, wrote a letter to the editor of the Bowling Green Daily News to urge his fellow citizens to vote NO on Amendment 2, which would sneak vouchers into the Kentucky state Constitution.
As an educator for 30 years, I’ve watched teachers work very hard at helping all students regardless of background or the help they receive from parents. It is an insult to teachers to say that in an under performing school is the teachers’ fault and therefore we’re going to let the private and parochial schools do the job. It won’t happen. Those schools will cherry pick the best students and will not be able to serve those who have disabilities both mental and physical. They simply do not have the resources.
You can support the religion of your choice by giving to that particular religious school as a donation, but don’t ask others, a.k.a. taxpayers, to support that particular religion when it is contrary to their beliefs. We have a little document called the Constitution which guarantees the government will not establish a religion.
You want your children to go to private or parochial school and that’s your choice and you pay for it. Our system of public education is the backbone of the future of this nation and not fully supporting it with our time, resources, and money will fall back on a nation with too many ignorant people. It would be nice to believe that a public or parochial school can do the job better but in truth and in fact and statistically relevant, they do no better job than our great public schools.
Vote NO on Amendment 2!
Scott Maxwell, a regular columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, has some suggestions about how to vote in the referenda in Florida. From reading him for the past few years, I trust his judgment.
I don’t live in Florida, but the amendment I will watch closely is #4. That’s the amendment to roll back Florida’s harsh six-week ban on abortion. Very few, if any, women know that they are pregnant at the six-week mark. A six-week ban is, in reality, a total ban. Under this ban, women will die; young girls will be forced to become mothers. People like Ron DeSantis are not pro-life.
VOTE YES TO REPEAL THE SIX-WEEK BAN.
VOTE YES TO REPEAL THE BAN.
This is how Scott Maxwell is voting on state referenda:
Florida’s Constitutional amendments can be confusing, often by design.
So I’m going to try to break down the six amendments on this year’s ballot as simply as possible. I’ll give you the arguments for and against each one, tell you some of the supporters and opponents and share how I’m voting. Do whatever you want. It’s your constitution.
Amendment 1: Make school board races partisan
This would take school board races, which are now nonpartisan affairs, and turn them into partisan contests with closed primaries. The idea was backed by Republican state legislators — and one Democrat, Sen. Linda Stewart of Orlando — who believe partisanship should play a bigger and more transparent role in school issues. Opponents, including the League of Women Voters, say injecting more partisanship into school board races is a rotten idea and note that the closed primary system will prevent many of you from casting votes.
Vote yes: If you want more partisanship and party involvement in local school races, as well as closed primaries.
Vote no: If you think candidates should appeal to voters based on their platforms and credentials rather than their party affiliation.
How I’m voting: No. I think this is the worst amendment on this year’s ballot. The last thing our schools need is more politics and partisanship.
Amendment 2: Put hunting and fishing in the Constitution
This would add language to the Florida Constitution that says hunting and fishing is a constitutionally protected right. Hunting and fishing is already legal in Florida. Existing statutes even declare them as “preserved” activities. And no state has banned hunting and fishing. But advocates say they just want to be super-duper sure. Opponents say this is like asking voters to pass a constitutional amendment protecting the right to golf or play tennis. The Florida Bar Journal also published a lengthy piece that said this proposal could have unintended consequences, such as prohibiting local beach communities from closing stretches of beach to protect turtle eggs, for instance, if someone claimed that turtle protection got in the way of their “constitutional right to fish.”
Vote yes: If you want to enshrine hunting and fishing protections in the Florida Constitution.
Vote no: If you don’t.
How I’m voting: No. This one seems unnecessary and potentially fraught with unintended legal consequences.
Amendment 3: Legalize recreational marijuana
This would basically treat marijuana like cigarettes and booze, making the substance legal but subject to strict government regulation. Advocates note that marijuana is a natural substance, already widely used and argue that legalization would make it safer. Some law enforcement chiefs say it would also stop wasting their time. Opponents, including Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Chamber of Commerce, dispute the drug’s safety, say this amendment would primarily benefit a few large companies and generally argue that communities that allow marijuana are unpleasant.
Vote yes: If you want to legalize marijuana.
Vote no: If you don’t.
How I’m voting: I’ve been torn on this one. I don’t think marijuana is as harmless as some advocates claim and know companies like Trulieve hope to make billions off legalization. But I also believe adults should have the ability to make their own decisions and can’t make a good case for why alcohol and carcinogenic cigarettes should be legal and why this naturally grown plant shouldn’t be. So I ultimately decided yes, agreeing with the Sentinel editorial board’s summary: “We’re not going to pretend that legalizing recreational marijuana would be a 100% beneficial experience for Florida. But it does make sense — far more sense than the current situation, where some people use medical pot with no fear of prosecution while others still face arrest, jail steep fines or a lifelong criminal record for possessing it.”
Amendment 4: Prohibit Tallahassee-imposed restrictions on abortion
This is the abortion amendment. And it’s pretty simple. It would prohibit state lawmakers from imposing any laws that place restrictions on abortion “before viability” beyond what federal law says while preserving requirements for parental notification. Citizens placed this initiative on the ballot to combat Florida’s new restrictions, which are some of the strictest in the nation, banning abortion after 15 weeks without exceptions for rape or incest and effectively banning most abortions after six weeks. Supporters, including some doctors, say Florida’s law puts women’s lives in danger, is heartlessly cruel to victims of sexual crimes and that abortion decisions should be made by women and their doctors, not politicians. Opponents, including the governor and GOP lawmakers, generally oppose abortion and say they should have the right to decide what medical procedures pregnant women can undergo.
Vote yes: If you think Florida’s existing ban on abortions without many exceptions is too extreme.
Vote no: If you are opposed to abortion under most any circumstances and trust state politicians to make the rules.
How I’m voting: Yes. I believe thoughtful people can have different opinions on abortion. But Florida’s current laws are extreme and dangerous.
Amendment 5: Adjust homestead exemptions for inflation
State lawmakers want to offer homeowners a tiny tax break — maybe $10 a year — but force local governments to pay for it. This one’s a bit complicated. It would take half of the $50,000 homestead exemption homeowners get and tie it to inflation. So if inflation rose by 2.5% one year, your homestead exemption would be worth $50,625 the next, representing an increase of 2.5% on $25,000. Clear as mud, right? Opponents say this is political trickery, since state lawmakers aren’t offering to cut state taxes. They want to force local governments to take the hit. And the Florida League of Cities argues that tiny savings for homeowners would have a huge collective impact on local governments. The Tampa Bay Times editorial board supports this plan. The Orlando Sentinel and Sun Sentinel oppose, noting this tax break would elude many Floridians, namely renters.
Vote yes: If you want to slightly increase the tax exemption homeowners get every year and decrease what local governments collect for services like fire and police.
Vote no: If you think the exemption is fine the way it is.
How I’m voting: No. I don’t really care much about this one either way. Sure, I’d like a few extra bucks. But this seems like political theater; a way for state lawmakers to say they provided a tiny tax break without cutting any of their own spending. If state lawmakers want to cut taxes, they should cut the taxes they collect.
Amendment 6: Repeal taxpayer financed campaigns
This would end the law that allows candidates for statewide office to use public money to finance their campaigns. Forty years ago, Floridians voted to create this program, hoping it would help grassroots candidates compete with politicians who suck up gobs of special-interest money. But now, thanks to political committees that can take unlimited donations, the candidates who take the most special interest money also collect the most tax dollars. Ron DeSantis set the record in 2022, collecting the most money ever from deep-pocketed donors and the most from taxpayers (more than $7 million). Supporters of this repeal include Florida legislators. Opponents include the League of Women Voters and the Sentinel editorial board.
Vote yes: If you don’t believe taxpayers should finance political campaigns.
Vote no: If you like the idea of tax dollars paying for campaigns and believe lesser-funded candidates deserve help, even if their better-funded opponents get more of it.
How I’m voting: Yes. Unlike my newspaper’s editorial board, I believe this subsidies-for-politicians program was a noble idea that has been warped beyond sense or salvation. It could’ve been fixed by requiring subsidy recipients to limit all their other contributions. But lawmakers have consistently refused such reforms.
Want more info?
Check out the League of Women Voters’ great voter-info site at Vote411.org
smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com
The Washington Post identified the top individual donors to politics in this campaign.
The 50 biggest donors this cycle have collectively donated over $2.5 billion into political committees and other groups competing in the election, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission data.
These megadonors skew Republican, though they affiliate with Democrats and third parties as well.
Donations by top 50 individuals and organizations to committees that are mostly …
Republican-leaning–$1.6B
Democrat-leaning–$752.3M
Supportive of both parties–$214M
Cryptocurrency and realtor groups were the only donors to both major parties
The vast majority of money from top donors has gone to super PACs, which can accept unlimited sums from individuals and often work closely with campaigns despite rules against coordinating their advertising.
Top individual donors
From billionaire investors to shipping magnates, here’s who they are and their top donations.
************************
Timothy Mellon REPUBLICAN
Railroad magnate and heir
Total large donations: $197M
Top donor: $197M
Top donations
$150M
Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN INC.
AMERICAN VALUES 2024
$25M
Supports Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND
$15M
Supports Republican House candidates
The reclusive Wyoming-based businessman is the scion of former Treasury secretary and banking tycoon Andrew Mellon.
*************************
Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein –REPUBLICAN
Shipping magnates
Total large donations: $139M
Top donations
RESTORATION PAC
$76.2M
Opposes Senate campaign of Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)
CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION
$19M
Right-leaning super PAC
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN INC.
$10M
Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign
The couple founded Uline, a Wisconsin-based shipping and packaging materials company. They give to causes outside the GOP’s mainstream, helping to push the party further to the right.
*************************
Miriam Adelson –REPUBLICAN
Physician and widow of businessman and casino owner Sheldon Adelson
Total large donations: $136M
Top donations
PRESERVE AMERICA PAC
$100M
Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign
SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND
$15M
Supports Republican Senate candidates
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND
$9M
Supports Republican House candidates
Adelson, a doctor who has focused on addiction, is the widow of businessman Sheldon Adelson and the majority shareholder of Las Vegas Sands.
***********************
Elon Musk–REPUBLICAN
Billionaire technology executive
Total large donations: $132.2M
Top donations
AMERICA PAC
$118.6M
Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign
SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND
$10M
Supports Republican Senate candidates
THE SENTINEL ACTION FUND
$2.3M
Supports Republican Senate candidates
Musk, one of the world’s richest men, founded electric car company Tesla. After endorsing Trump on X this summer, he has posted extensively on the platform, which he owns, in support of the former president.
***************************
Kenneth Griffin–REPUBLICAN
Hedge fund manager
Total large donations: $103.7M
Top donations
SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND
$30M
Supports Republican Senate candidates
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND
$17M
Supports Republican House candidates
KEYSTONE RENEWAL PAC
$15M
Supports Senate campaign for Republican Dave McCormick (Pa.)
The billionaire is founder and CEO of the hedge fund Citadel.
**************************
Jeff & Janine Yass–REPUBLICAN
Financier and education advocate
Total large donations: $96.2M
Top donations
CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION
$35M
Right-leaning super PAC
PROTECT FREEDOM POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$19M
Conservative PAC funded by Jeff Yass’s company
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND
$10M
Supports Republican House candidates
Jeff is co-founder of the Pennsylvania-based investment company Susquehanna International Group. His wife, Janine, founded a charter school and is an advocate for school choice. [Both Jeff and Janine are major funders of charter schools and vouchers. Jeff Yass gave Texas Governor Greg Abbott to promote voucher legislation.]
**************************
Paul Singer –REPUBLICAN
Hedge fund manager and activist investor
Total large donations: $63.4M
Top donations
SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND
$27M
Supports Republican Senate candidates
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND
$14.5M
Supports Republican House candidates
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN INC.
$5M
Supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign
The billionaire is founder and co-CEO of Elliott Management.
**********************
Michael Bloomberg–DEMOCRAT
Former mayor of New York City
Total large donations: $47.4M
TOP DONATIONS
FF PAC
$19M
Supports Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign
HMP
$10M
Supports Democratic House candidates
EVERYTOWN-DEMAND A SEAT PAC
$7M
Supports pro gun-control candidates
Bloomberg is co-founder of the financial software and media company that bears his name. He served as mayor of New York for three terms and ran for president in 2020.
**********************
Stephen & Christine Schwarzman–REPUBLICAN
Investor and philanthropist
Total large donations: $40M
Top donations
SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND
$9M
Supports Republican Senate Candidates
MORE JOBS, LESS GOVERNMENT
$8M
Supports Senate campaign for Republican Tim Sheehy (Mont.)
GLCF, Inc.
$4.5M
Supports Senate campaign for Republican Mike Rogers (Mich.)
Republican Stephen Schwarzman is the CEO of private equity firm Blackstone. The couple are major philanthropists.
***********************
Dustin Moskovitz–DEMOCRAT
Facebook co-founder
Total large donations: $38.9M
Top donations
FF PAC
$38M
Supports Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign
The technology entrepreneur became a billionaire after co-founding Facebook. He has given millions to support Democratic presidential candidates since 2016.
Jeanne Melvin is a public education activist in Ohio. She urges Ohio voters to vote YES on issue 1. This would put a bipartisan commission in charge of redistricting instead of the Legislature. It would block the Legislature from designing their own districts to assure a supermajority. Ohio’s Republican supermajority has passed numerous bills to privatize school funding, including a universal voucher bill that enables all parents to get public funding to subsidize their private school tuition. Vouchers. Most students who use vouchers were already enrolled in private schools. Like all universal vouchers programs, Ohio’s is welfare for the wealthy.
Melvin writes:
Public Education is on the ballot across our nation.
Americans must choose between two presidential candidates whose policies, strategies, and experience relating to issues in public education are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Voters in 10 states will decide 11 statewide education-related ballot measures– the most since 2018.
Ohio voters have the opportunity to elect state school board candidates and pro-public education candidates, along with approving or renewing tax levies or bond issues from over 100 school districts in the Buckeye State.
This November, Ohio voters will also decide if politicians should be left in charge of drawing our voting maps, or if the politicians should be removed from the process in favor of a citizens commission.
According to Dr. Christina Collins, former State School Board member and current director of Honesty for Ohio Education, the lack of competitive districts brings “extreme” education policies like attempting to regulate curriculums to avoid what legislators call “critical race theory” from getting into schools, the anti-LGBTQ law keeping transgender students from playing sports in the teams that align with their gender identity, and active bills that would threaten funding and dictate the kind of materials allowed in school libraries.
As previously stated, Ohio’s gerrymandered GOP majority has brought forward some extreme education bills designed to benefit private schools and to defund and diminish public school districts. Public education advocates have responded with facts, logic, and common sense, but lawmakers and lobbyists have chosen not to listen.
Why would they listen? Gerrymandering has guaranteed a GOP supermajority, and Senate President Matt Huffman said the quiet part out loud: “We can kind of do what we want.”
Ohioans can VOTE YES on Issue 1 on or before November 5, a bipartisan effort to remove the politicians from legislative redistricting in favor of a 15-member citizens commission made up of five Republicans, five Democrats, and five independents.
For education, this would mean that instead of Ohio lawmakers focusing on culture wars and EdChoice school voucher expansion, they could focus on more important issues, such as fair school funding to help our local public school districts.
If you don’t like legislative-district maps that have been deliberately drawn to ensure that one political party has a veto-proof supermajority, VOTE YES on Issue 1.
If you don’t like unreasonable education policies, VOTE YES on Issue 1.
If you don’t like paying for other peoples’ private school choices, VOTE YES on Issue 1.
If you want to keep public tax dollars in public schools, VOTE YES on Issue 1.
That’s why I voted YES on Issue 1!
Sarah Longwell is publisher of The Bulwark, executive director of Republican Voters Against Trump, and host of “The Focus Group” podcast.
In this article, she appeals to fellow Republicans to stand up and speak out about Trump. I hope her article is read by George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Lamar Alexander. They know how dangerous Trump is. They know he is destroying the Republican Party.
She writes:
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR FORMER Trump administration officials, Republican electeds (and former electeds), business leaders, and conservative writers and pundits who recognize Donald Trump for the threat he is. Actually, it’s a question for anyone on the right who knows what Trump’s re-election could mean for the country, for liberal democracy, and for the world—and, who, in the face of this threat, has decided to maintain either a posture of silence or both-sides-are-bad neutrality.
My question is this:
How are you going to feel if Trump wins on Tuesday by an extremely narrow margin?
I suspect you’ll spend the next four years holding your breath.
Because if Donald Trump does a tenth of what he has promised—pulls the United States out of NATO, abandons Ukraine and sides with Vladimir Putin, puts RFK Jr. and Elon Musk in charge of serious parts of the American government, rounds up 15 million undocumented immigrants into camps and deports them, seeks political retribution against those who opposed his candidacy—I suspect you’ll come to regret your silence when you could have made a difference.
I can see you holding up your hands to show us how clean they are. Saying, “But I said Donald Trump was a threat! I said I wouldn’t vote for him! What more do you want from me?”
And I get that. I do. The problem is that this moment demands more from all of us.
It demands clarity. And it demands your leadership.
Over the course of your career you’ve asked people to trust you. Either by voting for you, or listening to your advice, or relying on your judgment and analysis.
So why is it suddenly a bridge too far for you to tell everyone what you really believe?
I understand that this moment is hard. Trump could win. Even if he doesn’t win, coming off the sidelines could alienate you from career networks, business opportunities, or even friends and family.
But being a leader means standing up and telling the truth even when it’s hard, or costly, or scary. Especially when it’s hard, or costly, or scary.
It’s still not too late. Every day, more people are speaking out—people with reputations, and reservations, but whose consciences won’t let them sit this one out.
You shouldn’t sit this one out, either. You should not decide, after a career in leadership, that this time you’d rather just be a spectator.
Maybe you think that adding your voice wouldn’t matter to voters. After all, so few things seem to move the needle. Well, I’m here to tell you that it matters. It all matters. Every little bit. You do not know who’s listening as the moment approaches to cast their vote. You do not know who you might persuade at the eleventh hour. And you do not know what the margin will be. If this election is decided by 9,000 votes in Pennsylvania—which is absolutely a real thing that could happen—then every single input could be the tipping point.
We’re almost there. Stay with us! The Bulwark is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I can’t see the future. I don’t know if your endorsement would be the difference maker. Just like I don’t know what price you would pay for speaking out more clearly.
What I do know is this: If you abdicate the obligations of leadership in this moment and the thing you fear comes to pass, you will regret having stood down when the country needed you to stand up. You will regret it for all of your days.
MAYBE YOU ARE A RETIRED FOUR-STAR GENERAL, or cabinet secretary, or someone who took a job as a political appointee in the Trump administration and saw things that shocked your conscience. And maybe you’ve told reporters about what you saw, or written about it in a book. That’s not enough because books have a relatively small reach, and your words are mediated through paper. What’s needed is for you to look voters in the eye and give them a direct warning about what a second Trump term might mean. Especially now that you won’t be on the inside to try to protect the country from him.
Maybe you’re a former Republican president or presidential nominee. Maybe you were once the leader of the party Donald Trump has destroyed. I am sorry, but the unpleasant fact is that you cannot preserve your influence for some future GOP. This is actually the last moment in which you have a chance to influence it. Your party, every bit as much as your country, needs you. Right now.
Maybe you’ve led venerable conservative publications. You’ve acted as a thought leader. Someone shaping our political culture. But today you want to keep your hands clean by writing in Edmund Burke on your ballot or some other nonsense protest candidate—as a sign that youkept your purity. I understand this impulse. But it’s wrong. You know that if yours was the single deciding vote, you’d vote for Harris. So just say so. This isn’t an academic exercise, and it’s not about you.
Maybe you’re a billionaire to whom this country has given everything. Your wealth insulates you from the consequences of the worst-case Trump scenarios. And yet, you see Trump’s transactional nature, his willingness to provide favor if you provide obedience, and instead of standing up to Trump, you cower. This might seem like wisdom, but it’s not actual safety. There will be more demands. The only way to actually protect your business is for the rule of law to be victorious and democracy to be stable.
FOR MONTHS, YOUR COUNTRYMEN have been waiting for you to tell them the full, unvarnished truth about the danger you believe Donald Trump presents. To tell everyday Americans the same words you say in green rooms, at dinners, and in off-the-record conversations. You haven’t gotten there yet, but you still can. Before you make your final decision, think about Liz Cheney’s warning that some day Donald Trump will be gone, but the choices we make today will be with us forever.
Choose honor. It’s the choice you’ve made again and again in your professional lives. It would be a sin to stop choosing it because of a mountebank like Donald Trump.
I want to tell you about some Republicans who are already putting themselves on the line for democracy. They don’t have security details, or staff, or budgets. They’re just regular people who voted for Trump before, but refuse to support him again. They joined Republican Voters Against Trump to get the word out to their friends and neighbors. A few of them have lost jobs. Some of them have lost family. All of them have lost friends. None of them regrets it.
They’ve put their faces on billboards across the country. They’ve appeared in millions of dollars’ worth of paid ads running in their own communities. They’ve taken part in text campaigns, spoken to the media, knocked on doors, and traveled to swing states in the hopes of making a difference.
If Kyle from Alabama, or Jackie from Michigan, or Robert from Pennsylvania, or Jim from Wyomingcan speak out, then so can the generals, politicians, and thought leaders.
THE REASON I BELIEVE THAT every little bit counts is because conservative-leaning voters say that to me all the time.
In Republican focus groups, one thing I hear again and again is that voters are open to hearing from the leaders who served under Trump, who were in the room with him. The messenger is as important as the message, and these people are ready to believe the words of a lifelong Republican or flag officer much more readily than they’ll believe a Democrat telling them the same things.
So if you’re one of the small number of people who can make a difference in this moment, the question is: What are you going to do?
Courage is contagious. And I have one last piece of advice: No one ever regrets doing the right thing.
You won’t regret it, either. So stand up and join us. It’s our last chance.
After Jeff Bezos, billionaire owner of The Washington Post, stopped publication of the editorial board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, digital subscribers revolted. According to a report in The Post, at least 250,000 canceled their subscriptions.
Past and present journalists at the newspaper urged readers not to cancel. Loss of revenue means future layoffs.
Even with the cancellation of the endorsement, the Post remains the most forthright and persistent critic of Trump and his racism, misogyny, xenophobia, as well as his all-around unfitness for office.
Those who look for a future with a stable, functioning two-party system–post-MAGA–should resubscribe.
The Texas Monthly writes that Texas has all kinds of pressing needs and problems. But in the closing days of the campaign, Ted Cruz has fastened in a single issue in his battle for re-election: Hate transgender people. They threaten our daughters.
It’s not clear exactly how large the Texas trans population is, but it can’t be large enough to threaten the women of Texas or even the girls.
Cruz, with Colin Allred coming close in the home stretch, concluded that care and hate were his best messages to his constituents.
Michael Hardy of The Texas Monthly wrote:
Texans face a multitude of challenges. The border crisis. Incompetent utility regulators. Rising home and rent costs. Rural hospital closures. So naturally, as campaigning for the U.S. Senate enters its final week, incumbent Ted Cruz and his Democratic challenger, Dallas-area Congressman Colin Allred, are locked in a fierce battle over . . . transgender rights. Earlier this month, Cruz and an allied political action committee launched a barrage of ominous television advertisements accusing Allred of supporting “boys in girls’ sports,” “drag shows on American military bases,” “taxpayer-funded sex-change surgeries” for military service members, and the use of “taxpayer funds to sterilize minors.” The ads are part of a nationwide push by Republican candidates, who have spent more than $65 million on antitrans ads since August.
“I remember reading the polls saying that the race was within two or three points and wondering what Cruz was going to do about it,” said veteran Texan lobbyist Bill Miller, who has worked with Democratic and Republican candidates. “And then I was watching TV and Cruz’s transgender ad came on. As soon as I saw it, I thought, ‘That’s it. That’s the issue they’re going to beat Allred with.’ ”
In 2023, Allred voted against the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, a Republican-backed bill that would have barred athletes assigned male at birth from participating in girls’ sports. The bill passed in the House of Representatives on a party line vote but was not taken up in the U.S. Senate. Earlier this year, Allred signed a letter opposing Republican efforts to ban drag shows on military bases and restrict gender-affirming care for transgender service members and their families. In a written statement to Texas Monthly, Allred campaign manager Paige Hutchinson said “Colin believes we must stand united against all forms of prejudice and discrimination.”
Cruz campaign spokespeople did not respond to an interview request to discuss Cruz’s strategy. The senator’s campaign website boasts that “Ted is proud to stand alongside all female athletes and will continue to fight for their right to play sports on their own terms, without fear of being forced to compete against biological men.”
At first glance, the senator’s going all in on transphobia for his closing argument might seem puzzling, given that he’s spent most of his campaign stressing immigration and jobs. A recent poll conducted by the University of Texas at Austin asked voters to name their top political issue. A plurality (18 percent) chose the economy, which was followed by immigration, inflation, democracy, and abortion. Pollster Jim Henson told me that hardly anyone cited transgender issues as their foremost concern. A national Gallup polltaken in September asked voters to evaluate the importance of 22 campaign issues. “Transgender rights” came in dead last.
So why the last-minute pivot to transgender issues? “It’s an easy way for a Republican to paint their opponent as an extremist,” Henson said. “Even if it’s not a particularly salient issue, it’s very effective in signaling to moderates that your opponent is out of the mainstream.” Last year, a UT-Austin poll found that 63 percent of Texans—including 33 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents, and 89 percent of Republicans—agreed that the sex listed on a person’s original birth certificate should be the only way to define gender, with just 25 percent disagreeing. (Twelve percent of respondents said they weren’t sure.) “I suspect the Cruz campaign’s internal polling is showing what the external polling shows,” Henson said, “which is that for a Republican candidate, this is a pretty good issue.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 