csmonitor--2020-01-28--Why ‘Women win’ isn’t enough for many Iowa voters

“ It seems normal that a woman is running for president , ” says Maggie Smith , a student at Iowa State University .
She likes Senator Warren , but plans to support Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders when she caucuses for the first time next week .
“ Maybe that ’ s improvement , you know ?
That it ’ s coming down to the issues.
” At the same time , many women voters , particularly younger ones , say gender simply isn ’ t a big factor .
While they ’ re glad to have women in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less motivated by symbolism than by the candidates ’ platforms – which , they say , is actually a sign of progress .
Dozens of Democrats in Iowa cite the ability to beat President Donald Trump as their top priority , and for many , that seems to be steering them toward a male candidate – a way of thinking that experts on women in politics characterize as both unsubstantiated and a self-fulfilling prophecy .
Sens .
Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren have won some of the most coveted editorial board endorsements this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attention and money has seemed to flow to the men .
Senator Warren has slipped into fourth place in the most recent surveys , while Senator Klobuchar , despite hints of momentum , is even further behind .
He and his wife Nancy drove almost three hours from their home in Mason City on Sunday to watch the University of Iowa ’ s women ’ s basketball team play Michigan State on their home court in Iowa City .
The Hawkeyes are in the middle of the second-longest active home game winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basketball , and they ’ ve been breaking attendance records .
Women share the ball instead of showing off – they “ play the game as it ’ s meant to be played , ” says Mr. Roddy .
“ It ’ s a skills game for them.
” “ That ’ s the same reason Amy will be better , ” says his wife , referring to Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar , whom the Roddys plan to support in next Monday ’ s Iowa caucuses .
“ She has the skills.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their belief that a woman may possess the best skill set to be president .
Senator Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have won some of the most coveted editorial board endorsements this cycle – The Quad-City Times and New Hampshire Union Leader for Ms. Klobuchar , and The Des Moines Register for Senator Warren .
The New York Times , unable to decide , gave its nod to both of them .
Yet as is the case with basketball , much of the attention and money has seemed to flow to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a time this fall , Ms. Warren has slipped into fourth place in most surveys , while Ms. Klobuchar , despite showing hints of momentum , is even further behind .
In interviews , dozens of Democrats in Iowa cite electability , or the ability to beat President Donald Trump , as their top priority .
And for many , that criteria seems to be steering them toward a male candidate – a way of thinking that experts on women in politics characterize as both unsubstantiated and a self-fulfilling prophecy .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re particularly vulnerable to that sort of narrative , ” says Christina Reynolds , vice president of communications at Emily ’ s List , a political action committee that works to elect pro-choice Democratic women to office .
Ms. Reynolds points out that the Democrats have already made history by having not one but two women who are considered viable at this point in the cycle .
“ I think what ’ s particularly impressive about what Senator Klobuchar and Senator Warren have done is they have pushed past that .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time , many women voters , particularly younger ones , say gender simply isn ’ t a primary factor in their decision .
While they ’ re glad to have women in the running , they say they ’ re less motivated by symbolism or identity than by the candidates ’ platforms – which , they say , is actually a sign of progress .
“ It seems normal that a woman is running for president , ” says Maggie Smith , a performing arts student at Iowa State University , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Bernie Sanders speak in Ames with her friend and fellow student Joselyn Carrillo .
They both like Ms. Warren , and Ms. Carrillo , an environmental studies student , muses about how empowering it would be to have a female president .
But both plan to support Mr. Sanders when they caucus for the first time next week .
“ Maybe that ’ s improvement , you know ?
That it ’ s coming down to the issues , ” says Ms. Smith .
How much of a hurdle ?
Going into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic nominee seemed like a strong if not likely possibility .
Women ’ s political activism had skyrocketed , with millions of women pouring into the streets in 2017 for the Women ’ s March , estimated to be the largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history .
The 2018 midterm elections saw a record number of Democratic women entering the U.S. House of Representatives , and the 2020 Democratic presidential field featured a record number of female candidates .
Since then , however , the road to the White House for women has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promising female candidates – California Sen. Kamala Harris and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand – were forced to drop out before the voting even began , after failing to gain traction .
Electability has long been a concern surrounding women , says Ms. Reynolds , even though statistically female politicians win their races at the same rate as men .
And for many voters , those concerns seemed to grow in the wake of Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 loss .
Despite the fact that Mrs. Clinton actually won the popular vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party ’ s sample size of previous female presidential nominees is exactly one , many Democratic voters say they ’ re worried that gender could be the difference between winning and losing .
“ When Hillary lost so abruptly , it knocked the wind out of everybody , ” says Jenni Yenger , a retired school secretary , at a rally for former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg in Fort Dodge .
“ I think Democrats would pull more for a woman [ in 2020 ] if things weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a woman president , but not at the expense of losing to Trump.
” Although she likes Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar , Ms. Yenger has concluded she ’ ll probably caucus for former Vice President Joe Biden because she “ feels safer ” with his chances of beating Mr. Trump .
“ If I could vote with my heart , I ’ d vote for Amy [ Klobuchar ] or Yang , ” echoes Lisa Etzel , waiting in line in below-freezing temperatures to see Mr. Sanders in Ames , Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Biden .
I ’ m voting for who can beat Trump.
” Both Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobuchar have , at various times , tried to tackle the electability issue head-on – attempting to turn it into an advantage .
Ms. Klobuchar talks repeatedly about how , in her last election , she won 42 counties that had voted for President Trump .
At a house party in Johnston , Iowa , Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig says she was able to defeat a male incumbent in 2018 in part because Ms. Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ticket .
“ If you can win in my district , you can win the Electoral College , ” Representative Craig told a living room full of a dozen or so Iowa Democrats .
“ It ’ s really good to have Amy Klobuchar on the ticket in my kind of district.
” Similarly , at the last Democratic debate in Des Moines , Ms. Warren pointedly noted that “ the only people on this stage who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are women : Amy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it right here ?
Women win , ” said Ms. Warren to a cheering crowd of voters in a middle school gym Sunday morning in Davenport .
“ We know that women candidates have been outperforming male candidates since Donald Trump got elected.
” Yet Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren have had to walk a fine line when it comes to making gender a part of their campaigns .
Many voters don ’ t like it when female candidates “ play the woman card , ” notes Kelly Winfrey , a professor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics .
At a “ hot dish ” house party in Newton , Iowa , on Friday , Ms. Klobuchar ’ s daughter Abigail Bessler tells the Monitor that when her mother first ran for Senate , “ she didn ’ t say , ‘ Vote for me because I ’ m a woman.
’ ” Ms. Bessler was campaigning on her mother ’ s behalf while the senator was stuck in Washington for President Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
“ She stands on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ and that ’ s what she ’ s doing now.
” At other times , Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren have highlighted what they see as a double standard for female candidates .
Ms. Warren made headlines recently when she claimed that Mr. Sanders had told her he believed that a woman could not win the White House .
Ms. Klobuchar spoke candidly in December about voters being far more willing to give male candidates a pass when it comes to experience , in a pointed dig at Mr. Buttigieg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to call it out , and I think that bluntness has been good , ” says Professor Winfrey .
Still , for some Democratic voters , the idea of a woman president is a strong motivating factor .
Mabe Wassell drove across the river from Illinois to see Ms. Warren speak in Davenport .
“ I worry about anyone going against Trump , but [ Warren ] has the gravitas to do it , ” she says .
Sitting beneath a plaque honoring Phebe Sudlow , who became the first female superintendent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ms. Wassell recalls taking a bus full of her nieces and grandnieces to Washington for the Women ’ s March .
“ I ’ m rock solid for Elizabeth because I want to see a woman president in my lifetime , ” says Ms. Wassell .
“ That ’ s okay if that ’ s not a priority for anyone else .
It is for me .
”

“It seems normal that a woman is running for president,” says Maggie Smith, a student at Iowa State University. She likes Senator Warren, but plans to support Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders when she caucuses for the first time next week. “Maybe that’s improvement, you know? That it’s coming down to the issues.”
At the same time, many women voters, particularly younger ones, say gender simply isn’t a big factor. While they’re glad to have women in the running, they say they’re less motivated by symbolism than by the candidates’ platforms – which, they say, is actually a sign of progress.
How gender factors into voters’ choices has always been complicated. Now, many people argue the United States could finally elect a woman president – but that doesn’t mean that underlying question has gotten any simpler.
Dozens of Democrats in Iowa cite the ability to beat President Donald Trump as their top priority, and for many, that seems to be steering them toward a male candidate – a way of thinking that experts on women in politics characterize as both unsubstantiated and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren have won some of the most coveted editorial board endorsements this cycle. Yet lately, much of the attention and money has seemed to flow to the men. Senator Warren has slipped into fourth place in the most recent surveys, while Senator Klobuchar, despite hints of momentum, is even further behind.
Mike Roddy prefers to watch women’s basketball.
He and his wife Nancy drove almost three hours from their home in Mason City on Sunday to watch the University of Iowa’s women’s basketball team play Michigan State on their home court in Iowa City. The Hawkeyes are in the middle of the second-longest active home game winning streak in women’s Division I basketball, and they’ve been breaking attendance records.
Women share the ball instead of showing off – they “play the game as it’s meant to be played,” says Mr. Roddy. “It’s a skills game for them.”
Why We Wrote This How gender factors into voters’ choices has always been complicated. Now, many people argue the United States could finally elect a woman president – but that doesn’t mean that underlying question has gotten any simpler.
“That’s the same reason Amy will be better,” says his wife, referring to Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, whom the Roddys plan to support in next Monday’s Iowa caucuses. “She has the skills.”
The Roddys aren’t alone in their belief that a woman may possess the best skill set to be president. Senator Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have won some of the most coveted editorial board endorsements this cycle – The Quad-City Times and New Hampshire Union Leader for Ms. Klobuchar, and The Des Moines Register for Senator Warren. The New York Times, unable to decide, gave its nod to both of them.
Yet as is the case with basketball, much of the attention and money has seemed to flow to the men. After leading in the polls for a time this fall, Ms. Warren has slipped into fourth place in most surveys, while Ms. Klobuchar, despite showing hints of momentum, is even further behind.
In interviews, dozens of Democrats in Iowa cite electability, or the ability to beat President Donald Trump, as their top priority. And for many, that criteria seems to be steering them toward a male candidate – a way of thinking that experts on women in politics characterize as both unsubstantiated and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor View caption Hide caption Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks to a crowd in a middle school gym in Davenport, Iowa on Jan. 26. “Can we just address it right here? Women win,” she said to a cheering crowd.
“In an era of Trump, we’re particularly vulnerable to that sort of narrative,” says Christina Reynolds, vice president of communications at Emily’s List, a political action committee that works to elect pro-choice Democratic women to office. Ms. Reynolds points out that the Democrats have already made history by having not one but two women who are considered viable at this point in the cycle. “I think what’s particularly impressive about what Senator Klobuchar and Senator Warren have done is they have pushed past that. They are still in there fighting.”
At the same time, many women voters, particularly younger ones, say gender simply isn’t a primary factor in their decision. While they’re glad to have women in the running, they say they’re less motivated by symbolism or identity than by the candidates’ platforms – which, they say, is actually a sign of progress.
“It seems normal that a woman is running for president,” says Maggie Smith, a performing arts student at Iowa State University, who’s waiting to hear Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders speak in Ames with her friend and fellow student Joselyn Carrillo. They both like Ms. Warren, and Ms. Carrillo, an environmental studies student, muses about how empowering it would be to have a female president. But both plan to support Mr. Sanders when they caucus for the first time next week.
“Maybe that’s improvement, you know? That it’s coming down to the issues,” says Ms. Smith.
Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor View caption Hide caption Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota speaks to a crowd at the Northwestern Hotel in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 26, before flying back to Washington for President Donald Trump's impeachment trial the next morning.
How much of a hurdle?
Going into the 2020 presidential cycle, a female Democratic nominee seemed like a strong if not likely possibility. Women’s political activism had skyrocketed, with millions of women pouring into the streets in 2017 for the Women’s March, estimated to be the largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history. The 2018 midterm elections saw a record number of Democratic women entering the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 2020 Democratic presidential field featured a record number of female candidates.
Since then, however, the road to the White House for women has seemed increasingly paved with obstacles. Two promising female candidates – California Sen. Kamala Harris and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand – were forced to drop out before the voting even began, after failing to gain traction.
Electability has long been a concern surrounding women, says Ms. Reynolds, even though statistically female politicians win their races at the same rate as men. And for many voters, those concerns seemed to grow in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss.
Despite the fact that Mrs. Clinton actually won the popular vote, and despite the fact that the Democratic Party’s sample size of previous female presidential nominees is exactly one, many Democratic voters say they’re worried that gender could be the difference between winning and losing.
“When Hillary lost so abruptly, it knocked the wind out of everybody,” says Jenni Yenger, a retired school secretary, at a rally for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg in Fort Dodge. “I think Democrats would pull more for a woman [in 2020] if things weren’t so dire. I want to see a woman president, but not at the expense of losing to Trump.”
Although she likes Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Yenger has concluded she’ll probably caucus for former Vice President Joe Biden because she “feels safer” with his chances of beating Mr. Trump.
“If I could vote with my heart, I’d vote for Amy [Klobuchar] or Yang,” echoes Lisa Etzel, waiting in line in below-freezing temperatures to see Mr. Sanders in Ames, Iowa. “But I’m caucusing for Biden. I’m voting for who can beat Trump.”
Both Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobuchar have, at various times, tried to tackle the electability issue head-on – attempting to turn it into an advantage. Ms. Klobuchar talks repeatedly about how, in her last election, she won 42 counties that had voted for President Trump.
At a house party in Johnston, Iowa, Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig says she was able to defeat a male incumbent in 2018 in part because Ms. Klobuchar was running at the top of the ticket. “If you can win in my district, you can win the Electoral College,” Representative Craig told a living room full of a dozen or so Iowa Democrats. “It’s really good to have Amy Klobuchar on the ticket in my kind of district.”
Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor View caption Hide caption Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig speaks to voters at a house party for Amy Klobuchar Thursday night in Johnston, Iowa. "I've been asked, 'What about a woman? Are we ready for a woman [president]?' says Representative Craig, who defeated an incumbent male Republican in the 2018 midterms. "Read the moment. It's suburban women who brought in 2018. We have an opportunity now to elect the first woman president of the United States."
Similarly, at the last Democratic debate in Des Moines, Ms. Warren pointedly noted that “the only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are women: Amy and me.”
“Can we just address it right here? Women win,” said Ms. Warren to a cheering crowd of voters in a middle school gym Sunday morning in Davenport. “We know that women candidates have been outperforming male candidates since Donald Trump got elected.”
‘She stands on her record’
Yet Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren have had to walk a fine line when it comes to making gender a part of their campaigns. Many voters don’t like it when female candidates “play the woman card,” notes Kelly Winfrey, a professor at Iowa State University and research coordinator at its Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics.
At a “hot dish” house party in Newton, Iowa, on Friday, Ms. Klobuchar’s daughter Abigail Bessler tells the Monitor that when her mother first ran for Senate, “she didn’t say, ‘Vote for me because I’m a woman.’” Ms. Bessler was campaigning on her mother’s behalf while the senator was stuck in Washington for President Trump’s impeachment trial.
“She stands on her record,” says Ms. Bessler, “and that’s what she’s doing now.”
At other times, Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren have highlighted what they see as a double standard for female candidates. Ms. Warren made headlines recently when she claimed that Mr. Sanders had told her he believed that a woman could not win the White House.
Ms. Klobuchar spoke candidly in December about voters being far more willing to give male candidates a pass when it comes to experience, in a pointed dig at Mr. Buttigieg.
“They haven’t been afraid to call it out, and I think that bluntness has been good,” says Professor Winfrey.
Still, for some Democratic voters, the idea of a woman president is a strong motivating factor. Mabe Wassell drove across the river from Illinois to see Ms. Warren speak in Davenport.
“I worry about anyone going against Trump, but [Warren] has the gravitas to do it,” she says.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Sitting beneath a plaque honoring Phebe Sudlow, who became the first female superintendent of a public school in the United States, Ms. Wassell recalls taking a bus full of her nieces and grandnieces to Washington for the Women’s March.
“I’m rock solid for Elizabeth because I want to see a woman president in my lifetime,” says Ms. Wassell. “That’s okay if that’s not a priority for anyone else. It is for me.”


csmonitor--2020-01-28--You call this a trial? When it comes to impeachment, not so much.

“ An impeachment trial was never meant to be a real trial , ” says Ray Smock , former historian for the House .
It is a constitutional process taking place in a political environment , a “ power play ” between the executive and legislative branches .
“ Once power is involved , ” he says , “ you can ’ t escape political machinations.
” But it ’ s important to realize that this is not a trial in the classic sense , but a hybrid – part courtroom , and much more a political arena .
Senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they set their own rules .
Fairness is another issue constantly raised by both sides .
Were this a courtroom trial , with established procedures , there would be far fewer cries of outrage , say experts .
They pound the point that a trial has witnesses , and this trial must also have them .
But the Constitution is silent on this question – and pretty skimpy on instructions for impeachment generally .
Senators have agreed to vote on whether to have witnesses after they ask questions of the two teams on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , Democrats desperately want to call witnesses to bolster their allegation he shook down a foreign leader for his own political benefit .
The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is full of references from both sides to evidence , due process , the Constitution , and of course , fairness .
But it ’ s important to realize that this is not a trial in the sense of the TV classic “ Law & Order , ” but a hybrid – part courtroom presided over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more a political arena .
Senators sit as jurors and judges .
Hardly sequestered , they run to the cameras during breaks to hold dueling press conferences .
And they set their own rules , which they can also change .
“ An impeachment trial was never meant to be a real trial , ” says Ray Smock , former historian for the U.S. House of Representatives .
It is a constitutional process taking place in a political environment , a “ power play ” between the executive and legislative branches , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political mixture more consequential than on the issue of witnesses .
Democrats desperately want to call them , as well as subpoena documents , in order to bolster their allegation that the president shook down a foreign leader – withholding military aid and a White House meeting , for his own political benefit .
They pound the point that a trial has witnesses , and to be fair , this trial must also have them .
But the Constitution is silent on this question – and pretty skimpy on instructions for impeachment generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial , there is no guarantee of witnesses , ” says Mr. Smock .
Senators have agreed to vote on whether to have witnesses , probably on Friday .
They wanted to wait for both sides to finish their presentations , which now have concluded , and for senators to ask questions of the two teams on Wednesday and Thursday .
In a chamber controlled by 53 Republicans , Democrats need four Republicans to split from the pack if they want witnesses .
Just days ago , such prospects seemed to be fading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell from the sky , electrifying Washington and recharging Democrats ’ hopes .
On Sunday , The New York Times reported that in his forthcoming book , former national security adviser John Bolton writes that the president told him that military aid to Ukraine was contingent on that government investigating Democrats , including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son , Hunter .
Mr. Trump denies having said that to Mr. Bolton .
The president ’ s defense team has steadily maintained there was no link between the aid and the investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt Romney of Utah to tell reporters Monday that it ’ s “ increasingly likely ” that more Republicans will join those who want to hear from Mr. Bolton – a top witness choice for Democrats because of his first-hand knowledge of the president ’ s stated intentions .
Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) also said in a statement that reports about the book “ strengthen the case for witnesses ” and have prompted “ conversations ” among her colleagues .
Other Republicans say they want to see the manuscript .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides .
First , there ’ s no telling where witnesses might go , even if they are deposed first , as agreed on by the senators .
Second , if the Senate goes down this road , the GOP majority could vote for witnesses politically harmful to the Democrats .
One possibility floated by Republicans is a witness deal , perhaps John Bolton for the Democrats and Hunter Biden for the president .
But Democrats shot down that idea , saying he wasn ’ t a material witness ( not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might heap on his father ’ s presidential campaign ) .
Absent a deal , and if enough Republicans vote for witnesses , the president could exert executive privilege to block certain witnesses from testifying .
The White House is warning of a long , litigious battle if witnesses are subpoenaed .
With new information dribbling out as the days wear on , it ’ s in the president ’ s interest to wrap this trial up quickly , preferably before the State of the Union address next week .
Meanwhile , four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate just as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are about to break .
Yet the court-battle scenario is “ a lot of chaff being put in the air , ” counters Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware .
The Constitution empowers the Senate as the sole body to try the president .
If it voted to issue a subpoena , it would be signed by the presiding officer of the impeachment trial – Chief Justice John Roberts .
“ I would argue [ that ] is not reviewable ” in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican senators argue that witnesses are not necessary because the charges against the president – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – do not rise to the level of impeachment .
That ’ s what was argued Monday by Mr. Trump ’ s celebrity defense attorneys , constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr , the independent counsel whose investigation sparked the impeachment of President Bill Clinton .
The former president was acquitted by the Senate 20 years ago .
With professorial flourish , Mr. Dershowitz rewound history to argue that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and removing a president – “ treason , bribery , or other high crimes and misdemeanors ” – were intended to mean offenses that were “ criminal-like.
” Were that not the case , he argued , a long list of presidents from George Washington to George H.W .
Bush might have been impeached for “ abuse of power.
” The president ’ s lawyers maintain he committed no crime , that there was no “ quid pro quo , ” and that his temporary hold on military aid was related to corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America is living in an “ age of impeachment , ” with the tool “ weaponized ” against presidents from Nixon , to Clinton , and now Mr. Trump .
Indeed , the House impeachment vote in December fell almost entirely along party lines , with only two Democrats siding with Republicans in opposition .
Mr. Starr pointed to Britain , from which the United States inherited the impeachment process .
Parliament stopped using impeachment after 1868 because the process failed to meet the modern standards of “ fairness , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by both sides in this trial .
It dominated the first full day of deliberations , when senators debated the rules , and continues still .
Were this a courtroom trial , with established rules and procedures , there would be far fewer cries of outrage , say government and legal experts .
Bernadette Meyler , a constitutional scholar at Stanford University in Palo Alto , California , points out that even though witnesses are not a constitutional necessity in this trial , it ’ s what people generally expect – “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a “ legal requirement.
” Two-thirds of Americans ( 66 % ) believe the Senate should call in new witnesses , according to an ABC-Washington Post poll released at the end of last week .
“ Fairness is what the Senate decides , ” said former Sen. Jeff Flake ( R-Arizona ) , who dropped by the trial last week .
Unless Republicans break ranks , those decisions will be determined by the GOP majority , with both sides – and the nation – having to reckon with the consequences .

“An impeachment trial was never meant to be a real trial,” says Ray Smock, former historian for the House. It is a constitutional process taking place in a political environment, a “power play” between the executive and legislative branches. “Once power is involved,” he says, “you can’t escape political machinations.”
But it’s important to realize that this is not a trial in the classic sense, but a hybrid – part courtroom, and much more a political arena. Senators sit as jurors and judges. And they set their own rules.
Fairness is another issue constantly raised by both sides. Were this a courtroom trial, with established procedures, there would be far fewer cries of outrage, say experts.
Are justice and fairness at play in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump? The answer to that question, it turns out, like the trial itself, is more political than principled.
They pound the point that a trial has witnesses, and this trial must also have them. But the Constitution is silent on this question – and pretty skimpy on instructions for impeachment generally. Senators have agreed to vote on whether to have witnesses after they ask questions of the two teams on Wednesday and Thursday.
In the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Democrats desperately want to call witnesses to bolster their allegation he shook down a foreign leader for his own political benefit.
The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is full of references from both sides to evidence, due process, the Constitution, and of course, fairness.
But it’s important to realize that this is not a trial in the sense of the TV classic “Law & Order,” but a hybrid – part courtroom presided over by the chief justice, and much more a political arena.
Senators sit as jurors and judges. Hardly sequestered, they run to the cameras during breaks to hold dueling press conferences. And they set their own rules, which they can also change.
Why We Wrote This Are justice and fairness at play in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump? The answer to that question, it turns out, like the trial itself, is more political than principled.
“An impeachment trial was never meant to be a real trial,” says Ray Smock, former historian for the U.S. House of Representatives. It is a constitutional process taking place in a political environment, a “power play” between the executive and legislative branches, he says.
“Once power is involved,” he adds, “you can’t escape political machinations.”
Nowhere is this judicial and political mixture more consequential than on the issue of witnesses.
Democrats desperately want to call them, as well as subpoena documents, in order to bolster their allegation that the president shook down a foreign leader – withholding military aid and a White House meeting, for his own political benefit. They pound the point that a trial has witnesses, and to be fair, this trial must also have them.
But the Constitution is silent on this question – and pretty skimpy on instructions for impeachment generally.
“Because this is not a trial, there is no guarantee of witnesses,” says Mr. Smock.
Senators have agreed to vote on whether to have witnesses, probably on Friday. They wanted to wait for both sides to finish their presentations, which now have concluded, and for senators to ask questions of the two teams on Wednesday and Thursday. In a chamber controlled by 53 Republicans, Democrats need four Republicans to split from the pack if they want witnesses.
Just days ago, such prospects seemed to be fading. But like lightning, new information fell from the sky, electrifying Washington and recharging Democrats’ hopes. On Sunday, The New York Times reported that in his forthcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton writes that the president told him that military aid to Ukraine was contingent on that government investigating Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Mr. Trump denies having said that to Mr. Bolton.
The president’s defense team has steadily maintained there was no link between the aid and the investigations.
The manuscript leak prompted Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah to tell reporters Monday that it’s “increasingly likely” that more Republicans will join those who want to hear from Mr. Bolton – a top witness choice for Democrats because of his first-hand knowledge of the president’s stated intentions. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also said in a statement that reports about the book “strengthen the case for witnesses” and have prompted “conversations” among her colleagues. Other Republicans say they want to see the manuscript.
Witness quid pro quo?
The witness issue is fraught with risk for both sides. First, there’s no telling where witnesses might go, even if they are deposed first, as agreed on by the senators. Second, if the Senate goes down this road, the GOP majority could vote for witnesses politically harmful to the Democrats.
One possibility floated by Republicans is a witness deal, perhaps John Bolton for the Democrats and Hunter Biden for the president. But Democrats shot down that idea, saying he wasn’t a material witness (not to mention the political damage that calling him might heap on his father’s presidential campaign).
Absent a deal, and if enough Republicans vote for witnesses, the president could exert executive privilege to block certain witnesses from testifying. The White House is warning of a long, litigious battle if witnesses are subpoenaed.
With new information dribbling out as the days wear on, it’s in the president’s interest to wrap this trial up quickly, preferably before the State of the Union address next week.
Meanwhile, four Democratic presidential candidates are locked inside the Senate just as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are about to break.
Yet the court-battle scenario is “a lot of chaff being put in the air,” counters Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware. The Constitution empowers the Senate as the sole body to try the president. If it voted to issue a subpoena, it would be signed by the presiding officer of the impeachment trial – Chief Justice John Roberts.
“I would argue [that] is not reviewable” in the courts, Senator Coons says.
Some Republican senators argue that witnesses are not necessary because the charges against the president – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – do not rise to the level of impeachment.
That’s what was argued Monday by Mr. Trump’s celebrity defense attorneys, constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation sparked the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The former president was acquitted by the Senate 20 years ago.
‘Age of impeachment’
With professorial flourish, Mr. Dershowitz rewound history to argue that the constitutional criteria for impeaching, convicting, and removing a president – “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” – were intended to mean offenses that were “criminal-like.” Were that not the case, he argued, a long list of presidents from George Washington to George H.W. Bush might have been impeached for “abuse of power.”
The president’s lawyers maintain he committed no crime, that there was no “quid pro quo,” and that his temporary hold on military aid was related to corruption and burden-sharing.
Mr. Starr warned that America is living in an “age of impeachment,” with the tool “weaponized” against presidents from Nixon, to Clinton, and now Mr. Trump. Indeed, the House impeachment vote in December fell almost entirely along party lines, with only three Democrats siding with Republicans in opposition, and no Republicans voting to impeach. Mr. Starr pointed to Britain, from which the United States inherited the impeachment process. Parliament stopped using impeachment after 1868 because the process failed to meet the modern standards of “fairness,” he said.
Fairness is an issue constantly raised by both sides in this trial. It dominated the first full day of deliberations, when senators debated the rules, and continues still. Were this a courtroom trial, with established rules and procedures, there would be far fewer cries of outrage, say government and legal experts.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Bernadette Meyler, a constitutional scholar at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, points out that even though witnesses are not a constitutional necessity in this trial, it’s what people generally expect – “a moral fairness” she says, if not a “legal requirement.” Two-thirds of Americans (66%) believe the Senate should call in new witnesses, according to an ABC-Washington Post poll released at the end of last week.
“Fairness is what the Senate decides,” said former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), who dropped by the trial last week. Unless Republicans break ranks, those decisions will be determined by the GOP majority, with both sides – and the nation – having to reckon with the consequences.


csmonitor--2020-01-28--Whose reality? Propaganda in the age of social media

If you do spot misinformation in your newsfeed , one option , Professor Cull suggests , might be to send that friend an email rather than responding publicly and inadvertently boosting engagement to the original post .
So what ’ s a social media user to do ?
Katy Byron , the editor and program manager of MediaWise , advises online readers to ask three simple questions : Who is behind the information ?
What is the evidence ?
And what are other sources saying ?
Draft rumors are nothing new , says University of Southern California historian Nicholas Cull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell fact from fiction .
“ We ’ re living in one of those dangerous moments right now , ” he says .
The killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran on Jan. 3 sent waves of diplomatic uncertainty throughout the Middle East .
But the U.S. drone strike that led to his death also released a cloud of uncertainty in the United States .
One prominent series of rumors circulating on social media claimed that the United States had instituted the draft .
By the end of the day of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
Selective Service System ’ s website had crashed .
Truth , it is often said , is the first casualty of war , and in the wake of the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran on Jan. 3 , misinformation ran rampant .
In the days following the U.S.-led drone strike , the White House ’ s rationales for the attack shifted wildly .
Initially , the Trump administration claimed that the general was plotting an “ imminent ” attack against Americans .
Less than a week later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a U.S. embassy , or four embassies .
Or maybe it was U.S. military bases .
In the end , “ it doesn ’ t really matter , ” the president tweeted , “ because of [ Soleimani ’ s ] horrible past !
” At the same time , social networks like TikTok , Instagram , and Facebook began to overflow with doctored photos and outdated images , false rumors about the draft , and fake tweets from administration officials .
In one sense , this is nothing new ; war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which includes spreading lies .
But in another sense , the informational fog speaks to the defining epistemological issue of our era : the fracturing of the American public ’ s shared sense of reality .
“ The objective seems to be to question the idea that anything is certain , ” says University of Southern California historian Nicholas Cull .
“ In a world of uncertainty , the only one you can trust is the strongest guy in the room.
” One rumor claimed that the U.S. had instituted the draft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were exempt .
Another claimed that felons were exempt .
By the end of the day of the drone strike , the servers for the U.S .
Selective Service System ’ s website had crashed .
“ The two-day period after the news broke were very confusing to young people , ” says Katy Byron , the editor and program manager of MediaWise , a Poynter Institute for Media Studies project aimed at helping teenagers identify online misinformation .
Professor Cull points out that draft rumors are nothing new ; a prevalent rumor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were exempt .
But , he says , modern technology confounds our efforts to tell fact from fiction .
“ We ’ re living in one of those dangerous moments right now .
[ There is a ] tremendous instability from the overlap of social media and big data-powered targeting of social media that we are in the process of learning to deal with.
” Misinformation on social media presents a thorny problem .
Recommendation algorithms , like the kind that determine what appears in your Facebook newsfeed or YouTube ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by themselves distinguish truth from lies .
All they can do is measure how people “ engage ” with the content : whether they scroll past it or linger on it , whether they click on the thumbs , hearts , or other icons associated with the post , and how much time they spend interacting with it .
This algorithmic agnosticism often leads to perverse results .
Social networks assign higher ranks to content that prompts more engagement , regardless of whether the content is true or whether it improves the engager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly ranked a piece of content is , the more likely people will see it .
That means that , if you come across a Facebook post that you think is false and you write a thoughtful point-by-point rebuttal of it , you ’ ve made it more likely that the misinformation will appear in more peoples ’ Facebook news feeds .
What ’ s more , today ’ s media landscape is immeasurably more fragmented than it was in 1967 .
To reach its audience , misinformation – and its deliberate subset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel the highways afforded by the major news outlets ; instead , it can travel the backroads created by niche targeting .
That means that what you see may not be what everyone else , including professional fact-checkers , see .
“ The beauty of freedom of speech , historically , is that the freedom of speech is constrained by the ability to observe and respond to problematic speech , ” says Josh Pasek , a media professor at the University of Michigan .
“ The challenge in this social media environment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that.
” Professor Pasek suggests that one way for the government to curb misinformation without running afoul of free speech protections would be to require social media companies to be transparent about who is targeting what content to which users .
“ You don ’ t have the right to not have your speech known about just because you ’ re trying to hide it from someone , ” he says .
If you spot misinformation in your news feed , one option , Professor Cull suggests , might be to go outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a friend posts a false news report on Twitter , instead of responding via Twitter and inadvertently boosting engagement to the original post , you could send that friend an email instead .
Ms. Byron of MediaWise , whose project is backed by Google ’ s charitable arm , Google.org , advises online readers to ask three simple questions : Who is behind the information ?
What is the evidence ?
And what are other sources saying ?
If you ’ re still not sure , she says , you can tag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mediawise .
“ We ’ ll help you figure out if what you ’ re seeing is real or not , ” she says .
Professor Cull says that the combination of rapid technological shifts and political instability places society in a dangerous situation , but , if we survive this moment , our minds will eventually adjust to the new media landscape , just as we adjusted to television and radio in the past .
“ In a couple of years , ” he says , “ we ’ ll be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ Wow , can you imagine that we didn ’ t understand that ?
Now we understand it .
It ’ s second nature .
We can move beyond it .
’ ”

If you do spot misinformation in your newsfeed, one option, Professor Cull suggests, might be to send that friend an email rather than responding publicly and inadvertently boosting engagement to the original post.
So what’s a social media user to do? Katy Byron, the editor and program manager of MediaWise, advises online readers to ask three simple questions: Who is behind the information? What is the evidence? And what are other sources saying?
Propaganda has always been a part of conflict. But in the wake of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani's death, Americans got a glimpse of how easily misinformation can spread in this social media age. What to do?
Draft rumors are nothing new, says University of Southern California historian Nicholas Cull. But modern technology confounds our efforts to tell fact from fiction. “We’re living in one of those dangerous moments right now,” he says.
The killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran on Jan. 3 sent waves of diplomatic uncertainty throughout the Middle East. But the U.S. drone strike that led to his death also released a cloud of uncertainty in the United States. One prominent series of rumors circulating on social media claimed that the United States had instituted the draft. By the end of the day of the drone strike, the servers for the U.S. Selective Service System’s website had crashed.
Truth, it is often said, is the first casualty of war, and in the wake of the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran on Jan. 3, misinformation ran rampant.
In the days following the U.S.-led drone strike, the White House’s rationales for the attack shifted wildly. Initially, the Trump administration claimed that the general was plotting an “imminent” attack against Americans. Less than a week later, it was to prevent an attack on a U.S. embassy, or four embassies. Or maybe it was U.S. military bases. In the end, “it doesn’t really matter,” the president tweeted, “because of [Soleimani’s] horrible past!”
At the same time, social networks like TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook began to overflow with doctored photos and outdated images, false rumors about the draft, and fake tweets from administration officials. In one sense, this is nothing new; war fighting has always had a psychological component, which includes spreading lies. But in another sense, the informational fog speaks to the defining epistemological issue of our era: the fracturing of the American public’s shared sense of reality.
Why We Wrote This Propaganda has always been a part of conflict. But in the wake of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani's death, Americans got a glimpse of how easily misinformation can spread in this social media age. What to do?
“The objective seems to be to question the idea that anything is certain,” says University of Southern California historian Nicholas Cull. “In a world of uncertainty, the only one you can trust is the strongest guy in the room.”
A fog of misinformation
One rumor claimed that the U.S. had instituted the draft. Another rumor claimed that LGBT people were exempt. Another claimed that felons were exempt. By the end of the day of the drone strike, the servers for the U.S. Selective Service System’s website had crashed.
“The two-day period after the news broke were very confusing to young people,” says Katy Byron, the editor and program manager of MediaWise, a Poynter Institute for Media Studies project aimed at helping teenagers identify online misinformation.
Professor Cull points out that draft rumors are nothing new; a prevalent rumor in the spring of 1942 claimed Jews were exempt. But, he says, modern technology confounds our efforts to tell fact from fiction. “We’re living in one of those dangerous moments right now. [There is a] tremendous instability from the overlap of social media and big data-powered targeting of social media that we are in the process of learning to deal with.”
Programmed to spread
Misinformation on social media presents a thorny problem. Recommendation algorithms, like the kind that determine what appears in your Facebook newsfeed or YouTube’s “up next” list, cannot by themselves distinguish truth from lies. All they can do is measure how people “engage” with the content: whether they scroll past it or linger on it, whether they click on the thumbs, hearts, or other icons associated with the post, and how much time they spend interacting with it.
This algorithmic agnosticism often leads to perverse results. Social networks assign higher ranks to content that prompts more engagement, regardless of whether the content is true or whether it improves the engager’s life. And the more highly ranked a piece of content is, the more likely people will see it. That means that, if you come across a Facebook post that you think is false and you write a thoughtful point-by-point rebuttal of it, you’ve made it more likely that the misinformation will appear in more peoples’ Facebook news feeds.
What’s more, today’s media landscape is immeasurably more fragmented than it was in 1967. To reach its audience, misinformation – and its deliberate subset, disinformation – no longer needs to travel the highways afforded by the major news outlets; instead, it can travel the backroads created by niche targeting. That means that what you see may not be what everyone else, including professional fact-checkers, see.
“The beauty of freedom of speech, historically, is that the freedom of speech is constrained by the ability to observe and respond to problematic speech,” says Josh Pasek, a media professor at the University of Michigan. “The challenge in this social media environment is that you can’t necessarily do that.”
Professor Pasek suggests that one way for the government to curb misinformation without running afoul of free speech protections would be to require social media companies to be transparent about who is targeting what content to which users.
“You don’t have the right to not have your speech known about just because you’re trying to hide it from someone,” he says.
How to respond?
If you spot misinformation in your news feed, one option, Professor Cull suggests, might be to go outside the infrastructure. In other words, if a friend posts a false news report on Twitter, instead of responding via Twitter and inadvertently boosting engagement to the original post, you could send that friend an email instead.
Ms. Byron of MediaWise, whose project is backed by Google’s charitable arm, Google.org, advises online readers to ask three simple questions: Who is behind the information? What is the evidence? And what are other sources saying?
If you’re still not sure, she says, you can tag the post with #IsThisLegit and @mediawise. “We’ll help you figure out if what you’re seeing is real or not,” she says.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Professor Cull says that the combination of rapid technological shifts and political instability places society in a dangerous situation, but, if we survive this moment, our minds will eventually adjust to the new media landscape, just as we adjusted to television and radio in the past.
“In a couple of years,” he says, “we’ll be able to look back on it and think, ‘Wow, can you imagine that we didn’t understand that? Now we understand it. It’s second nature. We can move beyond it.’”


csmonitor--2020-01-29--Impeachment stokes questions about Biden and Trump family finances

“ What Hunter [ Biden ] was doing was not atypical for Washington – and also not good , ” says Robert Weissman , president of the watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington .
“ That said , it is orders of magnitude less problematic and less corrupting than the everyday business of the Trump administration , including what the Trump family is doing to profit off of his presidency.
” Yet as Republicans cast stones at the Bidens , they also live in a glass house .
Political attacks about alleged financial self-dealing are likely to persist for both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whatever happens with impeachment .
And on the substance of the issue , President Trump appears far more vulnerable .
A key part of President Donald Trump ’ s defense strategy in the Democrat-led impeachment effort has been to insinuate financial wrongdoing on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
Senate Republicans have been weighing whether the trial should include witnesses , and if so , whether to call Hunter Biden to testify about his paid position at a Ukrainian gas company during his father ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2005 , then-Sen. Joe Biden voted for a bankruptcy law overhaul that benefited a major banking firm that was paying his son Hunter as a consultant .
More recently , President Donald Trump has seen everyone from foreign dignitaries to U.S. military personnel stay at his name-branded hotels – bolstering his family business income in what some see as a not-so-veiled attempt to curry favor with the president .
Two political families .
Two situations that have drawn criticism or at least questions .
They ’ re part of a larger pattern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Real or potential conflicts of interest arise in Washington far too often , they say .
Now , thanks to the impeachment trial and the 2020 election campaign , the issue is receiving new scrutiny .
Although Mr. Trump is the focal point of Democrat-led impeachment efforts , his insinuation of financial wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens persists as a thread in the drama – and indeed is key to the president ’ s defense strategy .
Senate Republicans have been weighing whether the trial should include witnesses , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden to testify about his position at a Ukrainian gas company during his father ’ s tenure as U.S. vice president .
Yet as Republicans cast stones at the Bidens , they also live in a glass house .
Political attacks about alleged financial self-dealing are likely to persist for both the Trump and Biden campaigns in 2020 , whatever happens with impeachment .
And on the substance of the issue , Mr. Trump appears far more vulnerable .
“ What Hunter [ Biden ] was doing was not atypical for Washington – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Weissman , president of the watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington .
“ That said , it is orders of magnitude less problematic and less corrupting than the everyday business of the Trump administration , including what the Trump family is doing to profit off of his presidency.
” Hunter Biden ’ s role on the board of gas company Burisma may have been inappropriate , Mr. Weissman adds .
But that doesn ’ t justify President Trump ’ s pressuring of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens .
Democrats are arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal , and the Government Accountability Office said the Trump administration violated the law by putting a hold on Congress-approved aid to Ukraine .
The Trump defense team is arguing that there was no quid pro quo , and that even if there was it would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
While Senate Democrats are eager to call witnesses , they are wary of any deal with Republicans that would allow Hunter Biden to be among them .
“ The whole impeachment trial for Trump is just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , ” former Vice President Biden said at a Tuesday event in Iowa .
Still , it ’ s not just Republicans who have raised questions about possible conflicts within the Biden family .
Press reports , including one headlined “ Biden Inc. ” by Politico , have cited cases over the years of Mr. Biden ’ s brother James or son Hunter getting jobs or opportunities that appear to tap into their perceived clout as relatives of a powerful politician .
The Wall Street Journal has drawn attention to Hunter Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as Ukraine .
Largely missing so far is any evidence that Joe Biden acted to provide favors to his family , including when he took the 2005 vote on the bankruptcy law while Hunter was earning fees from MBNA , a credit card firm in the family ’ s home state of Delaware .
Also of note : In a chamber of many millionaires , Mr. Biden for decades ranked as one of the least wealthy senators ( although speaking fees have pushed up his income in the past few years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family ’ s combination of massive and ever-evolving real estate interests with the political power of the presidency has no precedent in modern U.S. history .
And a number of lawsuits and subpoenas suggest that some of those entanglements may be crossing lines of legality .
President Trump has officially removed himself from personal involvement in his businesses while in office , has been passing profits to the U.S. Treasury when representatives of foreign governments stay at his company ’ s hotels , and is moving to sell that hotel .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of truly avoiding conflicts of interest , since Mr. Trump can ’ t “ unknow ” the properties he owns and upon which his future wealth depends .
Yet , even as Democrats decry Trump family behavior and Republicans call out the Bidens ’ “ corrupt family business practices , ” it ’ s not clear how much questions of financial impropriety will weigh on voters .
“ The vulnerabilities are actually less than people are thinking ” for both political families , says Gregory Weiner , a political scientist at Assumption College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the conservative American Enterprise Institute .
“ I don ’ t think what ’ s going on in the Trump family surprises anyone , and I think his outlandishness in everything he does provides him a form of protection , ” he says .
“ I ’ m not saying it should , but I think it does.
” If Joe Biden becomes the Democratic nominee , Dr. Weiner adds , Republicans are “ probably doing him a favor by getting this [ issue ] out of the way early.
” Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountability if their actions become overly troublesome to voters .
And experts say public officials ’ financial ethics are deeply important to the health of a democratic republic like the U.S.
It ’ s probably not realistic to expect politicians to police all the professional activities of adult family members – other than to make plain that no political favors will be granted , says Richard Painter , a former ethics official in the White House of George W. Bush .
But he sees the Trump family entanglements as a different animal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if the president himself has a lot of [ business ] exposure all over the world , ” says Mr. Painter , now vice chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
“ What if Franklin Roosevelt during the World War II period had had all sort of real estate , the Roosevelt Tower in Berlin and in Rome ?
” he asks .
America is “ doggone lucky ” that was not the case , given that many rich Americans at the time had money in Germany and were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saudi Arabia to Southeast Asia , Trump business interests overseas are considerable .
“ Trump continued to hold more than $ 130 million in foreign assets in a revocable trust at the end of 2018 , ” and has reported “ more than $ 100 million in income during his first two years in office generated by these foreign assets , ” writes Anna Massoglia , a researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington , in an email .
Both Mr. Painter and Dr. Weiner , among others , argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a blind trust , under which he would have exited from the business of name-branded hotels and resorts .
It ’ s a step that has been taken by past presidents , but none who had business enterprises on the scale of the Trump Organization ( now led by the president ’ s sons Donald Jr. and Eric ) .
Where some legal experts say it ’ s unrealistic to expect an entrepreneur-turned-president to take such a drastic step , the rejoinder from others is that someone unwilling to do that doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As it stands , while President Trump may have pledged to avoid conflicts of interest , he has left little scope for Congress , the press , or the public to assess his compliance : • In pending litigation , he hasn ’ t complied with what many say is an ironclad obligation to provide his tax returns when asked by Congress .
• He has said he isn ’ t benefiting personally from signing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 into law .
Many experts say the opposite is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment-related provisions in the law .
• He faces lawsuits over whether activities such as Trump hotel visits by officials from other nations amount to “ foreign emoluments , ” banned under the Constitution to prevent bribery or improper influence .
• In another lawsuit , the attorney general for the District of Columbia alleges the Trump inaugural committee “ coordinated with the Trump family to grossly overpay for event space in the Trump International Hotel.
” • Frequent presidential visits amount to free publicity and stepped-up revenue for Trump properties .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an estimated $ 184,000 in business from U.S. military personnel using it as a stopover on international flights .
• While pledging that his companies will avoid striking new deals abroad during his presidency , residential developments in India are among a list of blurry-line activities under the Trump presidency , Ms. Massoglia writes .
Whether for the Trump family ’ s situation or for other presidents , solutions aren ’ t easy .
Corruption can be tricky to define , for one thing .
Mr. Biden has called for , among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethics , with a bipartisan structure and subpoena power .
And many experts call for greater financial transparency in politics .
“ Sunlight can ’ t work when there ’ s nothing for it to shine on , ” says Dr. Weiner of the American Enterprise Institute .

Two political families. Two situations that have drawn criticism. They’re part of a troubling pattern, ethicists say: Real or potential conflicts of interest arise in Washington far too often.
“What Hunter [Biden] was doing was not atypical for Washington – and also not good,” says Robert Weissman, president of the watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington. “That said, it is orders of magnitude less problematic and less corrupting than the everyday business of the Trump administration, including what the Trump family is doing to profit off of his presidency.”
Yet as Republicans cast stones at the Bidens, they also live in a glass house. Political attacks about alleged financial self-dealing are likely to persist for both the Trump and Biden campaigns in 2020, whatever happens with impeachment. And on the substance of the issue, President Trump appears far more vulnerable.
A key part of President Donald Trump’s defense strategy in the Democrat-led impeachment effort has been to insinuate financial wrongdoing on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Senate Republicans have been weighing whether the trial should include witnesses, and if so, whether to call Hunter Biden to testify about his paid position at a Ukrainian gas company during his father’s tenure as U.S. vice president.
In 2005, then-Sen. Joe Biden voted for a bankruptcy law overhaul that benefited a major banking firm that was paying his son Hunter as a consultant.
More recently, President Donald Trump has seen everyone from foreign dignitaries to U.S. military personnel stay at his name-branded hotels – bolstering his family business income in what some see as a not-so-veiled attempt to curry favor with the president.
Two political families. Two situations that have drawn criticism or at least questions.
Why We Wrote This Two political families. Two situations that have drawn criticism. They’re part of a troubling pattern, ethicists say: Real or potential conflicts of interest arise in Washington far too often.
They’re part of a larger pattern, according to experts on government ethics. Real or potential conflicts of interest arise in Washington far too often, they say. Now, thanks to the impeachment trial and the 2020 election campaign, the issue is receiving new scrutiny.
Although Mr. Trump is the focal point of Democrat-led impeachment efforts, his insinuation of financial wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens persists as a thread in the drama – and indeed is key to the president’s defense strategy. Senate Republicans have been weighing whether the trial should include witnesses, and if so, whether to call Hunter Biden to testify about his position at a Ukrainian gas company during his father’s tenure as U.S. vice president.
Yet as Republicans cast stones at the Bidens, they also live in a glass house. Political attacks about alleged financial self-dealing are likely to persist for both the Trump and Biden campaigns in 2020, whatever happens with impeachment. And on the substance of the issue, Mr. Trump appears far more vulnerable.
“What Hunter [Biden] was doing was not atypical for Washington – and also not good,” says Robert Weissman, president of the watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington. “That said, it is orders of magnitude less problematic and less corrupting than the everyday business of the Trump administration, including what the Trump family is doing to profit off of his presidency.”
Hunter Biden’s role on the board of gas company Burisma may have been inappropriate, Mr. Weissman adds. But that doesn’t justify President Trump’s pressuring of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
Democrats are arguing that seeking foreign help in an election is illegal, and the Government Accountability Office said the Trump administration violated the law by putting a hold on Congress-approved aid to Ukraine. The Trump defense team is arguing that there was no quid pro quo, and that even if there was it would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
While Senate Democrats are eager to call witnesses, they are wary of any deal with Republicans that would allow Hunter Biden to be among them.
Shannon Stapleton/Reuters/File View caption Hide caption President-elect Donald Trump (center) is applauded by his son Eric Trump (left) daughter Ivanka Trump and son Donald Trump Jr. (right) ahead of a press conference in Trump Tower, Manhattan, New York, Jan. 11, 2017. After President Trump was sworn in, he has retained his ownership stake in family businesses, while ceding managerial control to his sons.
“The whole impeachment trial for Trump is just a political hit job to try to smear me,” former Vice President Biden said at a Tuesday event in Iowa.
Still, it’s not just Republicans who have raised questions about possible conflicts within the Biden family. Press reports, including one headlined “Biden Inc.” by Politico, have cited cases over the years of Mr. Biden’s brother James or son Hunter getting jobs or opportunities that appear to tap into their perceived clout as relatives of a powerful politician. The Wall Street Journal has drawn attention to Hunter Biden’s business involvement in China, as well as Ukraine.
Largely missing so far is any evidence that Joe Biden acted to provide favors to his family, including when he took the 2005 vote on the bankruptcy law while Hunter was earning fees from MBNA, a credit card firm in the family’s home state of Delaware.
Also of note: In a chamber of many millionaires, Mr. Biden for decades ranked as one of the least wealthy senators (although speaking fees have pushed up his income in the past few years).
By contrast, the Trump family’s combination of massive and ever-evolving real estate interests with the political power of the presidency has no precedent in modern U.S. history. And a number of lawsuits and subpoenas suggest that some of those entanglements may be crossing lines of legality.
President Trump has officially removed himself from personal involvement in his businesses while in office, has been passing profits to the U.S. Treasury when representatives of foreign governments stay at his company’s hotels, and is moving to sell that hotel. Still, many ethicists say such steps fall short of truly avoiding conflicts of interest, since Mr. Trump can’t “unknow” the properties he owns and upon which his future wealth depends.
Yet, even as Democrats decry Trump family behavior and Republicans call out the Bidens’ “corrupt family business practices,” it’s not clear how much questions of financial impropriety will weigh on voters.
“The vulnerabilities are actually less than people are thinking” for both political families, says Gregory Weiner, a political scientist at Assumption College in Massachusetts, and a scholar affiliated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
“I don’t think what’s going on in the Trump family surprises anyone, and I think his outlandishness in everything he does provides him a form of protection,” he says. “I’m not saying it should, but I think it does.”
If Joe Biden becomes the Democratic nominee, Dr. Weiner adds, Republicans are “probably doing him a favor by getting this [issue] out of the way early.”
Still, he says politicians ultimately risk ballot-box accountability if their actions become overly troublesome to voters.
And experts say public officials’ financial ethics are deeply important to the health of a democratic republic like the U.S.
It’s probably not realistic to expect politicians to police all the professional activities of adult family members – other than to make plain that no political favors will be granted, says Richard Painter, a former ethics official in the White House of George W. Bush.
But he sees the Trump family entanglements as a different animal.
“This is a very serious danger, if the president himself has a lot of [business] exposure all over the world,” says Mr. Painter, now vice chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
“What if Franklin Roosevelt during the World War II period had had all sort of real estate, the Roosevelt Tower in Berlin and in Rome?” he asks. America is “doggone lucky” that was not the case, given that many rich Americans at the time had money in Germany and were isolationists, Mr. Painter says.
From Saudi Arabia to Southeast Asia, Trump business interests overseas are considerable.
“Trump continued to hold more than $130 million in foreign assets in a revocable trust at the end of 2018,” and has reported “more than $100 million in income during his first two years in office generated by these foreign assets,” writes Anna Massoglia, a researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, in an email.
Both Mr. Painter and Dr. Weiner, among others, argue that President Trump should have put his assets into a blind trust, under which he would have exited from the business of name-branded hotels and resorts. It’s a step that has been taken by past presidents, but none who had business enterprises on the scale of the Trump Organization (now led by the president’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric).
Where some legal experts say it’s unrealistic to expect an entrepreneur-turned-president to take such a drastic step, the rejoinder from others is that someone unwilling to do that doesn’t need to run for president.
As it stands, while President Trump may have pledged to avoid conflicts of interest, he has left little scope for Congress, the press, or the public to assess his compliance:
In pending litigation, he hasn’t complied with what many say is an ironclad obligation to provide his tax returns when asked by Congress.
He has said he isn’t benefiting personally from signing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 into law. Many experts say the opposite is likely true, due to business- and investment-related provisions in the law.
He faces lawsuits over whether activities such as Trump hotel visits by officials from other nations amount to “foreign emoluments,” banned under the Constitution to prevent bribery or improper influence.
In another lawsuit, the attorney general for the District of Columbia alleges the Trump inaugural committee “coordinated with the Trump family to grossly overpay for event space in the Trump International Hotel.”
Frequent presidential visits amount to free publicity and stepped-up revenue for Trump properties. The Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland has seen an estimated $184,000 in business from U.S. military personnel using it as a stopover on international flights.
While pledging that his companies will avoid striking new deals abroad during his presidency, residential developments in India are among a list of blurry-line activities under the Trump presidency, Ms. Massoglia writes.
Whether for the Trump family’s situation or for other presidents, solutions aren’t easy. Corruption can be tricky to define, for one thing.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Mr. Biden has called for, among other things, a new federal commission on ethics, with a bipartisan structure and subpoena power. And many experts call for greater financial transparency in politics.
“Sunlight can’t work when there’s nothing for it to shine on,” says Dr. Weiner of the American Enterprise Institute.


csmonitor--2020-01-29--Pass the casserole – Iowans and activists bond over politics

“ Me becoming close with Dana brings the country together in its own small way , ” says Mr. Neumann .
Ms. Van Abbema says she feels “ mom-like ” toward Mr. Neumann , and talks about how much he has grown over the past few months .
The nature of their jobs requires them to integrate themselves into their new communities .
This results in some surprising , yet endearing , friendships between people who find themselves working together for the same cause .
Every four years , young activists descend upon Iowa to help their candidate win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For scores of young people , this means moving to a place where they have likely never been – a state that has more pigs than people .
“ I always used to joke that I don ’ t know what it ’ s like to live with a mom because I have gay dads , ” says Mr. Neumann , who is from San Francisco , laughing .
“ But now I know.
” If it weren ’ t for Dana Van Abbema , says Alex Neumann , a young activist with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d never eat dinner .
She and other Iowans text him almost daily asking what he would like , and then drop the meal off at the local field office .
Alex Neumann runs up and down the snaking line of Iowans , doling out high-fives and hugs .
Greg , Daphne , Becky , and dozens more : He greets them all by name .
A little girl gasps and points , saying “ Mommy look !
It ’ s Alex !
” A few months ago , Mr. Neumann was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , he was a stranger to the state of Iowa .
Now he finds himself working the hallways of Liberty High School in North Liberty cheerfully directing volunteers and greeting friends .
Every four years , young activists and field organizers descend upon the state to help their candidate win the country ’ s first nominating contest .
For scores of young people , many of them from the coasts , this means moving to a place where they have likely never been – to a state that has more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their jobs – organizing local support for their candidate – requires them to integrate themselves into their new communities .
This results in some surprising , yet endearing , friendships between people who are otherwise very different from one another but find themselves working together for the same cause .
“ We have nothing in common .
I ’ m a middle-aged woman in HR , ” says Dana Van Abbema , a local volunteer with the Pete Buttigieg campaign and friend of Alex .
Then she motions around the room .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ms. Van Abbema follows Mr. Neumann ’ s orders , greeting arrivals and directing them to the back of the line .
She says she feels “ mom-like ” toward Mr. Neumann , and talks about how much he has grown over the past few months .
At first he was shy and hesitant about approaching strangers , says Ms. Van Abbema , proudly watching him work the line .
“ Me becoming close with Dana brings the country together in its own small way , ” says Mr. Neumann .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York feel at home ” At rallies across Iowa , many candidates are introduced by the local field organizer .
At Mr. Buttigieg ’ s North Liberty event , a young woman named Ruby takes the stage .
“ You ’ ve made a girl from New York feel at home in a place that once felt very far away , ” says Ruby , to cheers from the crowd .
For many Iowans , their hospitality extends beyond ideology .
Although they plan to caucus for a particular candidate , they befriend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do they welcome the chance to have new voices in their communities , but they also see it as their duty .
At a house party for Sen. Amy Klobuchar in Newton , Iowa , on Friday , three women trade stories about the young staffers they have hosted and befriended over the years .
Although local Newtonians Fran Henderson , Jenni Patty , and Joan Tyler are planning to caucus for Senator Klobuchar , they ’ ve formed relationships with young staffers across several campaigns .
Ms. Henderson , a retired pharmacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids ” from Chicago with the Buttigieg campaign .
Ms. Patty , an instructor at the community college , hosted a staffer with Sen. Cory Booker ’ s campaign this summer .
Even Jim Pryke , the host of the house party , is currently hosting an organizer for the Tom Steyer campaign .
“ I was like , ‘ There ’ s got to be a way to make this a good thing , ’ ” says Mr. Pryke , referring to the big field of candidates .
“ To have so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have so many people listening – I just went into this knowing there was a larger Democratic message to spread.
” Mr. Pryke invited all of the local staffers for Sen. Elizabeth Warren over for a cookout after the Fourth of July parade .
Some of the Warren staffers asked if their friends and roommates could come .
Soon enough the party ballooned to almost two dozen people , with organizers for Ms. Warren , Ms. Klobuchar , Mr. Booker , Mr. Buttigieg , and Sen. Kamala Harris all at his house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has invited all of the local organizers over every couple of weeks for a big country breakfast .
The final one is planned for Wednesday , he says , to get together one last time before the caucus .
Bev Clark yells into the living room , telling a volunteer named Chris to come get himself some of Senator Klobuchar ’ s famous meat-and-Tater Tots hotdish before it ’ s gone .
“ Bev , I ’ ve told you this , ” says Chris Kingsby , who moved to Newton from Arkansas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
“ I ’ m a pescatarian.
” Mr. Kingsby laughs as he explains to Ms. Clark , again , what that means .
He tells me later that Ms. Clark is his best friend in Newton , and sometimes calls him at 10 p.m. to give him advice on how to reach more Iowans .
Ms. Clark , proudly watching Mr. Kingsby work the crowd , says she knew as soon as he arrived that he didn ’ t bring warm enough clothes for an Iowa winter .
She gave him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s and directions to the farm store – where , she told him , you buy everything in Iowa , from clothes to food to car scrapers .
“ Our communities around here are so old ; we need young people , ” says Ms. Clark .
“ Aging Iowa is a big problem.
” According to the Iowa Department on Aging , Iowa ranks 18th for its share of elderly population : Almost 17 % are over age 65 .
Almost 45 % of those Iowans live alone – making these newfound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an older person , you get used to being disregarded by younger people , ” says Ms. Tyler , a retired teacher .
“ But these kids really care about intergenerational relationships .
Now we get to have conversations , and they talk to us like we ’ re people.
” “ I want to tell you about your son ” Mr. Neumann , who grew up outside San Francisco with two gay dads , never thought he ’ d be doing something like this .
But in 2008 , California ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage that was eventually overturned ) , “ tore his family apart.
” So as soon as an openly gay candidate , a small-town Indiana mayor , announced his exploratory committee , Mr. Neumann says he had to get involved .
He graduated a year early from Northwestern University in Evanston , Illinois , to work for Mr. Buttigieg ’ s campaign in Iowa in October .
But it wasn ’ t until his fathers were driving him from California , and he watched the miles of Nebraska cornfields speed past on Interstate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I was like , ‘ Uh-oh .
What am I doing ?
’ ” he says , laughing .
But the hesitation faded as soon as he arrived at the home of his host family .
It ’ s just supposed to be a bed to sleep in at night , but he says the couple always offers to feed him , and makes sure he has a car scraper for snow .
He says he ’ s hardly home , often working until 11 p.m .
If it weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women , says Mr. Neumann , he ’ d never eat dinner .
They text him almost daily asking what he would like , and then drop the meal off at the local field office .
For Christmas , Ms. Van Abbema gave Mr. Neumann a bobblehead replica of himself , complete with the two Buttigieg campaign bracelets he wears every day .
“ I always used to joke that I don ’ t know what it ’ s like to live with a mom because I have gay dads , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now I know.
” Mr. Neumann ’ s fathers – Dan Neumann and David Richardson – are visiting from California .
One wears a yellow Buttigieg T-shirt ; the other is decorated with Pete stickers .
Locals come up and hug them , saying they must be Alex ’ s fathers .
One woman tears up meeting Mr. Richardson , saying she first bonded with Alex about how much he loves his parents .
Alex excitedly drags Mr. Richardson over to meet his best friend , octogenarian Art Tellin .
“ I want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says Mr. Tellin , pulling Mr. Richardson close to his walker .
“ He is an extraordinary man .
”

“Me becoming close with Dana brings the country together in its own small way,” says Mr. Neumann.
Ms. Van Abbema says she feels “mom-like” toward Mr. Neumann, and talks about how much he has grown over the past few months.
The nature of their jobs requires them to integrate themselves into their new communities. This results in some surprising, yet endearing, friendships between people who find themselves working together for the same cause.
Every four years, young activists descend upon Iowa to help their candidate win the country’s first nominating contest. For scores of young people, this means moving to a place where they have likely never been – a state that has more pigs than people.
For many Iowans, hospitality extends beyond ideology. Not only do they welcome the chance to have new voices in their communities, but they also see it as their patriotic duty.
“I always used to joke that I don’t know what it’s like to live with a mom because I have gay dads,” says Mr. Neumann, who is from San Francisco, laughing. “But now I know.”
If it weren’t for Dana Van Abbema, says Alex Neumann, a young activist with Pete Buttigieg’s campaign, he’d never eat dinner. She and other Iowans text him almost daily asking what he would like, and then drop the meal off at the local field office.
Alex Neumann runs up and down the snaking line of Iowans, doling out high-fives and hugs. Greg, Daphne, Becky, and dozens more: He greets them all by name. A little girl gasps and points, saying “Mommy look! It’s Alex!”
A few months ago, Mr. Neumann was a stranger to all of these people. In fact, he was a stranger to the state of Iowa. Now he finds himself working the hallways of Liberty High School in North Liberty cheerfully directing volunteers and greeting friends.
Every four years, young activists and field organizers descend upon the state to help their candidate win the country’s first nominating contest. For scores of young people, many of them from the coasts, this means moving to a place where they have likely never been – to a state that has more pigs than people.
Why We Wrote This For many Iowans, hospitality extends beyond ideology. Not only do they welcome the chance to have new voices in their communities, but they also see it as their patriotic duty.
The nature of their jobs – organizing local support for their candidate – requires them to integrate themselves into their new communities. This results in some surprising, yet endearing, friendships between people who are otherwise very different from one another but find themselves working together for the same cause.
“We have nothing in common. I’m a middle-aged woman in HR,” says Dana Van Abbema, a local volunteer with the Pete Buttigieg campaign and friend of Alex. Then she motions around the room. “But we have this one thing.”
Ms. Van Abbema follows Mr. Neumann’s orders, greeting arrivals and directing them to the back of the line. She says she feels “mom-like” toward Mr. Neumann, and talks about how much he has grown over the past few months. At first he was shy and hesitant about approaching strangers, says Ms. Van Abbema, proudly watching him work the line.
“Me becoming close with Dana brings the country together in its own small way,” says Mr. Neumann.
“You’ve made a girl from New York feel at home”
At rallies across Iowa, many candidates are introduced by the local field organizer. At Mr. Buttigieg’s North Liberty event, a young woman named Ruby takes the stage.
“You’ve made a girl from New York feel at home in a place that once felt very far away,” says Ruby, to cheers from the crowd.
For many Iowans, their hospitality extends beyond ideology. Although they plan to caucus for a particular candidate, they befriend local organizers across campaigns. Not only do they welcome the chance to have new voices in their communities, but they also see it as their duty.
At a house party for Sen. Amy Klobuchar in Newton, Iowa, on Friday, three women trade stories about the young staffers they have hosted and befriended over the years. Although local Newtonians Fran Henderson, Jenni Patty, and Joan Tyler are planning to caucus for Senator Klobuchar, they’ve formed relationships with young staffers across several campaigns.
Ms. Henderson, a retired pharmacy owner, hosted “a group of kids” from Chicago with the Buttigieg campaign. Ms. Patty, an instructor at the community college, hosted a staffer with Sen. Cory Booker’s campaign this summer.
Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor View caption Hide caption At a house party for Sen. Amy Klobuchar in Newton, Iowa, Joan Tyler (far left), Jenni Patty (center), and Fran Henderson share stories about the young field organizers they have befriended. “They’re all just such good kids," says Ms. Tyler, a retired teacher, "so polite and ambitious.”
Even Jim Pryke, the host of the house party, is currently hosting an organizer for the Tom Steyer campaign.
“I was like, ‘There’s got to be a way to make this a good thing,’” says Mr. Pryke, referring to the big field of candidates. “To have so many candidates saying similar things, and to have so many people listening – I just went into this knowing there was a larger Democratic message to spread.”
Mr. Pryke invited all of the local staffers for Sen. Elizabeth Warren over for a cookout after the Fourth of July parade. Some of the Warren staffers asked if their friends and roommates could come. Soon enough the party ballooned to almost two dozen people, with organizers for Ms. Warren, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Booker, Mr. Buttigieg, and Sen. Kamala Harris all at his house eating hamburgers. Since then, he has invited all of the local organizers over every couple of weeks for a big country breakfast. The final one is planned for Wednesday, he says, to get together one last time before the caucus.
Bev Clark yells into the living room, telling a volunteer named Chris to come get himself some of Senator Klobuchar’s famous meat-and-Tater Tots hotdish before it’s gone.
“Bev, I’ve told you this,” says Chris Kingsby, who moved to Newton from Arkansas to work for Senator Klobuchar’s campaign. “I’m a pescatarian.”
Mr. Kingsby laughs as he explains to Ms. Clark, again, what that means. He tells me later that Ms. Clark is his best friend in Newton, and sometimes calls him at 10 p.m. to give him advice on how to reach more Iowans.
Ms. Clark, proudly watching Mr. Kingsby work the crowd, says she knew as soon as he arrived that he didn’t bring warm enough clothes for an Iowa winter. She gave him an old coat of her husband’s and directions to the farm store – where, she told him, you buy everything in Iowa, from clothes to food to car scrapers.
“Our communities around here are so old; we need young people,” says Ms. Clark. “Aging Iowa is a big problem.”
Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor View caption Hide caption Chris Kingsby (right), who moved from Arkansas to Newton, Iowa, to work for Sen. Amy Klobuchar's campaign, says his best friend in town is Bev Clark. “We’re like parents to these kids,” says Ms. Clark. “They’re always hungry.”
According to the Iowa Department on Aging, Iowa ranks 18th for its share of elderly population: Almost 17% are over age 65. Almost 45% of those Iowans live alone – making these newfound relationships even more valuable.
“As an older person, you get used to being disregarded by younger people,” says Ms. Tyler, a retired teacher. “But these kids really care about intergenerational relationships. Now we get to have conversations, and they talk to us like we’re people.”
“I want to tell you about your son”
Mr. Neumann, who grew up outside San Francisco with two gay dads, never thought he’d be doing something like this.
But in 2008, California’s Proposition 8 (an amendment banning same-sex marriage that was eventually overturned), “tore his family apart.” So as soon as an openly gay candidate, a small-town Indiana mayor, announced his exploratory committee, Mr. Neumann says he had to get involved.
He graduated a year early from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, to work for Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign in Iowa in October. But it wasn’t until his fathers were driving him from California, and he watched the miles of Nebraska cornfields speed past on Interstate 80, that it hit him.
“I was like, ‘Uh-oh. What am I doing?’” he says, laughing.
But the hesitation faded as soon as he arrived at the home of his host family. It’s just supposed to be a bed to sleep in at night, but he says the couple always offers to feed him, and makes sure he has a car scraper for snow.
He says he’s hardly home, often working until 11 p.m. If it weren’t for Ms. Van Abbema and other local women, says Mr. Neumann, he’d never eat dinner. They text him almost daily asking what he would like, and then drop the meal off at the local field office. For Christmas, Ms. Van Abbema gave Mr. Neumann a bobblehead replica of himself, complete with the two Buttigieg campaign bracelets he wears every day.
“I always used to joke that I don’t know what it’s like to live with a mom because I have gay dads,” says Mr. Neumann, laughing. “But now I know.”
Mr. Neumann’s fathers – Dan Neumann and David Richardson – are visiting from California. One wears a yellow Buttigieg T-shirt; the other is decorated with Pete stickers. Locals come up and hug them, saying they must be Alex’s fathers. One woman tears up meeting Mr. Richardson, saying she first bonded with Alex about how much he loves his parents.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Alex excitedly drags Mr. Richardson over to meet his best friend, octogenarian Art Tellin.
“I want to tell you about your son,” says Mr. Tellin, pulling Mr. Richardson close to his walker. “He is an extraordinary man.”