Vice President Kamala Harris has made a surprising claim that she does not support electric vehicle mandates despite her long history of advocating for such policies.
According to a report by Breitbart News, Harris' presidential campaign sent an email to supporters stating that she does not support an electric vehicle mandate.
This statement comes as a surprise, given her previous support for such mandates as a senator and as part of the Biden administration.
As a senator, Harris cosponsored the Zero-Emissions Vehicle Act of 2019, which aimed to require car manufacturers to sell only zero-emission vehicles by 2040.
She also proposed the Green New Deal in 2020, which included a plan to abolish sales of gas-powered cars by 2035 and ensure that Americans can only purchase electric vehicles.
Harris's support for electric vehicle mandates has been consistent throughout her career. As vice president, she has backed President Biden's electric vehicle mandate, which requires that a majority of new cars produced and sold in the United States market are electric vehicles or hybrids by 2032.
The U.S. Oil & Gas Association has criticized Harris's sudden shift in stance, pointing out that the Biden-Harris EPA has already finalized a rule that mandates 56% of all new vehicles sold must be electric vehicles by 2032.
The Harvard-Harris poll revealed that 72% of registered voters oppose the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate, including 57% of Democrats, 77% of swing voters, and 83% of Republicans.
Critics argue that such mandates will lead to the loss of millions of American auto jobs, including those of UAW members.
Former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), have vowed to end the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate.
Trump stated that they will "end the Electric Vehicle mandate on day one — thereby saving the U.S. auto industry from complete obliteration, which is happening right now, and saving U.S. customers thousands and thousands of dollars per car."
Vice President Kamala Harris has claimed that she does not support electric vehicle mandates despite her long history of advocating for such policies. Her sudden shift in stance has raised eyebrows among her supporters and critics alike.
The Biden-Harris administration has already finalized a rule that mandates 56% of all new vehicles sold must be electric vehicles by 2032, which has been met with opposition from critics who argue that it will lead to the loss of millions of American auto jobs. Harris's stance on electric vehicle mandates remains unclear, and it remains to be seen how this will affect her presidential campaign.
In a significant shakeup, the Colorado Republican Party voted to remove Dave Williams from his role as party chairman following widespread criticism of his divisive leadership and anti-L.G.B.T.Q rhetoric.
According to The New York Times, Williams, a hard-line state representative elected as chairman last year, was removed by a decisive vote on Saturday, with 88% of the party’s members supporting his ouster.
The vote came after a petition, signed by dozens of state Republican Party members, called for Williams's removal. The meeting, where the vote took place, was held at a Brighton church near Denver. Williams’s tenure had been marked by controversy, with accusations of hate speech and mismanagement of party resources.
Williams’s leadership had been under scrutiny for months, with many members expressing frustration over his conduct. Michael J. Allen, a prominent critic and party member, stated that Williams’s leadership had led to "an open revolt" within the party. He noted that the accumulation of issues under Williams's watch had come "at the expense of party unity and real electoral progress."
Criticism against Williams intensified after he made several inflammatory posts and sent emails targeting the L.G.B.T.Q community. Among the most egregious was a call to burn Pride flags, which many saw as a direct incitement to violence. Allen described these posts as "hate-fueled," arguing that they undermined the party’s efforts to present a united front.
Williams also faced accusations of using party resources for personal political gain. His failed congressional bid, during which he diverted funds and attention away from the party's broader objectives, further alienated members. Allen remarked that Williams's actions were not just unethical but detrimental to the party's success in November's elections.
In the wake of Williams's removal, Eli Bremer, the former chairman of the party in El Paso County, was selected to serve out the remainder of his term. Bremer’s appointment is seen by many as a move towards restoring stability and focusing on the party’s core objectives.
However, Williams did not accept the outcome quietly. In an email sent to supporters, he dismissed the meeting as a "sham" and "illegitimate," arguing that procedural errors invalidated the vote. He labeled the faction behind his removal as a "fringe minority" and asserted that only the results of a "real" meeting scheduled for next Saturday would be respected.
Despite his objections, the vote reflects a significant loss of confidence in Williams's leadership. State Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer, a longtime critic, had called for Williams’s removal as early as June. On X (formerly Twitter), she wrote that under Williams, the party had been divided by "hateful narratives" that undermined its ability to connect with Colorado voters.
The removal of Williams is not just a change in leadership but also a reflection of deeper divisions within the Colorado Republican Party. His tenure had been marked by infighting and a lack of cohesion, which many members believe cost them critical victories in recent elections.
In addition to Williams, the state party's vice chairwoman, Hope Scheppelman, and secretary, Anna Ferguson, were also removed from their positions. Efforts to reach Scheppelman and Ferguson for comment were unsuccessful. Their removal, like Williams’s, was part of a broader effort to cleanse the party of those seen as divisive influences.
As the party moves forward under Bremer’s leadership, there is hope that a more unified approach will emerge. The focus now shifts to rebuilding trust within the party and preparing for upcoming elections. Whether Bremer can steer the party back to a more inclusive and effective strategy remains to be seen.
The Colorado Republican Party's decision to remove Dave Williams marks a significant turning point in its leadership. His tenure, characterized by divisive rhetoric and questionable ethics, led to widespread discontent among party members. With Eli Bremer now at the helm, the party faces the challenge of unifying its members and refocusing on electoral success. The recent shakeup also sends a clear message that hate speech and divisive tactics will not be tolerated, even within the party’s ranks. As the party moves forward, the hope is that this new chapter will bring greater cohesion and a renewed commitment to its core principles.
Ohio Senator JD Vance has publicly stated that former President Donald Trump would not impose a federal abortion ban if re-elected to the presidency.
In an interview on "Meet the Press," Vance addressed concerns raised by Democrats about Trump's potential actions on abortion rights. The senator's comments, as reported by Fox News, aimed to clarify Trump's position on the contentious issue.
During the interview with host Kristen Welker, Vance was asked directly about Trump's stance on abortion legislation. He emphasized that Trump has been clear about his position, stating that the former president wants to end the cultural conflict over abortion by allowing individual states to make their own decisions on the matter.
Vance elaborated on Trump's view, explaining that the former president believes in respecting the diverse abortion policies of different states. According to Vance, Trump's approach is to allow states like California and Ohio to have different abortion policies while maintaining mutual respect for each other's decisions.
The senator argued that this approach would help shift the federal government's focus to other pressing issues such as reducing food and housing prices. Vance criticized Vice President Kamala Harris's performance on these matters, describing it as a "total disaster."
Vance's comments come in the wake of the Democratic National Convention, where Democrats, including Harris, campaigned against Trump by claiming he would impose a federal abortion ban if re-elected.
When pressed by Welker about the possibility of Republicans lobbying Trump for a federal abortion ban, Vance was unequivocal in his response. He stated that Trump would not support such legislation and went further to say that the former president would veto it if it came across his desk.
Vance said:
I think we need to be very clear he would not support that. If you're not supporting it as the president of the United States, you fundamentally have to veto it. I think he would, he said that explicitly that he would.
This statement from Vance aims to counter the narrative pushed by Democrats during their convention, where they argued that Trump and his allies would enact a nationwide abortion ban.
The Republican Party's 2024 platform, as mentioned in the article, takes a softer approach to abortion compared to previous years. It only mentions abortion once, focusing instead on the preservation of life and returning power to the states regarding abortion laws.
The platform supports families and life, referencing the 14th Amendment to argue that states should be free to pass laws protecting the rights to life and liberty. It also expresses opposition to late-term abortions while supporting policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and fertility treatments.
Trump's current position, as described by Vance, aligns with this platform. The former president has denied that he would impose a federal abortion ban, instead advocating for state-level decision-making on abortion laws.
In conclusion, Senator JD Vance's statements on "Meet the Press" aimed to clarify Donald Trump's position on abortion legislation. Vance emphasized that Trump would not impose a federal abortion ban and would veto such legislation if it reached his desk. This stance aligns with the GOP's 2024 platform, which focuses on state-level decision-making for abortion laws. The senator's comments come as a response to Democratic claims about Trump's potential actions on abortion rights if re-elected.
The Illinois Supreme Court has upheld a lower court's ruling, effectively blocking a new election law that would have disqualified 14 candidates from appearing on the 2024 general election ballot.
This decision from the state's high court maintains the status quo as legal battles continue to shape the political landscape in Illinois. as the Center Square reports.
In May, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law the controversial "anti-slating" legislation, which aimed to restrict certain candidates from being slated by political parties. However, the Liberty Justice Center swiftly challenged the law, arguing that it infringed on candidates' constitutional rights to ballot access. A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, preventing the law from taking effect, and now the state’s highest court has chosen not to intervene.
The Illinois Supreme Court’s refusal to overturn the lower court’s decision has significant implications for the upcoming 2024 elections. The blocked legislation would have affected 14 candidates, potentially altering the political dynamics in the state. The Liberty Justice Center, representing the candidates, contends that the law is an unconstitutional restriction on political participation.
The lawsuit, brought against the Illinois State Board of Elections, centers on the principle of ballot access, a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. The court’s decision ensures that the 14 candidates will remain on the ballot, at least for now, as the legal fight continues.
Meanwhile, this ruling highlights ongoing concerns about election laws and their impact on voter choice and candidate viability in Illinois.
In a separate legal matter, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul has charged five men in connection with a series of burglaries targeting video gaming machines across the state. The charges stem from 22 burglaries that took place last year, affecting 12 counties, including DeWitt, DuPage, McLean, and Peoria.
The AG's office worked closely with local law enforcement and the Illinois Gaming Board to bring these charges. The men involved are accused of stealing significant amounts of money from the machines, disrupting businesses that rely on video gaming for revenue.
This case underscores the importance of collaboration between state and local authorities in combating organized crime. The prosecution of these individuals is seen as a significant step toward protecting the state’s gaming industry.
In yet another notable legal development in the Land of Lincoln, a Chicago White Sox fan has filed a lawsuit against the team, the stadium's concessions operator, and the ballpark owner following a shooting incident that occurred a year ago at Guaranteed Rate Field.
The 42-year-old woman, who was shot in the leg while sitting in the right field bleachers, is seeking damages for what her attorney describes as serious injuries caused by inadequate security measures. The lawsuit raises questions about the safety protocols in place at the stadium and the responsibilities of the involved parties to ensure the well-being of fans.
This lawsuit adds to the growing list of legal challenges faced by the White Sox organization, as they navigate the fallout from this tragic event. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for stadium security practices nationwide.
The Illinois Supreme Court's decision to maintain the block on the "anti-slating" law, the charges brought against individuals involved in video gaming machine burglaries, and the lawsuit filed against the Chicago White Sox all point to a state grappling with complex legal issues. As these cases unfold, they will continue to shape Illinois's legal and political landscape.
Tony West, the brother-in-law of Vice President Kamala Harris, is facing serious allegations of corruption during his time at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and beyond.
West is accused of using his position at the DOJ to funnel billions of dollars in settlements to left-wing groups and law firms that supported his political agenda, with concerns this practice could expand if Harris wins the presidency, as the New York Post reports.
As Hunter Biden's alleged questionable activities within the Biden family continue to make headlines, concerns are mounting that similar controversies could involve West. Married to Kamala Harris’s sister, Maya Harris, West’s actions at the DOJ have sparked a wave of criticism, particularly from those worried about potential corruption in the current administration.
West’s controversial career dates back to his time as head of the DOJ’s Civil Division during the Obama administration. In this role, West allegedly exploited changes in federal policy to distribute large settlements to politically favorable groups, bypassing the checks that previously required Congressional approval for such decisions.
Since 1977, the DOJ has had the authority to approve settlements of any amount using the Judgment Fund, a secretive government reserve. This fund has been criticized for its lack of transparency, as it does not require the disclosure of who receives the funds, the specifics of the cases involved, or even the attorneys who benefit from it.
In 2009, West assumed control of the Civil Division and, according to critics, began using settlement agreements to pay off political allies. One of the most notable examples is a 2010 case involving discrimination claims from Hispanic and female farmers. Despite objections from career lawyers within the DOJ, West pushed through a $1.33 billion settlement.
The New York Times described this settlement as a “runaway train,” driven by racial politics and benefiting certain law firms to the tune of over $130 million in fees. These legal fees, drawn from taxpayer funds, sparked outrage as they appeared to reward political allies rather than serve justice.
The settlement, initially set at $1.33 billion, ballooned to more than $4.4 billion as more plaintiffs were added, including Native American farmers. According to a government statistical expert, the government would have likely won the case had it gone to trial, highlighting the questionable nature of the settlement.
West’s alleged manipulations extended to other high-profile cases, including a 2016 settlement with Volkswagen. In this instance, West inserted a provision requiring the company to fund a $2 billion electric car initiative that had previously been rejected by Congress. This move further fueled suspicions that West was using his position to advance a specific political agenda.
Kamala Harris, during her time as California’s attorney general, co-signed several of these agreements, which directed funds to liberal groups, raising additional concerns about her potential future administration. Critics argue that if Harris wins the presidency, these types of settlements could become even more common.
The Biden-Harris administration has continued some of these controversial practices. For instance, a billion-dollar settlement with illegal immigrants in 2021 was halted after public backlash, but attorney fees were still paid out. This pattern has led many to question the integrity of the DOJ under their leadership.
Most recently, the DOJ paid $2 million to FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page for the release of their anti-Trump texts, despite having grounds to contest the case in court. This settlement, like others, raises concerns about the misuse of taxpayer money to support politically motivated actions. Emails from West’s deputy further deepen suspicions. One email asked, “Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money toward an organization of our choosing?”
Such communications suggest a deliberate effort to steer funds to favored groups. The ongoing scrutiny of West’s actions, coupled with the broader concerns about the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of settlements, has led to growing public outcry. As these practices come to light, the potential for further controversy looms large, especially with the possibility of Harris’s ascendancy to the presidency.
Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expected to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race by the end of this week, according to sources close to his campaign.
Kennedy is reportedly considering endorsing former President Donald Trump, though no final decision has been made.
The Independent reported that Kennedy is leaning toward backing Trump as he prepares to make a major announcement about the future of his campaign. The decision comes as Kennedy aims to counter the momentum that Democrats have gained following their convention in Chicago. The specifics of his withdrawal and potential endorsement remain in flux, as those familiar with Kennedy’s thinking suggest that his plans could still change.
Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan, recently discussed the campaign's deliberations on a podcast. She outlined two potential scenarios: continuing the race, which could potentially benefit Vice President Kamala Harris, or exiting the race to align with Trump.
The revelation of these considerations has sparked interest in political circles, with Trump's running mate, JD Vance, confirming significant communication between the two campaigns. Vance emphasized their pitch to Kennedy, highlighting the perceived shift in the Democratic Party's priorities.
Trump himself has expressed openness to the idea of Kennedy joining his administration, should he secure a second term. The former president spoke positively about Kennedy in a recent CNN interview, stating his respect and admiration for the independent candidate.
Kennedy's campaign trail appearances have noticeably decreased in recent weeks, with his last campaign-sponsored event occurring in early July. This reduction in public engagements has fueled speculation about his political future.
A significant moment occurred during the Republican convention in Milwaukee last month when Kennedy and Trump met face-to-face. This encounter took place shortly after an assassination attempt on Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the former president was grazed by a bullet.
Trump's running mate, JD Vance, provided insight into the ongoing discussions between the campaigns:
I haven't spoken to RFK personally, but I know there's been a lot of communication back and forth between RFK, between the campaign, between this campaign. Our argument to RFK ... is ... if you want a Democratic Party that protected American workers and stood for strong borders, maybe disagreed with Republicans on things like tax policy, that party doesn't exist anymore.
Kennedy's potential withdrawal from the race could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential election. His decision, whether to endorse Trump or pursue another course of action, may influence voter perceptions and campaign strategies for both major parties.
The timing of Kennedy's anticipated announcement, coinciding with Trump's scheduled event in the Phoenix area, has heightened interest in the potential political maneuvering. Political analysts are closely watching how this development might reshape the electoral landscape.
As the situation unfolds, both the Kennedy and Trump camps remain tight-lipped about the specifics of their communications and any potential agreements. The political world awaits Kennedy's Friday speech in Phoenix, which is expected to provide clarity on his intentions and the future direction of his campaign.
In conclusion, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reported plans to exit the presidential race have stirred significant interest in political circles. Sources suggest he may endorse Donald Trump, though this decision is not yet final. Kennedy's upcoming speech in Phoenix is anticipated to shed light on his campaign's future direction, potentially reshaping the dynamics of the 2024 presidential election.
President Biden's recent flight in Chicago marked a significant milestone for the presidential transportation fleet.
As reported by Axios, the President took his inaugural journey in a modernized helicopter model designed to serve as Marine One.
The introduction of the new helicopter model marks the end of a long process to phase out the old Vietnam-era aircraft used since the 1970s, significantly upgrading presidential travel. Officially designated as VH-92A, these helicopters encountered several hurdles before their implementation.
They experienced considerable delays due to problems with secure communications systems and caused damage to the White House South Lawn during landings and takeoffs.
The transition to the new Marine One helicopter is a noteworthy development in presidential security and mobility. These aircraft play a crucial role in the President's transportation, often being used for shorter trips or to connect the White House with other modes of travel.
The decision to replace the existing fleet stems from the need to modernize and enhance the capabilities of the presidential helicopter. The Vietnam-era aircraft, while reliable, had been in service for decades and was due for an upgrade to meet evolving security and technological requirements.
The new VH-92A helicopters are expected to offer improved performance, advanced communication systems, and enhanced safety features. These upgrades are essential for maintaining the highest standards of presidential protection and operational efficiency.
The journey to introduce the new Marine One fleet has been marked by several obstacles. Chief among these were issues related to the helicopter's secure communications system, a critical component for ensuring the President can maintain contact with key officials and receive vital information while in flight.
Additionally, an unexpected problem arose during the testing phases when it was discovered that the new helicopters had a tendency to scorch the White House South Lawn during landing and takeoff procedures. This issue required careful consideration and adjustments to prevent damage to the iconic grounds of the presidential residence.
These technical challenges led to years of delays in the implementation of the new fleet. The recent flight by President Biden suggests that these hurdles have been largely overcome, allowing for the gradual integration of the VH-92A helicopters into regular service.
It's important to note that Marine One is not a specific type of helicopter but rather a call sign used to designate any U.S. Marine Corps aircraft in which the President is traveling. This distinction highlights the flexibility and adaptability of the presidential transportation system.
An interesting aspect of Marine One operations is the practice of flying in groups of two or three helicopters. This tactic is employed as a security measure, making it less obvious which aircraft is carrying the President. Such procedures underscore the comprehensive approach to presidential protection, even in the air.
In conclusion, President Biden's first flight in the new Marine One helicopter model marks a pivotal moment in presidential transportation. The modernized VH-92A aircraft, despite facing initial challenges and delays, is now poised to replace the Vietnam-era helicopters that have served presidents for decades. This upgrade enhances presidential mobility and security while maintaining the tradition and significance of the Marine One call sign. As these new helicopters enter service, they will play a crucial role in supporting the President's travel needs and ensuring secure communications during flight.
As Chicago gears up to host the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), Black voters in the city are increasingly vocal about their concerns over crime and the economy.
With these issues top of mind, some voters are beginning to reconsider their traditional political affiliations, signaling a potential shift towards conservative values.
In the lead-up to the DNC, "Fox & Friends" co-host Lawrence Jones conducted interviews with parishioners at the Beginnings Church of Chicago, where senior pastor Corey Brooks offered his insights on the political climate. Brooks described the event as a "bittersweet moment" for the city, expressing mixed feelings about the convention.
Among the Black voters interviewed, crime and economic hardship emerged as the most pressing issues. The city has seen a surge in violence, particularly gun violence, which many voters see as a critical problem that needs to be addressed. Economic concerns, such as inflation and the rising cost of groceries, were also highlighted as significant challenges.
One female voter pointed out the growing financial strain on everyday items, saying, "You go to the grocery store, you know, eggs, bread, just small items are large in price now." This sentiment reflects a broader unease about the state of the economy and its impact on working-class families in Chicago.
Pastor Corey Brooks, a prominent figure in the community, noted a shift away from Democratic policies among some of his congregants. He expressed his belief that conservative principles might better serve the nation and the Black community. "I believe that conservative principles are much better for us as a nation and for us as a people," Brooks stated, underscoring the growing interest in Republican ideals.
This sentiment was echoed by another voter, who suggested that it's "time to do something a little bit different," indicating a willingness to consider alternatives to the Democratic Party's platform. The Republican Party's emphasis on education, family, and business resonated with some voters who feel that these values align more closely with their needs and aspirations.
The upcoming DNC, expected to attract around 50,000 attendees, will likely serve as a pivotal moment for the Democratic Party, particularly as Vice President Kamala Harris is anticipated to formally accept the presidential nomination. However, opinions on Harris among Black voters in Chicago appear divided.
One female voter voiced her reservations, stating, "I want to hear more about what [Harris] is going to do because being Black is one thing, but we have Black people to disappoint us. Being a woman is one thing, but we’ve had women disappoint us." This reflects a cautious optimism, with voters seeking concrete assurances about Harris's platform and policies.
As the DNC approaches, the spotlight is back on Chicago's social and economic challenges. The convention's arrival in the Windy City has sparked a complex mixture of pride and apprehension among its residents. While some are glad that Chicago is hosting such a significant event, others, like Brooks, remain critical of the policies championed by the Democratic Party.
The DNC's focus on issues like healthcare, social justice, and economic recovery will likely resonate with many voters. However, the concerns voiced by Black voters in Chicago suggest that the party will need to address more localized issues, such as crime and inflation, to maintain their support.
As Chicago prepares to host the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Black voters in the city are increasingly concerned about crime and the economy. This has led some to reconsider their political affiliations, with conservative principles gaining traction among those seeking change.
While the DNC presents an opportunity for the Democratic Party to solidify its platform, the voices of Chicago's Black voters indicate that addressing local issues will be crucial in the upcoming election. As Vice President Kamala Harris prepares to accept the presidential nomination, her ability to connect with and address the concerns of these voters may prove pivotal.
According to Newsweek, Donald Trump’s campaign has escalated personal attacks against Vice President Kamala Harris, alleging she has a drinking problem without offering any evidence.
Trump campaign insider James Blair first circulated the unsubstantiated rumor on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. On Sunday, Blair's post suggested that Harris had a "serious drinking problem," an allegation that quickly gained traction online.
Blair's post amassed significant attention, garnering over 9,000 likes, nearly 4,000 shares, and an estimated 5 million views. Despite the widespread engagement, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claims.
The accusations against Harris are not the first of their kind from the Trump camp. Trump and his allies have previously targeted Harris with personal insults, questioning her intelligence and even labeling her a "childless cat lady," a term used by Trump's running mate, JD Vance.
While some social media users seemed persuaded by Blair's allegations, others were quick to criticize the baseless nature of the claim. One commenter on X pointed out the lack of substance behind the attacks, remarking, "You Republicans really have nothing against Kamala Harris, do you?"
Despite these ongoing personal attacks, Harris remains a leading figure in several polls. Her popularity appears to be holding steady, suggesting that the smear campaign may not sway voters.
In response to the latest allegations, Tim Walz, Harris' running mate, dismissed the accusations and criticized Trump and Vance, describing them as "weird people" for their continued focus on personal attacks rather than policy discussions.
The Trump campaign's strategy of focusing on Harris' personal life rather than her political record is consistent with Trump's own history. Trump, who has famously abstained from alcohol due to his brother's struggles with alcoholism, has a long record of using personal attacks as a campaign tactic.
Interestingly, both Trump and President Joe Biden, Harris' running mate, are known teetotalers. Trump has publicly stated that his decision to avoid alcohol stems from his brother's death due to alcoholism. Similarly, Biden has chosen not to drink, citing personal reasons.
On the other hand, Harris is known to be a member of the wine club at a winery in Alameda, California. Some of her detractors have highlighted this fact, although it does not provide any evidence to support the claims of a drinking problem.
Meanwhile, JD Vance has been open about his own enjoyment of alcohol despite having a family history of addiction. He even joked about his drinking habits, stating, "I actually do like beer—I probably like to drink beer a little bit too much! But that's ok, I'm sure the media won't give me too much crap about that."
The Trump campaign’s decision to amplify baseless rumors about Kamala Harris reflects a continued strategy of personal attacks rather than policy critique. Despite the lack of evidence, these claims have spread widely online, drawing criticism and support from different corners of social media.
As the campaign heats up, it remains to be seen whether these tactics will have any lasting impact on Harris’ reputation or the outcome of the election. However, the focus on personal smears rather than substantive debate highlights the deepening divisions in American political discourse.
According to a Democratic source speaking to Axios, former First Lady Michelle Obama is scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) on Tuesday night.
Her name was initially absent from the DNC lineup announced on Sunday, despite her regular appearances at party conventions since 2008.
Although Obama has repeatedly expressed her disinterest in pursuing a political career, her involvement is noteworthy due to her enduring popularity in American politics, which could have a significant impact on the upcoming election.
Michelle Obama has addressed every Democratic National Convention since her husband's nomination in 2008. Her speeches have traditionally been given prime speaking slots, reflecting her importance to the party and her ability to connect with voters.
In the 2020 convention, Obama's speech garnered more online engagement than any other speaker, according to data from NewsWhip. Her address, which included a pointed critique of then-President Trump, went viral on social media platforms.
The former First Lady's 2020 convention speech included a memorable line where she described Trump as "in over his head," a statement that resonated with many viewers and became a widely shared moment from the event.
The Democratic National Convention is set to begin on Monday, with a night-by-night schedule of themes and speakers released by organizers on Sunday morning. Monday's theme is "For the People," featuring speeches from President Joe Biden, Dr. Jill Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson will deliver the welcome address.
Tuesday's theme is "A Bold Vision for America's Future." In addition to Michelle Obama, former President Barack Obama will make a primetime address. Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff is also scheduled to speak, with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker providing the welcome.
Wednesday's convention theme is "A Fight for Our Freedoms." Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz will deliver his acceptance speech tonight. Other speakers include former President Bill Clinton, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
The convention will conclude on Thursday with the theme "For Our Future." Vice President Kamala Harris will accept the convention's nomination for president during this final night of the event.
Despite her stated disinterest in politics, Michelle Obama's decision to speak at the convention underscores her ongoing influence within the Democratic Party. Her popularity and ability to engage voters make her a valuable asset as the party looks to energize its base ahead of the upcoming election.
In conclusion, Michelle Obama's upcoming address at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night adds a powerful voice to the event's lineup. Her consistent presence at party conventions since 2008 and her popularity among voters make her participation significant.
The convention's schedule includes speeches from other prominent Democrats, culminating in Vice President Harris's acceptance of the presidential nomination on Thursday. As the event unfolds in Chicago, Obama's hometown, her address is expected to be a highlight of the convention.