New Rivals Criticize Lauren Boebert For ‘Desperate Stunt’ After District Switch

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) announcement that she would be switching districts for 2024’s election was a surprise — and unwelcome news for some of the other Republicans already running in a crowded primary in Boebert’s new home. 

In a text message to TPM, former state senator Ted Harvey, one of Boebert’s new rivals, described her switch from the Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District to the 4th as a “desperate stunt” driven by her political problems. 

“Boebert has failed the conservatives in CD3 to such a degree that they will no longer vote for her. Now, in what can only be seen as a vain effort to cling to power, she seeks to represent the the voters of CD 4 — a vastly different constituency,” Harvey wrote. “This desperate stunt by Boebert may not only jeopardize the Republican Party’s ability to retain CD3 but, if she were to win the primary, could place CD4 at risk as well.”

Harvey went on to tout his own conservative credentials. 

“My record is unwavering, and proves my commitment to fighting for limited government, secure borders, the life of the unborn, the second amendment, and for citizens who want a representative to stand against the establishment,” he said. 

Boebert announced via Facebook video Thursday evening that she will be moving to run in Colorado’s 4th District instead of the 3rd District, which she has represented since 2021. The move to a more favorable district for a Republican came after a series of issues for the MAGA stalwart, including feuding with allies on Capitol Hill, a near election loss, and the recent, headline-grabbing “Beetlejuice” vaping and groping scandal. 

Another 4th District rival, Logan County commissioner and former state senator Jerry Sonnenberg, subtly mocked both Boebert’s change of address and her chance of winning in a message to TPM.

“I look forward to welcoming Lauren to the fourth district and representing her in Congress,” Sonnenberg wrote.

“I’ve lived, worked, and raised my family here and I’m blessed to have always called Eastern Colorado home,” he continued. “The fourth district is my home, and I’m going to continue to work hard to represent the principled conservative values of everyone who lives here just as I have always done.”

State Rep. Richard Holtorf was far more blunt in a statement released shortly after Boebert’s announcement that criticized what his campaign described as “carpetbagging.”

“The voters of Colorado’s 4th Congressional District want steady conservative leadership from their communities. Seat shopping isn’t something the voters look kindly upon,” Holtorf said. “If you can’t win in your home, you can’t win here.”

A handful of other Republicans are running for the 4th District seat, which opened up after Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) revealed he would not seek re-election last month. Buck indicated his decision was based on the GOP’s increasing embrace of MAGA politics, including 2020 election denialism. Despite some of the internal tensions in the party, the district is a safe one for Republicans. Buck won by more than 20 points last year.

Boebert’s standing in her original home district was far less solid. She was re-elected in the 3rd District by a margin of just 546 votes last November. Her challenger in that race, Democrat Adam Frisch, is running again and has, thus far, outraised Boebert by over $5 million. That cash gap came as Boebert dealt with the fallout from her divorce and the subsequent, Golden Dukes-nominated “Beetlejuice” incident. While the 3rd District is far more competitive than the 4th, there is speculation Frisch could have more trouble taking on a Republican that doesn’t have Boebert’s, shall we say, unique issues. 

In a statement released by his campaign on Thursday, Frisch referenced Boebert’s recent drama. 

“Boebert is running scared from CD-3 because she knows she can’t match our campaign’s ability to connect with voters and the hard work we have put in to provide them with a common sense voice in Congress,” Frisch said, later adding, “Even before the Beetlejuice debacle that embarrassed her constituents, our campaign was polling ahead of Boebert because voters saw that we were showing up in their communities and appreciated the hard work, authenticity, sincerity, and independence that this campaign embodies.”

Boebert and her campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the criticism from other Republicans in her new district. In her video announcement, which appeared to be filmed in some type of suburban kitchen, Boebert framed her move as a smart one for herself and for anyone else who wants to “stop the socialists and communists from taking over our country.” Boebert also seemed to admit she was struggling in polls of voters in her current home district. She claimed she had been targeted by “Hollywood elites” and “dark money,” and suggested her move to the 4th District would prevent those forces from scoring a win. 

“It’s the right move for me personally and it’s the right decision for those who support our conservative movement,” Boebert said. 

As she defended her district switch, Boebert also referenced her personal struggles. 

“This announcement is a fresh start following a pretty difficult year for me and my family,” Boebert said. “I have never been in politics before and I have never been through a divorce. … I’ve made my own personal mistakes and have owned up and apologized for them.”

Do We Long for the Old School Terrible?

I noted on Tuesday that, for whatever reason, I’m feeling a relative optimism about the 2024 election. That leads me to speculate: what happens after Trump? I don’t think I’m getting ahead of myself. The question is important and illuminating even if Trump isn’t done with us. Because it goes to the heart of what exactly the Republican Party is today.

It is a commonplace and an accurate one to say that the Republican Party is Donald Trump. When we referenced this yesterday while recording our podcast, Kate Riga reminded us of the party’s 2020 decision to scrap its entire party platform and replace it with, simply, whatever Donald Trump wants. It made sense: the party is Donald Trump. The rest is just fine print, which Trump can make up or change whenever he wants.

Continue reading “Do We Long for the Old School Terrible?”

Nikki Haley Dodges Slavery As The Cause Of The Civil War

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

We’re Still Doing This In 2023?

Nikki Haley — a former governor of South Carolina, the first state to secede in 1860, who removed the Confederate flag from the state Capitol — couldn’t bring herself to mention slavery when asked at a campaign event about the cause of the Civil War.

The remarks Wednesday evening while campaigning in New Hampshire, which did not secede from the union, were a tacit acknowledgment that the party of Lincoln has settled comfortably into its status as a revanchist minority-white rump Trumpist party.

When the audience member asked the question, Haley raised her eyebrows, spun around and retreated upstage before turning back around and facing the audience with a smile: “Well don’t come with an easy question. I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?”

After a bit of back and forth, Haley engaged in some additional nonsensical meandering that was non-responsive to the question.

When the questioner expressed surprise that she had not mentioned slavery, Haley asked: “What do you want me to say about slavery?” 

“No, you’ve answered my question, thank you,” the questioner responded.

After the 2015 massacre of nine black churchgoers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, in whose harbor the first shots of the Civil War were fired, then- Gov. Haley responded to growing public pressure by reversing course and signing a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the state Capitol in Columbia, bringing an end to a long-running controversy over the placement of the flag.

Amusing … Or No?

News accounts of Nikki Haley’s remarks awkwardly shoehorned in the basic fact-check that, yes, the Civil War was fought over slavery:

  • Politico: “While there were a number of contributions to the outbreak of the Civil War, the conflict, which was the deadliest in U.S. history, was fought predominantly over the South’s desire to see the preservation of slavery.”
  • WaPo: “Haley’s answer did not include any mention of slavery, which scholars agree was the main driver of the conflict.”
  • ABC News: “While several political and economic factors ultimately contributed to the start of the American Civil War, slavery was at the center of the nation’s tension.”

The NYT provided admirable context for the remarks in its writeup, but perhaps inadvertently telegraphed how bedeviled by racism we remain, calling the question “simple yet loaded.”

Almost 160 years after the end of the Civil War, asking a presidential candidate to affirm its root cause remains a “loaded” question.

Biden Gets The Last Word

Lauren Boebert Flees Her Own District

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), facing long odds of reelection in her home district, announced Wednesday evening via Facebook video that she will instead run for the open seat being vacated by Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO).

Colorado GOP Brings Trump DQ Case To SCOTUS

The Colorado Republican Party was first out of the gate in bringing the Trump Disqualification Clause case to the Supreme Court. Trump, too, is expected to ask the Supreme Court soon to consider taking the case and overruling the Colorado Supreme Court decision declaring him ineligible for the presidency.

An important early indicator will be how the Supreme Court frames the issues if it accepts the case. Here’s how the Colorado GOP wants the court to frame it:

  1. Whether the President falls within the list of officials subject to the disqualification provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment?
  2. Whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing to the extent of allowing states to remove candidates from the ballot in the absence of any Congressional action authorizing such process?
  3. Whether the denial to a political party of its ability to choose the candidate of its choice in a presidential primary and general election violates that party’s First Amendment Right of Association?

Jack Smith Is Probs Overdoing It Here

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations and prosecutions of Donald Trump have been mostly sober and stunt-free, except for this one little game he’s playing in the Jan. 6 case in DC: continuing to file motions and act as if the case is still active even though it’s been stayed while Trump appeals his outlandish claims of presidential immunity. It does sound a discordant note even if the the signal he’s trying to send about being ready for a March trial and the importance of keeping the case on track is itself legit.

Joyce Vance unpacks the latest motion from Smith.

Working The Refs Ahead Of The 2024 Election

TPM’s Kate Riga on Republicans’ current two-pronged attack on the Voting Rights Act.

House Ethics Committee Opens New Probe

Not many details available but the House Ethics Committee has opened a probe into whether Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) has violated campaign finance laws.

Important Case

In what may end up being a landmark case on artificial intelligence and copyright laws, the New York Times has sued Microsoft and OpenAI in federal court in Manhattan claiming they are unlawfully using NYT stories to train chatbots.

Herb Kohl, 1935-2023

The former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who founded the eponymous department store chain and was the majority owner of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks, has died at age 88.

RIP Tom Smothers

Tom, of Smothers Brothers fame, has died at age 86:

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

Boebert Hoping for Soft Landing in Nextdoor District!

I love this story. Lauren Boebert has apparently seen the writing on the wall and now realizes she can’t be elected in her congressional district, Colorado’s 3rd. Too much interrupting Joe Biden’s State of the Unions, too many Beetlejuice handies, too many bonkers TV appearances. So she’s decided to run not in her own district but in the neighboring 4th district, which unlike the 3rd is solidly Republican. That district is available because incumbent Ken Buck is retiring.

She just announced the move in a Facebook video post this evening.

Continue reading “Boebert Hoping for Soft Landing in Nextdoor District!”

Wisconsin Republicans Hope The Supreme Court Will Step In To Save Them Again

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down its momentous decision requiring new state legislative maps last week, there were a lot of statements from Republicans along the lines of “you haven’t heard the last of us!”

On Tuesday, state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) previewed to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel what he has in mind.

“We will pursue all federal issues arising out of the redistricting litigation at the U.S. Supreme Court,” Vos said.

It’s a vague statement, and it’s very unclear on what grounds he would seek Supreme Court intervention.

But the High Court has delivered for Vos before, ruling in 2022 that the state Supreme Court had made a mistake when it endorsed maps proposed by Democratic Governor Tony Evers. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the issue back to the state Supreme Court, which then picked maps drawn by state legislative Republicans.

This month’s decision by Wisconsin’s Supreme Court ordering the maps to be redrawn came after a shift in the makeup of the state court, which, as of last spring, has a liberal majority.

In the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, the justices found that the Evers-proposed map went too far in creating Black-majority districts. Evers’ team’s map added a seventh majority-Black district, which it said would bring the state’s maps into compliance with the VRA. The state Supreme Court, in its decision picking Evers’ maps over other maps proposed by the legislature, wrote, “[W]e cannot say for certain on this record that seven majority-Black assembly districts are required by the VRA,” but concluded that there were “good reasons” to think that they were.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s majority didn’t like that at all.

The state Supreme Court, the justices said, “improperly relied on generalizations” and failed to consider whether a “race-neutral alternative” that didn’t add a seventh majority-Black district would have also been permitted under the VRA. The decision was unsigned, but included a fiery dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Elena Kagan.

Vos suggested to the Journal Sentinel on Tuesday that Republicans would seek to make similar arguments were they to return to the U.S. Supreme Court — though in order to game it out, he had to run through a series of hypotheticals. “Last time around, the Democrats’ maps racially gerrymandered voters to obtain a political goal. I expect they’ll do so again,” he said. “The Supreme Court wasn’t fooled by the overt racial gerrymandering before, and it’s my hope that the Court will refuse to allow that or any other violation of federal law this time around, too.”

The Wisconsin Election Commission is asking for new maps to be in place by March 15, so whatever happens will have to play out in a relatively short time frame — unless SCOTUS is open to a dramatic, last-minute intervention.

The Best Of TPM Today

Republicans Launch Two-Pronged Attack Against Voting Rights Act

Michigan Supreme Court Keeps Trump On 2024 Ballot

Yesterday’s Most-Read Story

Dictator On Day One: The Executive Orders That Trump Would Issue From The Start

What We Are Reading

Michael Flynn’s Rhode Island Hall of Fame Inclusion Prompts Resignations — New York Times

John Fetterman isn’t the politician you thought he’d be — and he doesn’t care — Politico

Jack Smith Drops Holiday Filing In Jan. 6 Case Asking That Trump Be Barred From ‘Injecting Politics’ Into Trial 

Special prosecutor Jack Smith has evidently been working through the holidays, dropping a surprise December 27 filing in the January 6 insurrection case against Donald Trump.

The new document comes on the heels of a disappointment for Smith, after the Supreme Court declined to take up his request for an expedited ruling on Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity. How dramatically the Supreme Court’s move will delay the case is yet to be seen; the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the immunity claim on an expedited basis, starting January 9. Should Trump’s immunity arguments — which have already been rejected by a federal district judge — be upheld, the entire case could be tossed.

In the meantime, the bulk of the Jan. 6 case has been put on pause while the immunity question is litigated. But Smith on Wednesday chose to file through the stay, submitting a 20-page document detailing the “evidence” Trump should not be allowed to submit, calling it both irrelevant to the case and at risk of tainting the jury.

Continue reading “Jack Smith Drops Holiday Filing In Jan. 6 Case Asking That Trump Be Barred From ‘Injecting Politics’ Into Trial “

Readers Respond #3

Responding to yesterday’s Backchannel

I read your post and have to say, I share some of your optimism. Not because things are good or getting better—they’re not!—but because for the first time in what feels like forever, I see potential for the coming year to bring some extremely dark chapters in world history to a close.

First, the Trump-Biden rematch. Like you, I’m not discounting the possibility that Trump wins. But if he doesn’t, that’s the end of him as an active political figure. He’s too old to run again, too criminally liable, too spent. He’ll have a second political life after he dies, I’m sure, like Ronald Reagan had until Trump displaced him with a new cult of personality, but the man himself will be really and truly gone from our politics. Phew!

Continue reading “Readers Respond #3”

Readers Respond #2

Responding to yesterday’s Backchannel

You asked for our thoughts RE: Can Any Centers Hold?

Like you, I seem to have had a revelation (somewhere around 2022 but continuing this year) that the good people of America will be fighting Trumpist authoritarianism for decades to come. It’s become the new American sin – not the original sin, but the adopted sin. A sin that was completely avoidable yet irresistible to the power-hungry and to the ignorant. One thing that makes it so dispiriting is that broad swaths of the American public either don’t take it seriously, or they actively (think they) desire it. Life since 2016 has resembled a horror movie where people become zombies not because they are bitten, but because they go down the wrong internet rabbit holes. The mainstream press isn’t immune, either, having developed an insatiable thirst for “Forgotten Man” blood long ago.

Continue reading “Readers Respond #2”

Readers Respond #1

The first of several responses from TPM Readers to yesterday’s Backchannel

FWIW – I keep finding myself wondering whether, in terms of American politics, we are experiencing something of a rerun of Reagan’s reelection.  The current situation, of course, differs in all kinds of ways from the situation around New Years, 1984.  The geopolitical realities are very, very different.  American society has become much more polarized since then, and much more unequal.  Climate change did not loom in anything like the same way.  Gerrymandering had not become an art form, and neither major political party included millions of people who had explicitly soured on democracy and lived within an epistemic bubble.

Continue reading “Readers Respond #1”