Connect with us

Michigan

The Democratic rebuttal: Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan responds to President Trump

Published

on

The Democratic rebuttal: Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan responds to President Trump


The Democratic rebuttal to President Donald Trump’s speech before Congress came from Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a first-term senator from Michigan. She spoke for about 11 minutes.

Here is a transcript of her remarks as prepared for delivery:

Hi everyone. I’m Elissa Slotkin. I’m honored to have the opportunity to speak tonight. It’s late — so I promise to be a lot shorter than what you just watched.

I won’t take it personally if you’ve never heard of me. I’m the new senator from the great state of Michigan, where I grew up. I’ve been in public service my entire life, because I happened to be in New York City on 9/11 when the twin towers came down. Before the smoke cleared, I knew I wanted a life in national security.

Advertisement

I was recruited by the CIA and did three tours in Iraq, alongside the military. In between, I worked at the White House under President Bush and President Obama, two very different leaders who both believed that America is exceptional.

You can find that same sense of patriotism here in Wyandotte, Michigan, where I am tonight. It’s a working-class town just south of Detroit. President Trump and I both won here in November. It might not seem like it, but plenty of places like this still exist all across the United States – places where people believe that if you work hard, and play by the rules, you should do well and your kids do better.

It reminds me of how I grew up. My dad was a lifelong Republican, my mom a lifelong Democrat. But it was never a big deal. Because we had shared values that were bigger than any one party.

We just went through another fraught election season. Americans made it clear that prices are too high and that government needs to be more responsive to their needs. America wants change. But there is a responsible way to make change, and a reckless way. And, we can make that change without forgetting who we are as a country, and as a democracy.

So that’s what I’m going to lay out tonight.

Advertisement

Because whether you’re in Wyandotte or Wichita, most Americans share three core beliefs: That the Middle Class is the engine of our country. That strong national security protects us from harm. And that our democracy, no matter how messy, is unparalleled and worth fighting for.

Let’s start with the economy.

Michigan literally invented the Middle Class: the revolutionary idea that you could work at an auto plant and afford the car you were building. That’s the American Dream. And in order to expand and protect the Middle Class, we have to do a few, basic things:

We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on: Groceries. Housing. Healthcare. Your car.

We need to make more things in America with good-paying, union jobs — and bring our supply chains back home from places like China.

Advertisement

We need to give American businesses the certainty they need to invest and create the jobs of the future.

And we need a tax system that’s fair for people who don’t happen to make a billion dollars.

Look, President Trump talked a big game on the economy, but it’s always important to read the fine print. So: do his plans actually help Americans get ahead?

Not even close.

President Trump is trying to deliver an unprecedented giveaway to his billionaire friends. He’s on the hunt to find trillions of dollars to pass along to the wealthiest in America. And to do that, he’s going to make you pay in every part of your life.

Advertisement

Grocery and home prices are going up, not down — and he hasn’t laid out a credible plan to deal with either.

His tariffs on allies like Canada will raise prices on energy, lumber, cars — and start a trade war that will hurt manufacturing and farmers.

Your premiums and prescriptions will cost more because the math on his proposals doesn’t work without going after your health care.

Meanwhile, for those keeping score, the national debt is going up, not down. And if he’s not careful, he could walk us right into a recession.

And one more thing: In order to pay for his plan, he could very well come after your retirement – the Social Security, Medicare, and VA benefits you worked your whole life to earn. The President claims he won’t, but Elon Musk just called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

Advertisement

While we’re on the subject of Elon Musk, is there anyone in America who is comfortable with him and his gang of 20-year-olds using their own computer servers to poke through your tax returns, your health information, and your bank accounts? No oversight. No protections against cyber-attack. No guardrails on what they do with your private data.

We need more efficient government. You want to cut waste, I’ll help you do it. But change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe.

The mindless firing of people who work to protect our nuclear weapons, keep our planes from crashing, and conduct the research that finds the cure for cancer — only to re-hire them two days later? No CEO in America could do that without being summarily fired.

OK, so we’ve talked about our economic security. How about national security?

Let’s start with the border. As someone who spent my whole career protecting our homeland, every country deserves to know who and what is coming across its border. Period. Democrats and Republicans should all be for that.

Advertisement

But securing the border without actually fixing our broken immigration system is dealing with the symptom not the disease. America is a nation of immigrants. We need a functional system, keyed to the needs of our economy, that allows vetted people to come and work here legally. So I look forward to the President’s plan on that.

Because here’s the thing: Today’s world is deeply interconnected. Migration, cyber threats, AI, environmental destruction, terrorism — one nation cannot face these issues alone. We need friends in all corners — and our safety depends on it.

President Trump loves to promise “peace through strength.” That’s actually a line he stole from Ronald Reagan. But let me tell you, after the spectacle that just took place in the Oval Office last week, Reagan must be rolling over in his grave. We all want an end to the war in Ukraine, but Reagan understood that true strength required America to combine our military and economic might with moral clarity.

And that scene in the Oval Office wasn’t just a bad episode of reality TV. It summed up Trump’s whole approach to the world. He believes in cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends, like Canada, in the teeth. He sees American leadership as merely a series of real estate transactions.

As a Cold War kid, I’m thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s. Trump would have lost us the Cold War.

Advertisement

Donald Trump’s actions suggest that, in his heart, he doesn’t believe we are an exceptional nation. He clearly doesn’t think we should lead the world.

Look, America’s not perfect. But I stand with most Americans who believe we are still exceptional. Unparalleled. And I would rather have American leadership over Chinese or Russian leadership any day of the week.

Because for generations, America has offered something better.

Our security and our prosperity, yes. But our democracy, our very system of government, has been the aspiration of the world. And right now, it’s at risk.

It’s at risk when a president decides he can pick and choose what rules he wants to follow, when he ignores court orders or the Constitution itself, or when elected leaders stand idly by and just let it happen.

Advertisement

But it’s also at risk when the President pits Americans against each other, when he demonizes those who are different, and tells certain people they shouldn’t be included.

Because America is not just a patch of land between two oceans. We are more than that. Generations have fought and died to secure the fundamental rights that define us. Those rights and the fight for them make us who we are.

We are a nation of strivers. Risk-takers. Innovators. And we are never satisfied.

That is America’s superpower.

And look, I’ve lived and worked in many countries. I’ve seen democracies flicker out. I’ve seen what life is like when a government is rigged. You can’t open a business without paying off a corrupt official. You can’t criticize the guys in charge without getting a knock at the door in the middle of the night.

Advertisement

So as much as we need to make our government more responsive to our lives today, don’t for one moment fool yourself that democracy isn’t precious and worth saving.

But how do we actually do that? I know a lot of you have been asking that question.

First, don’t tune out. It’s easy to be exhausted, but America needs you now more than ever. If previous generations had not fought for democracy, where would we be today?

Second, hold your elected officials, including me, accountable. Watch how they’re voting. Go to town halls and demand they take action. That’s as American as apple pie.

Three, organize. Pick just one issue you’re passionate about — and engage. And doom scrolling doesn’t count. Join a group that cares about your issue, and act. And if you can’t find one, start one.

Advertisement

Some of the most important movements in our history have come from the bottom up.

In closing, we all know that our country is going through something right now. We’re not sure what the next day is going to hold, let alone the next decade.

But this isn’t the first time we’ve experienced significant and tumultuous change as a country. I’m a student of history, and we’ve gone through periods of political instability before. And ultimately, we’ve chosen to keep changing this country for the better.

But every single time, we’ve only gotten through those moments because of two things: Engaged citizens and principled leaders.

Engaged citizens who do a little bit more than they’re used to doing to fight for the things they care about. And principled leaders who are ready to receive the ball and do something about it.

Advertisement

So thank you tonight for caring about your country. Just by watching, you qualify as engaged citizens. And I promise that I, and my fellow Democrats, will do everything in our power to be the principled leaders that you deserve.

Goodnight everyone.





Source link

Advertisement

Michigan

AIPAC draws ire of half of Michigan Democratic voters in new poll

Published

on

AIPAC draws ire of half of Michigan Democratic voters in new poll


play

About half of likely Michigan Democratic primary voters hold an unfavorable view of the pro-Israel group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to a new statewide poll, but respondents overall didn’t rate a candidate’s position on Israel and Gaza as of great importance when choosing a Senate nominee.

“It is not of high interest, despite the national narrative,” pollster Richard Czuba said, referring to national news coverage of the Michigan U.S. Senate contest.

Advertisement

“As you ask voters to look across the spectrum about issues that matter to them, this isn’t one of them.”

The Detroit News/WDIV-TV (Channel 4) poll of 500 likely Michigan Democratic primary voters was conducted last week by Czuba’s Glengariff Group and had a margin of error of plus-minus 4.4 percentage points.

A majority of respondents said antisemitism against Jewish Americans has risen, that they support both a Palestinian state and Israel’s right to exist, and believe Israel has “gone too far” in its war against the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Overall, the likely Michigan Democratic primary voters rated a Senate candidate’s position on Israel and Gaza at 5.6 on a 10-point scale. Czuba said a measurement over 7 usually indicates some level of importance, while 8 is considered demonstrating a high level of importance.

Advertisement

Supporters of Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed of Ann Arbor rated the issue a 6, while those backing U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens of Birmingham rated it 5.2. Undecided voters in the survey were at 5.7.

“That’s not surprising to me at all,” said consultant Adrian Hemond, a Democrat and CEO of Grassroots Midwest.

“It’s hard to get Americans to care about foreign policy while American troops are not getting shot, and that’s not happening right now. That’s not to say they don’t care about it at all, but in terms of what influences their voting behavior? Nah.”

Half of Michigan Democrats sour on AIPAC

Israel and Gaza have been a point of contrast and contention between El-Sayed and Stevens: Stevens is a staunch supporter of Israel who has voted for U.S. military aid for that country, while El-Sayed has called Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide. He wants to end the U.S. practice of subsidizing foreign militaries, including Israel’s.

El-Sayed has also repeatedly hit Stevens on the $49 million of outside spending — including $26 million from an AIPAC-aligned group — that’s flowed into the race to help boost her bid, according to recent ad-tracking figures.

Advertisement

“Explain what you’ve given away for AIPAC support in this race,” El-Sayed demanded in last week’s televised debate in Grand Rapids.

“No one owns my vote, and no one owns my policies,” Stevens shot back.

In the debate last week, Stevens pointed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s criticism of her and said Netanyahu had “failed” in securing long-term peace and in providing humanitarian aid in Gaza. The remark appeared to be an effort to put some distance between herself and the support she’s getting from AIPAC that has turned off some Democrats.

“I can say that Israel has a right to peacefully exist alongside the people of Palestine and in Gaza,” she said.

Advertisement

The poll conducted last week found that 49% of Democratic primary voters have an unfavorable opinion of AIPAC. About 12% view AIPAC favorably, and 39% were neutral ― with no opinion of the pro-Israel lobby group ― or said they didn’t know. About 34% of voters expressed a “very” unfavorable opinion of AIPAC.

About 65% of El-Sayed’s supporters expressed an unfavorable view of AIPAC, with 8% favorable and 26% neutral, while fewer Stevens’ voters, 38%, view AIPAC unfavorably and 16.5% favorably, with 45% neutral.

The group does not seem to be a motivating issue for undecided voters, 65% of whom were neutral on AIPAC, according to poll results.

“What this issue has become is virtue-signaling to the far left that you’re one of us,” Czuba said of AIPAC opposition.

Scott Cruz, 61, of South Lyon, said he learned about AIPAC about six months ago, but has been concerned for decades about the amount of money the U.S. gives to Israel. In more recent years, what started as Israel’s understandable response to the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas has advanced far beyond that, said Cruz, who participated in the poll.

Advertisement

“Just too nuts, man. Hatfields and McCoys, I don’t care,” Cruz said of the Israel-Gaza conflict. “They (Israel) had the moral high ground for a minute there and then said, ‘Let’s blow it.’”

Michelle Miller-Adams, a 66-year-old Kalamazoo resident and political scientist who also participated in the poll, said she considers herself a politically progressive Jew.

She said she understands the criticism of Israel’s leadership but is worried that opposition to Israel and AIPAC is mixing dangerously with an increase in antisemitism.

“I’m not a fan of AIPAC,” Miller-Adams said. “But I think AIPAC has been demonized among all the PACs and has been misrepresented. AIPAC gets singled out for criticism in a way that makes me very uncomfortable.”

Rebecca Cunningham, an 83-year-old Detroit resident, said she’s voting for Stevens because of her prior experience at the federal level. She’s aware of a debate over Israel and is concerned by the U.S. government’s actions there, but she doesn’t believe those concerns are the only factors in determining her vote.

Advertisement

“I’d have to look at the whole picture,” Cunningham said. “In my mind, I’m not really clear why we’re over there fighting. We have enough issues in the United States we could put our attention to.”

Alignment among Michigan Democrats on Mideast issues

The survey of Michigan Democrats showed they are largely in agreement on issues related to the Middle East, including 63% of whom support the creation of an independent Palestinian state in Gaza. Another 15% said they oppose a Palestinian state, while 22% said it would depend or they didn’t know.

Notably, 78% of El-Sayed supporters favor a Palestinian state with 13% unsure, compared with 51% of Stevens’ voters in support of an independent state with 26% unsure. Undecided voters fell between the two, with 61% for an independent state and 38.5% unsure.

A large majority of Democrats surveyed, nearly 77%, said Israel has a right to exist as a country, while 12% are opposed and 12% of voters were unsure or said it depends.

On this question, 67% of self-identified Democratic Socialists said they support Israel’s right to exist, while 30% are opposed, and 2% said they’re unsure or it depends. Nearly 21% of Democratic Socialists said they “strongly” oppose Israel’s right to exist.

Advertisement

El-Sayed, the son of Egyptian immigrants, pivoted last week when he was asked on CNN if Israel has a right to exist.

“The question about a right to exist is interesting, because nobody’s ever asked me whether I believe Palestine has a right to exist. Every single president who’s served has said they believe in a two-state solution,” El-Sayed said.

“Israel exists. The question is whether we want a politics where our money is sent over to Israel to fund genocide and apartheid instead of investing in our own kids.”

Nearly 70% of poll respondents said Israel’s actions against Hamas and Hezbollah have “gone too far.” About 3% said they’ve not gone far enough, and 13% said they’ve been about right, while 15% were unsure, according to the survey.

About 21% of Stevens’ supporters in the survey said Israel’s actions were about right, as opposed to 6% of El-Sayed voters and 2% of undecided voters.

Advertisement

About two in three likely Michigan Democratic voters said antisemitism against Jewish Americans has increased over the past two years, and 3% said it’s declined. Nearly 24% said the level of antisemitism has stayed the same, and 9% were unsure.

Younger voters (under 55 years old) disproportionately concluded that antisemitism has stayed the same or decreased, while higher numbers of older voters said antisemitism has grown, including 76% of respondents age 65 and older.

More Stevens supporters said that antisemitism has increased (71%) than backers of El-Sayed (57%).

mburke@detroitnews.com

eleblanc@detroitnews.com

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Michigan

Michigan AD Warde Manuel says he’s been fired by social media 3 times in 10 years

Published

on

Michigan AD Warde Manuel says he’s been fired by social media 3 times in 10 years


Embattled Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel on Tuesday addressed the latest round of reports about his potential exit from the university, saying he has had conversations about a potential buyout.

“I think I’ve been fired by social media three times in my ten years here,” Manuel said during a previously scheduled interview on The Big 1050 WTKA.

Multiple media outlets recently suggested his job is in jeopardy amid investigations into the culture of the department and fired football coach Sherrone Moore’s relationship with his former executive assistant.

The investigations have cost the university about $12 million, and it may not release all the related reports.

Advertisement

“Documents related to these attorney-directed investigations are privileged and confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege,” school spokesman Paul Corliss said Tuesday. “Maintaining the confidentiality of these documents preserves the integrity of the investigative process, protects the privacy of those who participated and helps safeguard those individuals from potential retaliation.”

Michigan’s board has a meeting on Thursday, where the publicly accessible agenda does not mention Manuel or the investigations.

“I have four years left on my contract,” said Manuel, who acknowledged talks about a possible buyout. “I don’t know what the future is going to be.

“I do feel confident in the things I have done here at Michigan. I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished.”

Manuel said he has helped the Wolverines have their best 10-year stretch, winning this year’s national championship in men’s basketball along with recent football, men’s and women’s gymnastics NCAA titles, 95 Big Ten championships and 4,000-plus student-athletes earning academic all-conference honors.

Advertisement

Michigan also has had a string of scandals under his watch.

Manuel fired Moore for having an inappropriate relationship with his executive assistant, who sued the school earlier this month.

The football program is on NCAA probation, was tarnished by a sign-stealing scheme and has seen many former staffers have run-ins with the law, including Matt Weiss, who is charged with hacking into the computer accounts of thousands of college athletes to find intimate images.

Manuel is also named in a lawsuit — along with the university, its board, a former school president and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti — filed by fired assistant football coach Chris Partridge that claims Michigan knew about the sign-stealing scandal nearly a year before the public did.

The 58-year-old Manuel, who played football at Michigan under the late Bo Schembechler and was on the track team, was hired to lead the department in 2016. He signed a contract extension at Michigan in 2024 that runs through June 2030.

Advertisement

Manuel, a New Orleans native, previously served as athletic director at Connecticut and Buffalo after working in Michigan’s athletic department in various roles from 1996 to 2005.

___

AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports


Note: The video above originally aired on July 9, 2026.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Michigan

Hard to see embattled Michigan AD Warde Manuel emerging unscathed

Published

on

Hard to see embattled Michigan AD Warde Manuel emerging unscathed


play

Barely three months since students flooded downtown Ann Arbor and chanted “Tt’s great … to be … a Michigan Wolverine” as they celebrated Michigan basketball’s first NCAA championship in 37 years, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone on the school’s campus who feels great about anything in the athletics department.

Instead, the university found itself in a much different and darker place Monday, July 13, when it faced new legal accusations that replaced all that happy singing with the deafening silence emitted through a barrage of “no comment” statements.

Advertisement

An amended lawsuit from former Wolverines linebackers coach Chris Partridge alleges former school president Santa Ono worked to hide details of the football team’s sign-stealing scandal and that athletic department leaders knew about ex-coach Sherrone Moore’s affair with staff member Paige Shriver years before it led to his firing.

And Warde Manuel – the athletic director who orchestrated that jubilation three months ago and even more jubilation three years earlier, when Michigan football won its first title in a quarter-century – finds himself in the eye of the storm as he faces the end of his highly successful but troubled tenure.

Manuel is named in Partridge’s lawsuit, which claims he knew about Moore’s relationship with Shriver “for years without taking action to protect the employee.” 

He’s also a focal point of an investigation that began in December, run by Chicago law firm Jenner & Block and costing the school nearly $12 million. The Free Press has learned that higher-ups have been briefed on the findings. The U-M Board of Regents is expected to discuss that investigation at a Thursday meeting in Traverse City.

Advertisement

On Sunday, Yahoo Sports reported that Manuel’s future is “in doubt” based on the findings of that investigation. On Monday, Manuel told the website: “The president [Domenico Grasso] and I have had several great conversations over the past couple of days. There are no plans for me not to continue to be the athletic director for the near future.”

The near future. As in the ax may swing at any moment in the near future.

It’s impossible to say what exactly will happen to Manuel once the investigation findings are released and discussed by regents. But it’s also impossible to imagine Manuel emerges unscathed from years of scandal within the school’s prized football program.

Can anyone imagine Jenner & Block lawyers facing regents after nearly $12 million has been shelled out and saying: “Yeah, you know the guy who’s been in charge of all this? Yeah, we got nothin’ on him.”

Advertisement

So it’s not hard to see Manuel getting blamed in the investigation. The question is how much blame does he get – and what kind of punishment does the university want to dole out? Also, how much can the investigation truly divulge about Manuel’s role while the school contends with lawsuits from Partridge and Shriver?

Cleaning house always sounds good. But anyone who’s ever actually cleaned a house, inside out and from top to bottom, can tell you it’s no easy chore. It’s actually messy, difficult work that often reveals other structural problems, whether you’re talking about an actual house or an entire athletic department.

The closest example Michigan might follow with Manuel could come courtesy of its most hated rival. Ohio State basically gave then-AD Gene Smith a slap on the wrist in 2018 by suspending him without pay for two weeks after he and then-football coach Urban Meyer mishandled domestic-assault allegations against former assistant coach Zach Smith.

The big difference between than Manuel’s situation is twofold: First, U-M’s investigation is examining the entire department; second, he’s coming off a huge high that vaulted him into rarefied air – an AD with national titles in football and basketball on his résumé.

Advertisement

Does Michigan really want to get rid of the guy who proved he can hire a championship hoops coach, won the school an NCAA Tournament title and helped refill those NIL and donor coffers, just as new football and basketball coaches are about to start their first seasons in Ann Arbor?

As for Manuel deciding to step aside on his own? He’s 58 and under contract through 2030. He has too much road in front of him to imagine a quiet resignation – to decide he’s done as much as he can – after 10 years on the job.

Nah. It’d be a lot easier to imagine the man who played defensive lineman under U-M legend Bo Schembechler saying to Grasso, the regents, and the rest of an ungrateful administration: You’re gonna have to fire me.

If that’s the case, you can also imagine a new contingent on Manuel’s behalf joining the growing briefcase-carrying group that’s flooding downtown Ann Arbor these days and chanting to itself: “It’s great … to sue … the Michigan Wolverines.”

Contact Carlos Monarrez at cmonarrez@freepress.com and follow him on X @cmonarrez.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending