Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
As I celebrated Independence Day and our republic’s birth 248 years ago, I was set to thinking about those who were screaming on the media about how this might be our last celebration of democracy in the USA.
In this crucial time in American history, the differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties have big consequences for where our country is headed. It’s not just about what they believe in, but also what their names stand for in our government and national identity.
With all the talk about “protecting democracy,” it’s important to understand what democracy really means. The United States wasn’t organized as a direct democracy, where everyone votes on everything. Instead, it’s a republic where we elect representatives to speak for us. Our Founding Fathers set it up this way to make sure everyone’s voice, no matter how small, could be heard.
Our representative republic is smart because it balances the needs and ideas of all states, no matter how many people live there. This stops big states from bossing around smaller ones, and ensures everyone’s rights are respected. This system has helped us make big strides – like ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, and protecting freedoms like religion and speech.
But today, some in the Democratic Party want to change our system into more of a direct democracy. That would weaken the core principles that have defined our nation for so long. A direct democracy would move decision-making power to Washington, and ignore smaller states. This approach risks leaving out different views that don’t match the majority. Certainly, had we been a direct democracy, interracial marriage would not have been recognized in New Hampshire until 1967, at the earliest, although marriage records show New Hampshire recognized interracial marriages much earlier.
As Republicans, we believe in keeping our fair and inclusive representative republic. We think every person, no matter their background or beliefs, should have an equal chance to shape our country’s future. We’re against turning America into a pure democracy because it could silence voices that are vital to our country’s success.
When Democrats talk about “protecting democracy,” we need to remember that our strength comes from our representative republic. We should all remind each other that America’s greatness comes from representing everyone fairly, not just letting the majority rule unchecked. We value every voice in our country, no matter how big or small.
Let’s stand together to protect the heart of our republic. We must oppose any changes that threaten the rights and freedoms of every person, no matter where they come from or what they believe. Our strength lies in a system where everyone’s voice matters and is respected, ensuring that no one group gets drowned out by another. Fairness, equality, and making sure everyone has a say, have always been what makes America strong, and it’s up to us to keep these principles strong for our future.
Remember, it’s not a “fight for democracy”, but a fight to save our republic.
As the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran overtakes the foreign policy debate in Washington, two Democratic governors with potential 2028 presidential aspirations — Gavin Newsom and Andy Beshear — recently traveled to New Hampshire, introducing themselves to the state’s famously engaged voters. The two weighed in on the war and both criticized and questioned President Trump’s strategy and endgame.
“If a president is going to take a country into war, and risk the lives of American troops and Americans in the region, he has to have a real justification and not one that seems to change every five to 10 hours,” Beshear told CBS News after a Democratic fundraiser in Keene.
“This President seems to use force before ever trying diplomacy, and he has a duty to sell it to the American people and to address Congress with it,” Beshear continued. “He hasn’t done any of that. In fact, it appears there isn’t even a plan for what success looks like. He’s gone from regime change to strategic objectives and now is talking about unconditional surrender, which isn’t realistic where he is.”
Beshear also said he thought that Congress should have reined in Mr. Trump’s war powers.
“He is trying to ignore Congress. He’s trying to even ignore the American people,” Beshear said.
He went on to note that the president’s State of the Union address took place “three — four days before he launched this attack,” and Mr. Trump “didn’t even have the respect to tell the American people the threat that he thought Iran posed to us.”
Last week, both the House and the Senate failed to pass resolutions to limit Mr. Trump’s war powers and stop him from taking further military action against Iran without congressional support.
For Newsom, the war with Iran constitutes part of a broader criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At an event last Tuesday in Los Angeles, Newsom had compared Israel to an “apartheid state.” Later, in New Hampshire, he sought to clarify his comment.
“I was specifically referring to a Tom Friedman [New York Times] column last week, where Tom used that word of apartheid as it relates to the direction Bibi is going, particularly on the annexation of the West Bank,” Newsom explained during a book tour event Thursday night in Portsmouth. “I’m very angry, with what he is doing and why he’s doing it, what he’s going to ultimately try to do to the Supreme Court there, what he’s trying to do to save his own political career.”
Friedman wrote that at the same time that the U.S. and Israel are prosecuting a war in Iran, within Israel, Netanyahu’s government has undertaken efforts to annex the West Bank, driving Palestinians from their homes; fire the attorney general who is leading the prosecution against Netanyahu for corruption; and block the government’s attempt to establish a commission to examine the failures that led up to the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of Jews by Hamas.
CBS News has reached out to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., for comment.
On Iran, Newsom said, “I’m very angry about this war, with all due respect, you know, not because I’m angry the supreme leader is dead. Quite the contrary. I’m not naive about the last 37 years of his reign. Forty-seven years since ’79 — the revolution,” Newsom said. “But I’m also mindful that you have a president who still is inarticulate and incapable of giving us the rationale of why? Why now? What’s the endgame?”
Many attendees at Newsom’s book event said that the situation in Iran is a top-of-mind issue for them, too. Some said they’re “horrified” by what is happening.
29-year-old Alicia Marr told CBS News she decided to attend Newsom’s event because of his social media response to the war with Iran.
“There was one spot left, and I decided to pick it up, and it was due to his response to the war, that it is just unacceptable, and I would agree with that,” Marr said.
While some voters like Marr are eager to hear about where potential candidates stand on foreign policy, many at Newsom’s event said they care most about how potential candidates plan to address domestic issues.
“I’m more focused on getting the middle class back on track and fighting the oligarchy, and I’m less invested in international issues,” said Anita Alden, who also attended Newsom’s event,
“I wouldn’t call myself America first, but we have so many problems at home that are my priority,” she told CBS News.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who may also be weighing another White House bid, told Fox 2 Detroit last week that she “unequivocally opposes” the Trump administration’s military action in Iran and urged Congress to take action.
“If we want to stop Donald Trump with this random decision that he has arrived at, then Congress must act, and Congress must act immediately. The American people do not want our sons and daughters to go into this unauthorized war of choice,” Harris said.
Mr. Trump has lashed out against Democrats who have pushed back on his Iran strategy, calling them “losers” last week and arguing that they would criticize any decision he made on Iran.
“If I did it, it’s no good. If I didn’t do it, they would have said the opposite, that you should have done this,” the president said.
Local News
A Massachusetts man was arrested late Wednesday night after police say he was driving more than 100 mph on a New Hampshire roadway.
Officers with the Rindge Police Department stopped a vehicle shortly after 11 p.m. on Route 202 near Sears Drive in Rindge following a report of a car traveling at excessive speed, according to a statement from Chief Rachel Malynowski.
The vehicle, a 2020 Kia Stinger, was spotted traveling at 104 mph in a posted 55 mph zone, Malynowski said.
The driver, a 21-year-old man from Attleboro, was arrested and charged with reckless operation of a motor vehicle, according to police.
He is scheduled to be arraigned April 5. If convicted, the man faces a fine of at least $750, in addition to the court’s penalty assessment, and a 90-day license suspension, Malynowski said.
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Setting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
Massachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
AM showers Sunday in Maryland
Pa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
Florida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
Keith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death
City of Miami celebrates reopening of Flagler Street as part of beautification project
U.S. Postal Service could run out of money within a year