Connect with us

Politics

Granderson: Top Republicans know better than to back Trump

Published

on

Granderson: Top Republicans know better than to back Trump

When it comes to disaster movies, my biggest pet peeve is the sex scene. As soon as a Diane Warren song starts playing in the background, the male and female leads will lock eyes and suddenly decide they have time to cuddle. “Saving the planet” loses all sense of urgency.

Opinion Columnist

LZ Granderson

LZ Granderson writes about culture, politics, sports and navigating life in America.

Advertisement

That’s what it feels like watching Republicans today refuse to endorse Kamala Harris because of the optics. They can see as well as anyone else that former President Trump is a threat to democracy. He says it openly. But apparently when members of the GOP look at their chances of holding on to power, the romantic music in their heads just sweeps them away.

Take Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp. If anyone knows how far Trump will go to grab power, it’s him. Trump has been harassing him ever since losing the state to President Biden by 11,779 votes back in 2020. We heard Trump’s phone call with Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. We saw the indictment (though whether the Fulton County district attorney can continue to prosecute it remains in limbo). Trump’s allies tried to use fake electors to pretend he won the state.

Kemp followed the law and common sense and certified the real electors, which gave Biden the state’s 16 electoral votes.

We’re still hearing about Trump’s grudge, most recently in a long rant at a campaign stop in Georgia.

Advertisement

“He’s a bad guy. He’s a disloyal guy. And he’s a very average governor,” Trump said on Saturday about Kemp, who has a 63% approval rating in his state — and whom Trump endorsed for governor in 2018.

If anyone knows of the danger that Trump represents, it’s Kemp. And yet the governor responded to that latest barrage with a social media post supporting Trump’s campaign: “my focus is on winning this November and saving our country from Kamala Harris and the Democrats — not engaging in the petty personal insults, attacking fellow Republicans, or dwelling on the past.”

That’s how he characterized Trump’s attempt to overturn the election. Dwelling on the past. His wife, Marty Kemp, is so worried about what Trump would do if he regained power that she said she is going to write in her husband’s name for president instead of voting for Trump. Oh, great. Such bravery.

Kemp is expected to run for Senate, so perhaps what we’re seeing is that his political future matters more to him than the country’s future does. He wouldn’t want to be seen endorsing a Democrat, even when the alternative is a felon whom Kemp has personally seen attempting to overthrow American democracy.

The public spat between Kemp and Trump prompted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to beg the two to work things out. As if there’s some sort of acceptable middle ground between democracy and a failed coup d’etat.

Advertisement

The political maneuverings from folks who used to say “never Trump” — such as Graham and Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio — would not be possible without a healthy dose of cowardice.

Harris, like most politicians, will have to answer for positions she has taken in the past and may no longer support. But one stance she hasn’t changed is on the importance of protecting a free and fair election. On the day of the Jan. 6 attack, Harris’ motorcade came within 20 feet of the pipe bomb planted the day before outside the Democratic National Committee’s office. Authorities still don’t know who placed that one or the similar device found at the Republican National Committee’s headquarters.

We are not in ordinary times. Many conservatives know this firsthand. And yet despite understanding the urgency that the moment calls for, they continue to make time to play politics, like the romantic leads in a doomsday flick. At least most of them do.

This week a new group launched, called Republicans for Harris. It’s an effort to make it OK for conservatives to do all that they can to stop someone who tried to overturn the election from having another crack at becoming king. Among the most important strategies, of course, is voting for Trump’s opponent. Many Americans who tend to vote Republican will be reluctant.

The Kemps of the world aren’t helping, but consider the record of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). He has waffled at moments but mostly seems to have seen Trump for what he is and been bold enough to say so.

Advertisement

During the primary in 2016, Romney recorded robocalls in support of Marco Rubio and John Kasich, encouraging voters to vote for “a candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton and who can make us proud.” After Chris Christie endorsed Trump, Romney reportedly wrote Christie him an email saying Trump is “unquestionably mentally unstable, and he is racist, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, vulgar and prone to violence.”

In 2018, Romney accepted Trump’s endorsement for the Senate. But in 2021 he voted for impeachment. Outlining his reasoning in a statement, Romney said the former president “attempted to corrupt the election by pressuring the Secretary of State of Georgia to falsify the elections results in his state” and “incited the insurrection against Congress by using the power of his office.”

Romney and Christie are like many Republicans who knew the danger of Trump before he became president but chose party over country. Members of Republicans for Harris, and the half-dozen former Trump Cabinet members who refuse to endorse him, have decided not to make that mistake twice. Other politicians, such as Graham and Kemp, do not care what happens to democracy as long as their careers survive.

@LZGranderson

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

on

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget. 

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.” 

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

Advertisement

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest. 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

Advertisement

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders. 

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said. 

“​Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

on

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

Advertisement

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending