Connect with us

Politics

Ohio Senate race: Gibbons launches new ad blitz to give voters a behind the scenes look

Published

on

Ohio Senate race: Gibbons launches new ad blitz to give voters a behind the scenes look

NEWNow you can hearken to Fox Information articles!

FIRST ON FOX: Mike Gibbons needs to present Ohio voters a behind the scenes take a look at his Republican marketing campaign for the Senate.

Gibbons, a Cleveland entrepreneur, actual property developer and funding banker who’s making his second bid for the Senate within the race to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Rob Portman, is launching a brand new digital advert blitz that takes viewers alongside for a experience as he excursions the state on his marketing campaign bus.

The digital spots, which the Gibbons marketing campaign shared first with Fox Information on Wednesday, highlight the candidate’s ongoing statewide bus tour, which began in January.

THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLL IN OHIO’S CROWDED AND COMPETITIVE GOP SENATE PRIMARY

Advertisement

“We’re going to journey the state and immediately kicks off the subsequent 4 months of our 88-county tour of Ohio. We’re going to go away no stone unturned. We’re going to fulfill each single person who we probably can,” Gibbons says on the high of the preliminary advert. 

The spots, which Gibbons’ group says they’re spending six figures to run statewide, intention to present viewers who haven’t seen the candidate in particular person or in an interview or debate an concept of who Gibbons is as an individual and the place he stands on the problems.

“I’m a businessman. I’m not a politician. I’m a Constitutional conservative with out apology. I don’t take care of slogans. I take care of information and motive,” Gibbons says within the first advert. “We have now too many politicians that simply can’t bear to inform the reality as a result of it would lose them a number of votes or may change the way in which individuals view them. I’m going to let you know the reality whether or not you need to hear it or not.”

THREE TOP OHIO SENATE GOP RIVALS MAKE THEIR CASE TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS AT CPAC

Gibbons, who’s already invested greater than $12 million of his personal cash in his Senate bid, is likely one of the main contenders in a discipline that additionally consists of former Ohio treasurer and former two-time Senate candidate Josh Mandel; best-selling creator and enterprise capitalist J.D. Vance; former Ohio GOP chair Jane Timken, whose husband is the previous chairman, CEO and president of his household’s metal manufacturing company; and Ohio state Sen. Matt Dolan, a former state and nation prosecutor whose household owns Main League Baseball’s Cleveland Guardians.

Advertisement

Mike Gibbons, a Republican Senate candidate for Ohio, speaks to supporters as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., seems to be on throughout a marketing campaign rally in Maineville, Ohio, Friday, Jan. 14, 2022. 
(AP Picture/Jeff Dean)

A Fox Information ballot performed March 2-6 indicated Gibbons at 22% amongst like Republican major voters, with Mandel at 20%, Vance at 11%, Timken at 9%, Dolan at 7%, and practically 1 / 4 of these surveyed undecided.

GIBBONS, MANDEL, GO VIRAL AFTER NEARLY TRADING BLOWS AT DEBATE 

Gibbons has been grabbing nationwide consideration since Friday, when he and Mandel nearly got here to blows throughout a heated face-to-face encounter within the first debate between the highest 5 GOP candidates. Video of practically bodily confrontation at a showdown outdoors of Columbus shortly went viral.

Gibbons’ new advert purchase is the most recent signal that in a major race the place all practically all the key contenders have loads of private wealth, or are backed by nicely financed outdoors teams, advert spending is hovering.

Advertisement

Based on figures from the nationwide advert monitoring agency AdImpact, advert spending by the campaigns and tremendous PACs within the Republican major now stands at $38.5 million, with Gibbons the largest spender, at $11.71 million.

The Ohio Senate race is the second most costly within the nation when it comes the advert spending, trailing neighboring Pennsylvania. 

The Ohio major is at present scheduled for Might 3, however a dispute over redistricting might pressure state lawmakers to maneuver again the date of the competition.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Carter Never Took to Washington. The Feeling Was Mutual.

Published

on

Carter Never Took to Washington. The Feeling Was Mutual.

Former President Jimmy Carter is set to arrive in Washington on Tuesday to be honored in death as the city never truly honored him in life.

That he will end his long story with a pomp-and-circumstance visit to the nation’s capital is a nod to protocol not partiality, a testament to the rituals of the American presidency rather than a testimonial to the time he presided in the citadel of power.

To put it more bluntly, Mr. Carter and Washington did not exactly get along. More than any president in generations before him, the peanut farmer from Georgia was a genuine outsider when he took occupancy of the white mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — and determinedly, stubbornly, proudly remained so.

He never cared for the culture of the capital, never catered to its mandarins and doyens, never bowed to its conventions. The city, in turn, never cared for him and his “Georgian mafia,” dismissing them as a bunch of cocky rednecks from the hinterlands who did not know what they were doing. Other outsider presidents eventually acclimated to Washington. Not Mr. Carter. And by his own admission, it would cost him.

“I don’t know which was worse — the Carter crowd’s distrust and dislike of unofficial Washington or Washington’s contempt for the new guys in town from Georgia,” recalled Gregory B. Craig, a longtime lawyer and fixture in Washington who served in two other Democratic administrations. “I do know it was there on Day 1.”

Advertisement

Between the two camps, the blend of piety, pettiness, jealousy and condescension proved toxic. It was not partisan — Mr. Carter’s most profound differences were with fellow Democrats. But the litany of slights and snubs on both sides was long and lingering. Everyone remembered the phone call that went unreturned, the invitation that never came, the project that was not approved, the appointment that was not offered.

Mr. Carter, after all, had run against Washington when he came out of nowhere to win the presidency in 1976 and unlike others who did that, he really meant it. He vaulted to office as the antidote to Watergate, Vietnam and other national setbacks. He had not come to town to become a creature of it.

He saw the demands of the Washington power structure as indulgent and pointless. He had no interest in dinner at the home of Katharine Graham, the publisher of The Washington Post, and aides like Hamilton Jordan, his chief of staff, and Jody Powell, his press secretary, radiated his disregard.

“Carter’s state funeral in Washington is full of ironies,” said Kai Bird, who titled his 2021 biography of Mr. Carter “The Outlier” for a reason. “He really was an outsider running against the Washington establishment. And when he improbably entered the Oval Office, he declined more than one dinner invitation from the Georgetown set.”

In their conversations for the book, Mr. Bird added, “he later told me he thought that was a mistake. But he preferred pizza and beer with Ham Jordan and Jody Powell — or working late into the night.”

Advertisement

As E. Stanly Godbold Jr., the author of a two-volume biography of Mr. Carter and the first lady Rosalynn Carter, put it: “Carter arrived at the White House virtually unbeholden to anyone except Rosalynn, his family and those millions of people who had voted for him. He had a free hand, within the limits of the Constitution and the presidency, to do as he wished.”

Or so he thought. But what Mr. Carter saw as principled, Washington saw as naïve and counterproductive. The framers conceived a system with checks and balances, but historically it has been lubricated by personal relationships, favors, horse trading and socializing.

“When it came to the politics of Washington, D.C., he never really understood how the system worked,” Thomas P. O’Neill Jr., the House speaker, wrote in his memoir. Mrs. Graham wrote in hers that “Jimmy Carter was one of those outsider presidents who found it difficult to find the right modus operandi for Washington.”

This was an era of giants in Washington, the likes of whom do not exist today. It was a time when titans of law, lobbying, politics and journalism like Joseph A. Califano Jr., Edward Bennett Williams, Ben Bradlee and Art Buchwald would meet for lunch every Tuesday at the Sans Souci to hash over the latest events. Mr. Carter was a frequent topic of discourse, and not always lovingly so.

Mr. Carter got off to a rough start with Mr. O’Neill, a necessary ally to pass any agenda. Shortly after the election, Mr. Carter visited the speaker but seemed dismissive of Mr. O’Neill’s advice about working with Congress, saying that if lawmakers did not go along, he could go over their heads to appeal to voters. “Hell, Mr. President, you’re making a big mistake,” Mr. O’Neill recalled replying.

Advertisement

It got worse when Mr. O’Neill asked for tickets for his family to attend an inaugural eve gala at the Kennedy Center only to discover that his relatives were seated far off in the balcony. Mr. O’Neill called Mr. Jordan the next day to yell at him. He nicknamed the chief of staff “Hannibal Jerkin.” In his memoir, Mr. O’Neill complained that Mr. Jordan and other Carter aides were “amateurs” who “came to Washington with a chip on their shoulder and never changed.”

But if they had a chip, it was fueled by plenty of patronizing quips mocking the Carter team’s Southern roots, including cartoons in the paper portraying them as hayseeds. It did not help that Mr. Carter arrived in a city full of politicians who thought they should have been the one to win in 1976, not this nobody from Georgia.

Mr. Carter styled himself as a man of the people from the start by getting out of his limousine during the inaugural parade to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. He initially banned the playing of “Hail to the Chief” when he entered a room and sold Sequoia, the presidential yacht often used in the past to woo key congressional leaders.

He took it as a badge of honor to do things that were not politically expedient, like cutting off water projects important to lawmakers trying to deliver for their districts or forcing them to vote on an unpopular treaty turning over the Panama Canal. It did not go over well either when Washington concluded that he did not fight hard enough for Ted Sorensen, the old John F. Kennedy hand, to become C.I.A. director or when he fought with Mr. Califano, the Washington powerhouse serving as secretary of health, education and welfare.

“I believe President Carter tried to make peace when he came into office,” said Chris Matthews, who was a speechwriter for him before going on to work for Mr. O’Neill and then embarking on a long career in television journalism. But “Carter told me he should have done more work getting control of the Democratic Party.” And Mr. Matthews noted that “his challenge in Washington derived from odd places,” like the squabble over the gala seats.

Advertisement

The spats had consequences, both legislatively and politically. Ultimately, he got a lot of his bills through Congress, but not all and not easily. And eventually, he was challenged for the party nomination in 1980 by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a challenge that fell short but damaged him for the fall contest that he would lose to former Gov. Ronald Reagan of California.

“His poor relationships with Democrats in both the House and the Senate hindered his ability to drive his agenda through Congress,” said Tevi Troy, a presidential historian at the Ronald Reagan Institute. “In addition, those poor relations hurt his reputation in Washington, as many Democratic members who would ordinarily advocate for the administration in the press were less willing to do so.”

Mr. Carter did not naturally take to the schmoozing that comes with politics. At one point, an aide persuaded him to invite a couple of important senators to play tennis at the White House. He consented, but as soon as the set was done, he headed back into the mansion without chit-chatting or inviting them in for a drink. “You said to play tennis with them, and I did,” Mr. Carter later explained to the disappointed aide.

“Carter didn’t like politics, period,” said Douglas Brinkley, the author of “The Unfinished Presidency,” about Mr. Carter’s much-lauded humanitarian work after leaving office. “And he didn’t like politicians.”

After an official dinner, Mr. Carter would be quick to take his leave. “He would be curt,” Mr. Brinkley said. “He would just get up because he had work to do. He never developed any Washington friendships.”

Advertisement

Mr. Williams was a prime example of a missed opportunity. A founder of the law firm Williams & Connolly, owner of the team then called the Washington Redskins and later of the Baltimore Orioles, and treasurer of the Democratic Party, Mr. Williams was a quintessential capital insider.

But he felt shunned by Mr. Carter. Mr. Williams recalled meeting the future president at the 1976 convention and all he got was “a wet flounder” of a handshake. He was irked that Mr. Carter never came to the Alfalfa Dinner, one of the most exclusive black-tie events on Washington’s social circuit. “Carter’s a candy-ass,” Mr. Williams groused to the president of Georgetown University, according to “The Man to See,” by Evan Thomas.

Only after a couple of years in Washington did the Carter team finally seek Mr. Williams’s help, in this case to quash negative media reports involving Mr. Jordan. When he succeeded, he was invited to a state dinner and Mr. Carter later came to sit in Mr. Williams’s box for a football game at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium. But Mr. Williams never warmed to Mr. Carter and joined a futile last-minute effort to thwart his nomination at the convention in 1980.

Mr. Carter never warmed to Washington either, calling it an island “isolated from the mainstream of our nation’s life.” After losing re-election, he grappled with his distant relationship with the capital. In “White House Diary,” he cast it largely as a matter of social butterflies resentful of his diffidence rather than something larger.

Rosalynn Carter, Mr. Powell and others, he wrote, had criticized him because “neither I nor my key staff members participated in Washington’s social life,” much to his detriment. “I am sure this apparently aloof behavior drove something of a wedge between us and numerous influential cocktail party hosts,” he wrote. “But I wasn’t the first president to object to this obligation.”

Advertisement

He wrote that he and Mrs. Carter had resolved to avoid going out regularly when he was governor of Georgia “and for better or worse, I never had any intention of changing this approach when we moved into the White House.”

At this point, of course, all of that is ancient history. Washington’s focus on Tuesday will be on the successes of Mr. Carter’s presidency, the inspiration of his post-presidency and the decency of his character. He will be brought by horse-drawn caisson to the Capitol and lie in state. He will be honored at Washington National Cathedral on Thursday.

No matter how Washington feels, it has a way of putting on a great funeral.

Continue Reading

Politics

Laken Riley Act: House poised to pass 1st bill of 119th Congress

Published

on

Laken Riley Act: House poised to pass 1st bill of 119th Congress

The House of Representatives is poised to vote on its first piece of federal legislation on Tuesday afternoon.

Lawmakers will be voting on the Laken Riley Act, a bill named after a nursing student who was killed by an illegal immigrant while jogging on the University of Georgia’s campus.

The bill would require federal immigration authorities to detain illegal immigrants found guilty of theft-related crimes. It also would allow states to sue the Department of Homeland Security for harm caused to their citizens because of illegal immigration.

KAMALA HARRIS MAKES TRUMP’S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL WIN OFFICIAL DURING JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS

Advertisement

Jose Ibarra was found guilty on 10 counts in the death of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley. (Hyosub Shin/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP, Pool)

Jose Ibarra, who was sentenced to life in prison for Riley’s murder, had previously been arrested but was never detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, the agency previously said.

The bill passed the House along bipartisan lines last year after it was first introduced by Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga.

All voting Republicans plus 37 Democrats voted for the bill by a margin of 251 to 170. All the “no” votes on the bill were Democrats.

PRO-ISRAEL DEM COULD TIP SCALES IN KEY SENATE COMMITTEE AS MIDDLE EAST WAR CONTINUES

Advertisement
Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga.

Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga. (Rep. Mike Collins/Fox News Digital)

It was not taken up in the Senate, however, which at the time was controlled by then-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

“[T]he Laken Riley Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Collins, holds the Biden Administration accountable for their role in these tragedies through their open border policies, requires detention of illegal aliens who commit theft and mandates ICE take them into custody, and allows a state to sue the Federal government on behalf of their citizens for not enforcing the border laws, particularly in the case of parole,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said in his daily House floor lookout.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS REJOICE OVER QUICK SPEAKER VOTE WITH ONLY ONE DEFECTOR

. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer

Former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer did not hold a vote on the bill. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

“House Republicans won’t stop fighting to secure the border and protect American communities. When will Democrats finally decide enough is enough?”

Advertisement

The Senate is also poised to vote on the bill this week.

It is one of several border security bills House Republicans have reintroduced this year as they prepare to take over all the levers of power in Washington, D.C. 

Republicans held the House and took over the Senate in the November elections. President-elect Donald Trump will take office on Jan. 20.

Continue Reading

Politics

Opinion: Trump wants to rekindle his Kim Jong Un bromance, but North Korea has other suitors now

Published

on

Opinion: Trump wants to rekindle his Kim Jong Un bromance, but North Korea has other suitors now

To say that President-elect Donald Trump has a lot of plans for his second term would be a gross understatement. He has vowed to implement the largest deportation operation in American history, secure the U.S.-Mexico border and negotiate a peace settlement between Ukraine and Russia.

Yet for Trump, all of these items may be minor when compared to one other issue: resolving the North Korea nuclear conundrum. Taking Pyongyang’s nuclear program off the board is Trump’s proverbial white whale, a feat that none of his predecessors managed to accomplish. Members of Trump’s inner circle told Reuters in late November that the next president was already talking about restarting the personal diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that had begun during his first term.

Talk is one thing, reality another. If Trump enters office thinking he can easily resurrect his relationship with Kim, then he’s going to set himself up for disappointment. Resolving the North Korean nuclear issue was hard five years ago, but it will be even harder today.

During his first term, Trump was able to push for personal engagement with North Korea’s head of state despite resistance among his national security advisors. This was the right move at the time. After all, bottom-up attempts by the Bush and Obama administrations to negotiate with Pyongyang proved to be both laborious and unsuccessful.

After nearly a year of fire-breathing rhetoric and talk about a “bloody nose” strike that would scare Pyongyang into talks, Trump opted to gamble on direct diplomacy. This was partly because his other options — more economic sanctions or military action — ranged from ineffective to disastrous, and partly because the South Korean president at the time, Moon Jae-in, was able to convince Trump that a direct channel of communication to Kim might be the key to cementing a nuclear deal of historic importance.

Advertisement

Despite three Trump-Kim meetings, face-to-face diplomacy failed to produce anything over the long-term. While Trump managed to get North Korea to suspend missile tests for a year — no small accomplishment given its past activity — the flashy summitry ultimately crashed and burned. In the end, Trump and Kim, their personal chemistry notwithstanding, were unable to come to terms — Trump, pushed by his hawkish advisors, advocated for North Korea’s complete denuclearization; Kim, meanwhile, was only willing to demobilize his main plutonium research facility at Yongbyon.

U.S.-North Korea diplomacy has been dead ever since. The Biden administration’s overtures to Pyongyang over the last four years have been repeatedly slapped down, apparently a consequence of what the North Korean leadership views as a lack of seriousness on the part of Washington as well as U.S. attempts to solidify a trilateral military relationship between the United States, South Korea and Japan.

In other words, on Jan. 20, the perennial North Korean nuclear problem will be as thorny as ever. And probably thornier: Kim is far less desperate for a nuclear agreement and an end to U.S. sanctions now than he was during Trump’s first administration.

First, Kim hasn’t forgotten his previous meetings with Trump. He sees the summitry of 2018 and 2019 as a waste of time at best and a personal humiliation at worst. This shouldn’t be a surprise; the North Korean dictator staked significant capital on negotiating an agreement to lift U.S. sanctions and to normalize Pyongyang-U.S. relations. His entreaties failed on both accounts. Three summits later, U.S. sanctions remained intact and U.S.-North Korea relations remained in their usual acrimony.

Kim will be more cautious this time around. “We have already explored every possible avenue in negotiating with the U.S.,” he said in November, adding that the result had been more U.S. aggression. And in a December speech, he promised to deliver the “toughest … counteractions” against the U.S., an expression of his commitment to resisting what he perceives as a hostile bloc underwritten by Washington.

Advertisement

The geopolitical environment has evolved as well. Back in 2018-2019, North Korea was isolated, and the suspension of U.S. sanctions was seen as a critical to its economic growth.

But now Putin’s war in Ukraine has provided the Kim regime a golden opportunity to diversify its foreign relations away from China by cozying up to Moscow, not least by sending thousands of North Korean troops to the Ukraine-Russia front lines. Russia, which used to be a partner in the United States’ desire to denuclearize North Korean, is now using North Korea as a way to frustrate America’s grand ambitions in East Asia.

For Kim, the advantages of his relationship with Russia are equally clear: Putin needs arms and men; Kim needs cash and military technology. And thanks to Russia’s veto at the U.N. Security Council, additional sanctions are a pipe dream for the foreseeable future, while those on the books already are meekly enforced. As long as the Russia-North Korea relationship continues as its current pace, Trump will be hard pressed to bring the North Koreans back to the negotiating table.

None of this is to suggest that Trump shouldn’t try another diplomatic foray with North Korea. Regardless of the criticism he received at the time, Trump’s decision to shake things up and go straight to the source was an admirable attempt to manage an issue that has defied U.S. presidents for more than three decades.

Yet if Trump wants a second roll of the dice, he needs to keep a healthy dose of skepticism front-of-mind. Given the continued improvement of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, any agreement the United States signs with the Kim regime will be less impressive than it could have been in 2019 — assuming we get an agreement at all.

Advertisement

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs commentator for the Spectator.

Continue Reading

Trending