Connect with us


Can Doug Emhoff have it all?



Second gentleman Doug Emhoff speaks with Jinny Amundson.

Amundson appeared a mix of thrilled and nervous. It’s not every day that Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband, the second gentleman of the United States, requests a special order. Her bookstore has a modest collection. What if she didn’t have it?

But Emhoff wasn’t looking for a book about some wonkish domestic policy agenda or a foreign entanglement. He asked, instead, if Amundson had Seth Rogen’s memoir. (Yes, that Seth Rogen.)

Amundson laughed internally, she recalled later, because it was — well — all so unexpected. She definitely did not have it.

Denied his preferred literary adventure, Emhoff laughed, pulled out his credit card and told her to pick out a book for him, wrap it up, and not tell him what it was. Amundson wrapped up “Seven Kinds of People You Find in Bookshops.”

Fun Doug had lost out to serious Douglas once again.

The tale, recounted by Amundson and the owner of the coffee shop, was a distillation of life being the first second gentleman in history. Emhoff is an historic figure in his own right, a smart and accomplished entertainment lawyer who is using his perch to get more vaccines in arms, bring more attention to food insecurity and local businesses decimated by the pandemic. But, he’s still just kind of a dude.

Aides say he didn’t want a life in the public eye. But he’s also amenable to doing the political work that comes with the post.

Each vice presidential spouse has tackled the job a bit differently. But there’s a fairly common blueprint. You support the veep, host parties (usually in gowns made in America), choose a non-controversial platform — helping disadvantaged kids or veterans or children victimized by bullying — team up with the first lady on another non-controversial policy area, and repeat for four more years if there’s a second term.

Still, if Emhoff sometimes seems like he’s making things up as he goes along, it’s because he (and every second spouse before him) is.

“There is nothing in the Constitution about the first lady and there’s certainly nothing about the second lady or second gentleman. So they have a lot of leeway to do as much or as little as they want,” said Kate Andersen Brower, author of “First Women: The Grace and Power of America’s Modern First Ladies.”

Emhoff’s staff isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel. When he began envisioning what his role might look like, he met and talked with the sorority of women that came before him — especially the current first lady, Jill Biden. “He is not the first second spouse, so many of the things he will be doing are things that have been done before,” Emhoff’s chief of staff Julie Mason told POLITICO. “Some of them might be new to him.”

But Emhoff also isn’t just another spouse to a sitting VP. He’s the first with XY chromosomes. And how he adds his own “Douggie” flair to the gig will set the template not just for future second gentlemen, but also for male spouses of powerful women across the country. Aides say Emhoff is cognizant of how important it is for kids (and adults) to see a man fully embrace the concept of being a supportive husband to a powerful woman while shaking up outdated gender stereotypes. It’s given an additional weight to his role.

“I hope it normalizes that we as a country have gotten to a point where we’re comfortable seeing a man in that position supporting his wife,” Andersen Brower said. “And at the same time, we have to kind of calibrate how excited we are about it, because it is so absurd that it’s taken us this long.”

The role-modeling began after the election. Emhoff quit his own high-powered job (which accounted for most of the more than $1.6 million the couple raked in last year) for a one-class-a-semester teaching job at Georgetown University; his first in-person class begins in August. And then, as he built his team — a small group of nine — the focus was first on playing cheerleader.

“We came in here and the first thing he did was raise his hand to see how he could be helpful with the pandemic response and recovery,” Mason said. “He was not elected to office. His No. 1 job is to support the vice president, to support the administration.”

As soon as the administration began, Emhoff was dispatched to dozens of events — many in-person, including visits to small businesses and vaccination clinics. Often, he promised to take back the conversations he had there to the Naval Observatory, where he and the vice president now live. As he’s done these events, Emhoff has also worked with his team to figure out what his own platform might be. Aides say they aren’t in a rush and it’s typical for there not to be an announced initiative this early in the administration. But outside of vaccinations, there’s one policy area Emhoff seems more interested in than others: food security.

Almost every roundtable or stop has something to do with food and nutrition, something that even during the campaign was a focus. As he visited food banks, aides say he was struck by the lack of equity and access.

Back in February, when now-Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was being virtually sworn in by Harris, he said he talked to Emhoff, who had called to congratulate him on his confirmation. Vilsack told Harris, “We want to get him involved in nutrition,” to which Harris replied that her husband “cares a great deal about that.” Senior Emhoff aides say it’s almost a sure thing that food security will end up being an initiative as he charts out his role in more detail. But his involvement on the topic is still in the planning stages.

But being a supportive spouse with a passion for food security hasn’t been without its challenges. Emhoff is the only one of the “four principals” — as aides refer to the Biden and Harris couples — with limited experience in public life. And that has required some adjustments.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who shared a coffee with Emhoff near the water in Annapolis last week, said Emhoff mentioned to him how weird he found the bubble that now surrounds him. He noted the need to make “appointments to see your children.” Even the things that look spontaneous to the outside — like a quick stop at a precious independent book store — now take extensive planning and scheduling.

“There’s definitely a period of adjustment in learning how the systems operate here,” Mason said. “You can’t always do things as much on a whim as maybe you would have before.” But, she said, Emhoff has never complained to the staff about it.

To maintain a semblance of normalcy in his life, Emhoff holds scheduled Zoom calls on a regular basis with his family, and has gone out to see D.C. on the weekends with friends, Mason says. One of those friends is Chasten Buttigieg, husband of now-Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, who became close with Emhoff during the 2020 campaign. Buttigieg said the two still “trade texts quite often.” They sometimes talk about the platform Emhoff plans to build (of which food security has come up) or what they’re watching on Netflix. But typically they talk about the adjustments that come with their new lives.

“There’s still got to be that holy shit cloud, hovering over them. Like, wow, we’re really doing this. And he has to figure out how to build a platform, an office, a team and then also, like, make sure he’s being really supportive,” Chasten Buttigieg said in a phone interview. “But he seems very peppy, like he really wants to like ‘go, go, go, go, go’ and that comes with a lot of concern for getting the moment right.”

As he plays the role of supportive husband of a powerful woman — and adjusts to the responsibilities and attention that come with it — Emhoff has garnered a group of loyal fans of his own. #DougHive may not match the size, stature or aggressively defensive tone that Harris’ #KHive possesses. But that’s what comes when you’re proudly second fiddle.

“He lets her lead. That’s quite remarkable to see. And the fact that he’s a white male married to this strong Black woman, I think he knows what that means,” said Danielle Garrett, a musician and teacher in Pennsylvania and active member of the Facebook group titled “Doug Emhoff, Esquire: Our Second Gentleman.” The group, of more than 800 and counting, posts links about nearly every move Emhoff makes: from a picture of him with his daughter Ella at her graduation or moments like Emhoff sitting by himself before the joint session to Congress last month blowing kisses to Harris. (Grant posted that one with the comment “What a true gent!!” with three heart emojis.)

Emmoff’s “clearly just being himself,” Garrett said, which makes him the type of relatable figure that seems rare in politics.

It has not only served his wife well — it’s helped him, too. For proof: After he left her store, Admundson, the bookshop owner, said she went looking for a way to get the Seth Rogen memoir to Emhoff as soon as she could.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Trumpworld: Critical race theory backlash is our springboard back to power




Trumpworld: Critical race theory backlash is our springboard back to power

“This is the Tea Party to the 10th power,” Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser who has zeroed in on local school board fights over critical race theory, said in an interview. “This isn’t Q, this is mainstream suburban moms — and a lot of these people aren’t Trump voters.”

Concerns about critical race theory, which examines how race and racism permeates society, have been percolating for months in what activists describe as a sincere grassroots phenomenon led by parents. Critical race theory dates back to the 1970s, but as the country remains in a prolonged conversation about race following George Floyd’s death, a new political battle over how to teach American history has emerged.

It has increasingly become a major focus of the Republican establishment, which has sought to capitalize on the angst even as some officeholders have failed to define what critical race theory is and the threat it poses. (Critical race theory, for example, does not imply white students should feel guilty about past civil rights issues and is not taught in many of the schools where lawmakers are seeking to ban it).

Their efforts to elevate the issue have worked.

Google searches for “critical race theory” skyrocketed on March 18, for example, the same day that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis proposed banning it from Florida’s school curriculum. Fox News mentioned critical race theory nearly 1,300 times over a three-and-a-half-month span, according to an analysis done by the liberal watchdog Media Matters. Last week, Texas became the fifth state that passed a law taking aim at critical race theory or similar topics, and legislation has been proposed in more than a dozen other states.

Democrats, liberal political analysts, and even celebrities have used the power of the Black press and broadcast news to push back.

Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association and a friend to the Biden White House, supported a thorough teaching of American history — including the more painful parts — in an NBC interview last week. “We have made many mistakes in this country, but our kids, our kids deserve to learn all of that truth,” she said.

Journalist and author Ta-Nehisi Coates, Hollywood actress and LGBTQ activist Lena Waithe, along with dozens of academics and writers are also backing efforts to support teaching students about systemic racism. They penned an open letter in The Root in support of Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 project, which many Republicans see as a key tool for pushing critical race theory.

They are combating the decision of major Trump World and other national Republican figures who are increasingly entering the fray. Earlier this month, Republicans at the North Carolina GOP’s annual convention jumped to their feet with enthusiastic applause when Trump called for a ban on critical race theory from the local school level to the federal government. Some top Republicans aren’t coy when they talk about the electoral benefits that stoking such a culture war issue could provide.

“I look at this and say, ‘Hey, this is how we are going to win.’ I see 50 [House Republican] seats in 2022. Keep this up,” Bannon said. “I think you’re going to see a lot more emphasis from Trump on it and DeSantis and others. People who are serious in 2024 and beyond are going to focus on it.”

Jessica Anderson, executive director of the Heritage Foundation’s advocacy arm, said critical race theory is one of the top two issues her group is working on alongside efforts to tighten voting laws. A former Office of Management and Budget official in the Trump administration, Anderson’s Heritage Action for America put out a pamphlet on Monday calling critical race theory a “destructive” ideology and urging voters to call on their lawmakers to support anti-critical race theory bills introduced by Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Dan Bishop (R-N.C.). It also urges voters to use Freedom of Information Act requests as a tactic to identify critical race theory-tied elements in schools’ curricula.

“It could turn out to be one of the most important conservative grassroots fights since the Tea Party movement,” she said.

In addition to Heritage Action, a new group called Citizens for Renewing America, an outfit started by Russ Vought, Trump’s former Office of Management and Budget director, has rushed in to bolster anti-critical race theory efforts.

As OMB director, Vought drafted a September memo warning federal agencies that Trump wanted them to “cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions.” More recently, Citizens for Renewing America has circulated a 33-page document titled, “An A to Z Guide on How to Stop Critical Race Theory and Reclaim Your Local School Board.”

In Washington, Heritage Action is pursuing a longshot strategy to try to shoehorn anti-critical race theory language into must-pass legislation such as the annual defense spending bill. Vought’s group, meanwhile, is pushing for Republicans to force the provisions in Bishop’s bill to be included in legislation to raise the debt limit this fall.

“We believe it’s necessary for us to find leverage points to get that onto bills that must pass,” Vought said in an interview.

Slightly outside Washington, another prominent Trump alum has been active on one of the other major frontlines of the critical race theory debate.

Ian Prior, a former Justice Department spokesperson in the Trump administration whose children go to Loudoun County, Va., schools, is spearheading an effort to recall six Democratic school board members in that Washington D.C. suburb. Heritage Action helped organize a rally there earlier this month after a Loudoun County High School teacher complained that white students “are being told to check their white privilege.”

But Prior, who has become a semi-regular on Fox News to discuss the matter, insists that his group, Fight for Schools, isn’t “some astroturf thing that’s powered by big money,”

“We just sat on a back porch and started it,” he added. “There is an energy here that transcends political parties.”

Polls don’t quite show that the issue is cutting across party lines. A new Morning Consult/POLITICO survey, for example, found that while the majority (54 percent) of Republicans believed critical race theory was negatively impacting society, a plurality of Democrats (48 percent) and Independents (46 percent) said they didn’t have a sense of any impact. The survey found that the population was fairly split on whether it should be taught in K-12 schools: 32 percent supporting it and 36 percent opposing it.

Few of the organizations working to oppose critical race theory, including Heritage Action and Citizens for Renewing America, disclose their donors. Prior said he did not have donor information to share. So it is impossible to know which big-moneyed interests, if any, are funding the anti-critical race theory initiatives those groups are undertaking.

But some deep-pocketed individuals are contributing to the cause.

Anderson, for one, said Heritage Action had “huge donor interest in this.” Other donors have started new groups of their own — including some who revved up the budding Tea Party movement a decade ago.

Frayda Levin, a longtime libertarian donor who’s served on the Club for Growth’s board, recently started her own group, Color Us United, which aims to be a counterweight to Black Lives Matter in the press.

“Our side is really gearing up to push back against what we call the race industrial complex,” Levin said.

And 1776 Project PAC, which was founded to support local school board candidates against critical race theory in schools, has raised over $135,000 from 1,600 donors in less than a month, said its founder Ryan Gidursky, a 34-year-old former political operative who created the PAC after listening to complaints from friends with kids.

“It really isn’t this organized effort on the part of, like, a right wing intelligentsia or political think tank or some plan for us to have a boogeyman so we can get the suburbs back,” Gidursky said. “I’m sure it would be a lot more interesting if we were all meeting up in a castle somewhere.”

Delece Smith-Barrow contributed to this report.

Continue Reading


Harvard won’t host joint campaign managers event with Trump aides




Harvard won’t host joint campaign managers event with Trump aides

On Saturday, there will be a “look back” discussion, but only featuring one half of the 2020 campaign: the Democrats. But a parallel effort to invite former aides to Donald Trump for a separate event is foundering over scheduling problems, amid internal worries of a backlash over hosting allies of the former president.

Saturday’s invitation-only virtual event includes conversations with former Biden campaign officials — including Jen O’Malley Dillon, Kate Bedingfield and Mike Donilon — on the Democratic primary and the general election, a “Democratic Primary Campaign Managers Roundtable” with at least nine campaign managers from losing Democratic campaigns and a panel on the Democratic convention that includes operatives Anita Dunn and Stephanie Cutter.

Only a very small number of students are being allowed to view the Saturday session, and such access is being determined by a lottery. Just like in 2012 and 2016, audio will be released of the Democratic event but a date hasn’t been set for release of it.

“Dates for the IOP’s conversation with President Trump’s advisors and Republican Party officials will be announced in the coming weeks,” said an IOP invitation sent to Harvard Democrats obtained by POLITICO.

“It will not be open to the public nor additional journalists and as of today we have not made any announcements about our plans,” Mark Gearan, the IOP’s director, wrote on Monday in an internal Kennedy School email invitation obtained by POLITICO. He called it a “reimagined” conference this year.

At least three top former Trump campaign officials have been invited to a future unscheduled session, according to a person close to the IOP: campaign manager Bill Stepien, communications director Tim Murtaugh and pollster Tony Fabrizio, who told POLITICO he had been invited but that “no time or date yet” had been scheduled and his “participation would be dependent on my availability.”

Stepien and Murtaugh didn’t respond to requests for comment when asked if they planned to go.

“In April, we invited several senior officials from both the Biden and Trump campaigns to share their perspectives on the 2020 election,” Gearan said in a statement. “In an effort to create a more accurate and substantive conversation on the campaign cycle, we decided to give both campaigns more time to share their perspectives. As we have for nearly 50 years, each conversation will be transcribed and compiled into a book released later this year. We are grateful to have scheduled times with the Biden team and hope advisers to President Trump will confirm their participation later this summer.”

Trump’s questioning of the 2020 election results by raising false claims of voter fraud and the Jan. 6 insurrection, along with the Covid-19 pandemic, has complicated the institute’s usual planning. But a person familiar with the matter also said the holdup has to do with scheduling and getting affirmative answers from some Trump campaign officials.

“The idea that they’re not participating raises the question of: Is it because participation would mean they’re accepting the results of the election, which would not sit well with the former president?” the person close to the IOP said.

Brad Parscale, who was Trump’s first campaign manager on the 2020 campaign but left before the convention, told POLITICO he hadn’t been invited, and Justin Clark, who was Trump’s deputy campaign manager, said he also hasn’t been invited. Mike Reed, a spokesman for the RNC, said he had “no indication they have reached out to us.”

Four and a half years ago, the IOP hosted a two-day conference on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, 2016, with Republican and Democratic campaign managers, which at one point devolved into a shouting match between the two sides after Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri accused the Trump campaign of fomenting racism.

“If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician, I am proud to have lost,” Palmieri said, referring to former Trump aide Steve Bannon, who did not attend the conference. “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.”

Kellyanne Conway, who was Trump’s third and final campaign manager in 2016, hit back by saying: “Do you think I ran a campaign where white supremacists had a platform?”

Palmieri responded by saying Conway had. To which Conway replied: “Do you think you could have just had a decent message for white, working-class voters? How about, it’s Hillary Clinton, she doesn’t connect with people? How about, they have nothing in common with her? How about, she doesn’t have an economic message?”

The 2016 conference also featured a dinner panel where Jeff Zucker was heckled by top aides from a number of unsuccessful Republican campaigns, who accused the CNN chief of granting Trump too much unfiltered air time.

The makeup of this year’s conference has been “very much debated” within the institute, according to a person familiar with the discussions — with some participants expressing concern about the potential backlash to Harvard from hosting Trump officials.

Harvard’s IOP has been the subject of controversy in the past for its dealings with Trump allies. Six days after the Jan. 6 insurrection, Harvard Kennedy School Dean Doug Elmendorf removed Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) from the IOP’s Senior Advisory Committee after she stoked false claims of voter fraud. Stefanik, a 2006 Harvard graduate, had been the subject of a petition signed by hundreds of people affiliated with Harvard demanding the university eject her from the committee.

In 2017, there were also calls by students for Harvard’s IOP to rescind visiting fellowships it had awarded to former White House press secretary Sean Spicer and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

An IOP invite sent to a Harvard Democrats listserv on Tuesday notes that students attending the Democratic campaign manager conference are forbidden from disclosing any of its contents publicly until the release of IOP’s quadrennial report summarizing the event.

“By registering for the conference, you are agreeing to not record any of the webinar, post anything you hear or see on social media, or make public in any way,” the email reads. “The conversations are all ‘off the record’ and are embargoed until the official release of materials by the IOP.”

Continue Reading


‘Rogue city leaders’: How Republicans are taking power away from mayors




An usher holds a sign.

“Next year, if a liberal town … imposes a mask mandate again on businesses throughout the community because of a bad flu virus or the sniffles, everybody would have to abide,” said state Rep. Joseph Chaplik, a freshman lawmaker who is skeptical of the science showing masks help reduce transmission of disease. “If we’re going to give up our freedom and liberties for temporary safety, we’re going to have neither safety nor freedom.”

The strategy used in Arizona has been employed with new intensity by Republicans in states like Texas, Florida and Georgia, where lawmakers over the past year passed legislation preempting the ability of city — and state — leaders to enforce their own regulations. The bigfooting of local officials accelerated as the pandemic turned public health decisions into political minefields, but it also also touched on other wedge issues, like police funding, gun control and climate change.

The move by GOP lawmakers represents a sharp ideological shift for a party that has long championed states rights and local control. Republicans, their influence growing in statehouses and shrinking in cities, see an opening to extend their reach into urban centers. And Democrats, typically the targets of these preemption laws, fear they could be left powerless.

“At the end of the day, we want to give community members the voice to have the policies and laws that they’re voting for local officials to make,” said Brooks Rainwater, senior executive and director for the Center for City Solutions at the National League of Cities, a nonpartisan advocacy group generally opposed to preemption legislation.

“Giving local officials the space is that goal,” he said. “There shouldn’t be these big dichotomies in how policies are being made between state and local.”

As Republicans have maintained a tight hold on the majority of state legislatures, much of today’s preemption battles feature GOP-led assemblies handicapping Democratic-run cities. That dynamic is drawn from the stark partisan divide between statewide and local power: Republicans control 30 state legislatures while Democrats control 64 of the 100 biggest cities in the U.S.

Preemption fights are nothing new. State and local officials have been pitted against each other on what seems like every policy, from soda taxes to minimum wage increases to transgender rights. But in recent years, deep red states have latched onto preemption legislation more and more as a strategy to snatch away power from Democratic city leadership and rally their base.

Take Florida, where the Legislature this session pushed through several major preemption bills, starting with a high-profile “anti-protest” measure as part of the backlash to the Black Lives Matter movement. Buried within the law is a provision checking the ability of counties to redirect funding from police departments and giving the state’s governor the authority to review and reject those budget decisions. Lawmakers also enacted a proposal tightening an existing law forbidding local governments from approving any policies on guns.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, capitalizing on the conservative resistance to Covid-19 protocols, also issued an executive order waiving fines issued to businesses by local governments for violating Covid-related mandates and signed legislation allowing a governor to preempt local emergency rules.

And now, environmentalists took another hit after DeSantis this week signed a law that preempts local government decisions on energy and makes it difficult for cities to reduce fossil fuels by switching to renewable energy.

“It’s like there’s a competition out there for Florida to be the worst of the worst on these awful preemption laws,” said Brooke Errett, a senior organizer for Food and Water Watch Florida who lobbied against the bill.

Supporters say the bill, backed by oil and gas interests, shouldn’t deter cities from setting or achieving clean energy goals and is in fact needed to prevent them from cutting off natural gas used by homeowners or restricting consumer choice on energy.

Opponents don’t buy that. Rep Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) called the bill a “power play” by utilities and the fossil fuel industry at the expense of solar and other clean energy sources.

Preemption bills protecting fossil fuel interests have surged across the country, with legislation recently passing in 15 states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Iowa and Kentucky. Critics say these laws pose a serious threat to combating air pollution and climate change.

Republicans even succeeded in Kansas despite the state having a Democratic governor. Lamakers muscled through an energy bill this session that preempted parts of a town’s plan that set a goal of shifting all community energy use to renewable energy sources by 2035. It became law without Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s signature due to its passage with a veto-proof majority.

Colorado, which has a legislature controlled by Democrats, is going the opposite direction. Democratic lawmakers have been working to undo some of the major preemption laws on the books. They first repealed a state law prohibiting cities from enacting rules about gun ownership. It was proposed in the aftermath of a mass shooting at a King Soopers supermarket in Boulder in which 10 people were killed.

“Communities should be able to decide what are the right policies to keep them safe,” said Colorado Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, who led the bill’s passage.

The state also enacted a law to ban plastic bags and plastic foam containers used in restaurants and retail. It lifts a ban on local governments setting their own plastics regulations that are stricter than the states. From Pennsylvania to California, political clashes around eliminating widespread use of plastic bags and other single-use items have emerged as some of the most contentious preemption fights in recent memory.

Fenberg views Republicans’ aggressive approach to preemption as a “race to the bottom.”

This debate exposes how deep the ideological split is between the two parties. Republicans see themselves as defending personal choice and freedom, while Democrats argue they are actually the ones advancing those same principles by letting communities self-govern.

“Our job is to protect individuals and protect their liberty,” said North Dakota state Rep. Jeff Hoverson, a Republican who shepherded a law restricting state officials’ ability to enforce mask mandates. It was vetoed by Republican Gov. Doug Burgum, but the Legislature overrode it.

“We should be protecting them from not just state government and federal government but local government as well,” he said. “The government needs to have a lot more compelling case than it does to interfere. Really, the S.O.B.’s, they’re wrecking our country.”

Continue Reading