Beyond ‘childless cat ladies,’ JD Vance has long been on a quest to encourage more births

posted in: News | 0

By ADRIANA GOMEZ LICON Associated Press

MIAMI (AP) — Five summers ago, Donald Trump’s running mate JD Vance — then a 34-year-old memoirist and father of a 2-year-old boy — took the stage at a conservative conference and tackled an issue that would become a core part of his political brand: the United States’ declining fertility rate.

“Our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us,” Vance told the gathering in Washington. He outlined the obvious concern that Social Security depends on younger workers’ contributions and then said, “We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths.”

Vance repeatedly expressed alarm about declining birth rates as he launched his political career in 2021 with a bid for the U.S. Senate in Ohio. His criticism then of Vice President Kamala Harris, now the Democratic presidential nominee, and other high-profile Democrats as “childless cat ladies” who didn’t have a “direct stake” in the country have drawn particular attention since Trump picked him as his running mate.

The rhetoric could threaten the Republican ticket’s standing with women who could help decide the November election. But it’s delighted those in the pro-natalist movement that has, until now, been limited largely to policy wonks, tech executives and venture capitalists.

“There’s no question the discussion around family life, childbearing and pronatalism has gotten a lot more popular and gotten media attention because of JD Vance,” said Brad Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and author of “Get Married.” Vance once referred to Wilcox as “one of my favorite researchers.”

Vance’s spokespeople did not respond to messages seeking comment.

An aspiring politician’s war against ‘anti-child ideology’

Vance, who wrote a bestseller about his working-class upbringing, has been clear about making family formation a policy priority. He has suggested ideas such as allowing parents to vote on behalf of their children or following the example of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán of giving low-interest loans to married couples with children and tax exemptions to women who have four children or more.

In a May 2021 interview with The Federalist’s podcast in which he said he was exploring a Senate run, Vance described a society without babies and kids as “pretty icky and pretty gross.”

“We owe something to our country. We owe something to our future. The best way to invest in it is to ensure the next generation actually exists,” he said. “I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.”

Vance has suggested people without children should pay higher taxes than people who have children. That’s the spirit of the existing child tax credit at $2,000 per qualifying child, which Vance has said he’d love to see raised to $5,000. He has also mentioned in interviews he wants to ban pornography for minors, citing it as one of the causes for why people are marrying less and having fewer children.

Related Articles

National Politics |


What to know about Tim Walz’s 1995 drunken driving arrest and how he responded

National Politics |


FACT FOCUS: Trump blends falsehoods and exaggerations at rambling NJ press conference

National Politics |


These six House races are ones to watch in this year’s election

National Politics |


Potential threats to IVF push political novices into election-year advocacy

National Politics |


Trump says he’s ‘entitled to personal attacks’ as he hammers Harris on inflation with grocery props

His anti-abortion views, he has said, are separate from his concerns on birth rates, arguing the procedure is not really driving the decline in fertility.

In several interviews, he’s argued policymakers should make it easier for two-parent households to be able to live on a single wage so that one of the parents can stay home with their children.

“The ruling class is obsessed with their jobs. Even though they hate a lot of their jobs, they are obsessed with their credentials and they want strangers to raise their kids,” he told then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson in 2021. “But middle-class Americans, whatever their station in life, they want more time with their children.”

Vance had a chaotic childhood raised mainly by his grandparents in southwestern Ohio and a mother who battled substance abuse, and her “revolving door of father figures” as he described in his book. He is now married to a trial lawyer he met at Yale Law School. The couple has three young children, who he has said attend preschool. Usha Vance left the law firm where she worked shortly after her husband was chosen as Trump’s running mate.

Declining births in an aging America

The U.S. was one of only a few developed countries with a fertility rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself — about 2.1 kids per woman. But the number has been sliding since 2008 and in 2023 dropped to about 1.6, the lowest rate on record.

Earlier this year, Vance cited fertility rates in arguing against American support for Ukraine.

“Not a single country — even the U.S. — within the NATO alliance has birth rates at replacement level. We don’t have enough families and children to continue as a nation, and yet we’re talking about problems 6,000 miles away,” he said.

Vance as well as researchers and experts on the pro-natalist movement also argue that immigrants can’t provide a long-term fix to the decline in birth rates. He has separately blamed immigrants for crime and creating “inter-ethnic conflict.”

Demographers and other experts for years had predicted declining fertility rates would pose challenges for the Social Security system as fewer workers are supporting a growing aging population.

Tech executives such as Tesla CEO Elon Musk and venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who donated millions for Vance’s primary race, have also been vocal about the decline in birth rates.

“We as a nation, as a society, policymakers can’t be neutral on the question of family,” said Oren Cass, who founded a conservative think tank, American Compass, that is closely aligned with the senator.

Cass, a former policy adviser for U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, said he has known Vance for a decade and partnered on several events but said he was not speaking on behalf of the vice presidential nominee. He criticized how progressives have celebrated what he described as a culture of “you do you” and “all choices are equally valid,” when he considered the work of forming a family and raising children an “indispensable foundation” for the country.

“That’s not to say, obviously, that you mandate or criminalize the alternative, but it is to say that we shouldn’t be neutral about it,” he said.

Vance on the defense

Vance’s views on birth rates have contributed to his rocky rollout as Trump’s running mate. Democrats went from labeling Trump and his Republican allies as a collective “threat to democracy” to calling both men “weird,” a strategy that coincided with Vance’s comments coming to light.

Other unlikely critics have also piled on. Trump-backing influencer Dave Portnoy said Vance “sounds like a moron.” Former Republican congressman Trey Gowdy tried unsuccessfully to force an apology out of Vance for his denigrating of childless women on his Fox News show, introducing him with a story about a pair of Catholic nuns he met at an airport.

Actress Jennifer Aniston, who has been open about her fertility issues, weighed in by saying she hopes Vance’s daughter does not face the same problems and she “truly can’t believe that this is coming from a potential VP of the United States.” Vance responded by calling her Instagram reaction “disgusting.”

Trump has come to his defense, accusing Democrats of spinning things and expressing empathy for people who don’t get married or have children and are “every bit as good.”

“He likes family. I think a lot of people like family. And sometimes it doesn’t work out,” Trump said in one interview. “But you’re just as good, in many cases a lot better than a person that’s in a family situation.”

Vance’s wife has also tried to do some damage control, saying Vance was not referring to those who struggle with fertility or can’t get pregnant for medical reasons, though the ideas he proposes don’t make that distinction.

“The reality is he made a quip in service of making a point he wanted to make that was substantive,” Usha Vance told an interviewer on “Fox and Friends.”

Can Vance advance this?

Wilcox, the author of “Get Married,” said JD Vance now needs to focus on convincing a broader audience that his ideas are worth pursuing.

“The challenge for JD Vance is taking that attention and translating it into more of a concrete policy agenda that would be compelling to ordinary Americans and articulating a clear and positive agenda around making family formation both more affordable and more appealing,” Wilcox said.

Supporters at a recent Trump rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, shrugged off Vance’s assertion that parents should have more of a vote than childless adults and expressed complicated feelings about his views.

Kenneth “Nemo” Niemann, 70, said Vance might be speaking figuratively about giving parents more votes. His wife, Carol, 65, disagreed, saying Vance has been crystal clear that that is exactly what he means.

The Niemanns had children later in life — their twins are 16 — and they spent far more of their adult lives as childless adults. And while they talked about how adults with children can have more to say when it comes to policies affecting children or they can have a different worldview about the future than childless adults, they still disagreed with Vance.

“My sister never had children, but I can’t imagine my vote means more than hers,” Carol Niemann said.

Associated Press writers Michelle R. Smith in Providence, Rhode Island, Mike Schneider in Orlando and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as well as Associated Press researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York, contributed to this report.

What to know about Tim Walz’s 1995 drunken driving arrest and how he responded

posted in: Politics | 0

By STEVE KARNOWSKI Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Now that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is Vice President Kamala Harris ‘ running mate, his drunken driving arrest from 1995 in Nebraska — long before he entered politics — is getting renewed scrutiny.

Walz was a 31-year-old teacher when he was stopped the night of Sept. 23, 1995, near Chadron, Nebraska. He pleaded guilty in March 1996 to a reduced charge of reckless driving.

Here’s a look back at what happened, and the aftermath as Walz embarked on a political career a decade later, and last week joined the Democratic presidential ticket:

The case

According to court records, a Nebraska state trooper clocked Walz going 96 mph in a 55-mph zone. The trooper wrote that he detected a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Walz failed field sobriety and preliminary breath tests.

He was taken to a hospital for a blood test and was booked into the Dawes County Jail. A transcript of his plea hearing on March 13, 1996, quotes the prosecutor as saying his blood test showed an alcohol level of 0.128%, compared with a legal limit of 0.10%. Walz’s attorney told the court Walz thought someone was chasing him because the trooper came up fast and didn’t turn on his red lights right away.

Related Articles

National Politics |


FACT FOCUS: Trump blends falsehoods and exaggerations at rambling NJ press conference

National Politics |


These six House races are ones to watch in this year’s election

National Politics |


Potential threats to IVF push political novices into election-year advocacy

National Politics |


Trump says he’s ‘entitled to personal attacks’ as he hammers Harris on inflation with grocery props

National Politics |


Climate change is a defining issue for young voters. Neither Harris nor Trump are doing enough, they say.

The defense attorney acknowledged that Walz had been drinking but argued for a fine, saying his blood alcohol level was “relatively low.” He also noted that Walz was a teacher at a local high school and “felt terrible about this, was real disappointed, I guess, in himself.”

He said Walz reported the incident to his principal, resigned from his coaching position and offered to quit his teaching job “because he felt so bad.” He said the principal talked him into staying on as a teacher, and that Walz was now telling students about what happens if one gets caught for drinking and driving. Walz lost his license for 90 days and was fined $200.

Walz has said he quit drinking alcohol after his arrest. He now prefers Diet Mountain Dew.

The incident surfaces

A Republican blogger surfaced some court documents in 2006 when Walz made his first run for Congress, in which he ultimately upset incumbent Republican Rep. Gil Gutknecht. A few news outlets in the southern Minnesota district did stories, but it didn’t become a big issue in that campaign. It went largely forgotten until Walz ran for governor in 2018, when it got a mention in a broader profile by the Star Tribune of Minneapolis. He told the newspaper it was a gut-check moment, and an impetus to change his ways. His wife, Gwen, recalled to the newspaper that she told him: “You have obligations to people. You can’t make dumb choices.”

Distortions

The arrest resurfaced again after Harris picked Walz last week, and Republicans and media outside Minnesota started taking a closer look at his past. The main revelation was that Walz campaign staffers in 2006 gave misleading information to the few news outlets that wrote about it at the time.

His campaign manager told the Post-Bulletin of Rochester that he was not drunk. She said Walz couldn’t understand what the trooper was saying to him because he had a hearing loss from his service in an artillery unit in the National Guard, and suggested that he might have had balance issues as a result. She also falsely claimed that the judge who dismissed the drunken driving charge chastised the officer for not realizing that Walz was deaf.

His campaign spokeswoman made similar statements to KEYC-TV and The Journal of New Ulm, saying, “The DUI charge was dropped for a reason: It wasn’t true.” She claimed he failed the field sobriety test because of his deafness, and that the trooper let Walz drive to a police station and leave on his own.

The court records don’t mention any ear issues and make clear that the trooper took him to jail. The transcript showing that he acknowledged in court that he was drunk apparently didn’t surface until 2022, when the conservative Minnesota site Alpha News reported on it.

The Harris-Walz campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on why his former campaign staffers provided incorrect information.

Walz did have ear surgery in 2005 to remedy his hearing loss.

What do marijuana, the death penalty and fracking have in common? Harris shifted positions on them

posted in: Politics | 0

By BRIAN SLODYSKO, MICHAEL R. BLOOD and ALAN SUDERMAN Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — As California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris successfully defended the death penalty in court, despite her past crusade against it.

As a new senator, she proposed to abolish cash bail — a reversal from when she chided San Francisco judges for making it “cheaper” to commit crimes by setting bail amounts too low.

And now, as vice president and the Democratic presidential nominee, Harris’ campaign insists that she does not want to ban fracking, an oil and gas extraction process, even though that was precisely her position just a few years ago when she first pursued the White House.

Politicians often recalibrate in the face of shifting public opinions and circumstances. Across two decades in elected office and now seeking the presidency for the second time, Harris has not hesitated to stake out expedient and — at times — contradictory positions as she climbed the political ladder. Harris’ litany of policy reversals is opening her to attacks by Republicans and testing the strength of her pitch to voters as a truth-teller who is more credible than former President Donald Trump.

Her shifts, including on matters that she has framed as moral issues, could raise doubts about her convictions as she is reintroducing herself to the public after taking the reins of the campaign from President Joe Biden, who last month dropped out of the race.

In addition to reversing course on fracking and cash bail, Harris has changed tack on issues including health care (she supported a plan to eliminate private health insurance before she opposed it), immigration and gun control.

Related Articles

National Politics |


What to know about Tim Walz’s 1995 drunken driving arrest and how he responded

National Politics |


FACT FOCUS: Trump blends falsehoods and exaggerations at rambling NJ press conference

National Politics |


These six House races are ones to watch in this year’s election

National Politics |


Potential threats to IVF push political novices into election-year advocacy

National Politics |


Trump says he’s ‘entitled to personal attacks’ as he hammers Harris on inflation with grocery props

“She is vulnerable to the charge of flip-flopping, no question about that,” said John Pitney, a professor of political science at Claremont McKenna College in California, who worked as a GOP congressional and political aide in the 1980s. “The trouble for Republicans, to put it lightly” is Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, “do not come to this issue with spotless records.”

In a statement, Harris’ campaign did not address her policy shifts. Instead, a campaign spokesman leaned into her credentials as a San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general to attack Trump.

“During her career in law enforcement, Kamala Harris was a pragmatic prosecutor who successfully took on predators, fraudsters and cheaters like Donald Trump,” said spokesman James Singer.

Trump has changed positions, too

Trump has a well-documented record of falsehoods, shifting positions and outright lies. One of the clearest examples of his penchant for taking all sides of an issue is on abortion, a transition that took him from “very pro-choice” in 1999 to “pro-life” in recent years. He suggested during his 2016 presidential campaign that women who have abortions should be subject to “some form of punishment,” but now says abortion policy should be left up to the states. He has also boasted of appointing three justices to the Supreme Court, paving the way for its landmark 2022 ruling striking down the constitutional right to abortion.

Nevertheless, there is ample incentive for Republicans to attack Harris along similar lines if history is a guide.

Republicans in 2004 savaged then-Sen. John Kerry for voting both for and against the same Iraq War funding bill, which they distilled down to the attack that he “was for it before (he) was against it.” Democrats attacked George H.W. Bush for failing to abide by his “read my lips” vow to not raise taxes.

Such criticism hasn’t always resonated. In 1992, Democratic presidential hopeful Paul Tsongas attacked Bill Clinton, dismissing him days before the New Hampshire primary as a “pander bear” who “will say anything, do anything to get votes.” Clinton defeated Tsongas days later before winning two terms in the White House.

The death penalty

One of Harris’ most pronounced shifts was over the death penalty. During a 2004 inauguration speech after her election as San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris vowed to “never charge the death penalty.” She framed her choice as a moral one.

She stuck to that pledge when a 21-year-old gang member was accused of killing San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris announced that she would not seek the ultimate punishment — a decision condemned by police and some fellow Democrats. At the officer’s funeral, Harris was forced to look on as Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein received a standing ovation when she said the death penalty was warranted.

Harris softened her approach four years later, after launching her campaign for California attorney general. Amid a tightly contested race with Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, a Republican, Harris said she would ”enforce the death penalty as the law dictates.” While other Democrats on the ballot cruised to victory , Harris barely won.

She kept that promise. Her office successfully defended the death penalty in court, arguing she was obligated to uphold the law as the state’s top attorney — even as she refused to enforce a referendum that banned gay marriage.

‘Blood and guts prosecutor’ turned progressive

As district attorney, Harris zealously approached criminal enforcement matters. While still a candidate, she blasted the progressive incumbent, Terence Hallinan, as a “do nothing prosecutor” and called for taking more aggressive steps to police the homeless. Once in office, she pursued the parents of chronically truant students, sought higher bail amounts and aggressively prosecuted drug crimes, earning her the nickname of “Copala.”

When a scandal erupted at the city’s crime lab involving a drug-skimming evidence technician, her office failed to promptly disclose the problem to defense attorneys, as required. She also sought to continue prosecuting the tainted cases, criticized the judge handling the matter as biased and trying to have her removed from overseeing the cases involving the technician, who had often served as an expert witness.

Harris has said she was unaware of issues with the lab, though emails released in a court case show her top deputies knew there was a problem.

“She was a blood and guts prosecutor,” said Bill Fazio, a longtime San Francisco attorney who ran against Harris in the 2003 district attorney’s race. “My history with her is she never gave away cases.”

As attorney general, Harris continued to take hardline stances on criminal justice matters. She appealed convictions that judges had ordered thrown out. Her office fought a court order mandating the release of state prisoners due to overcrowding. She also opposed legislation requiring her office to investigate shootings involving police and declined to back statewide standards for the use of body cameras by local law enforcement.

Once elected to the Senate in 2016, however, Harris jettisoned many of those positions amid speculation she would pursue the presidency. She sought instead to portray herself as a “progressive prosecutor” and proposed sweeping reforms, including abolishing the cash bail system — which her attorneys had defended in court just months before — and imposing a moratorium on the death penalty.

In May 2020, violent protests erupted in Minneapolis over the police killing of George Floyd, a Black man. A police station was torched and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who is now Harris’ running mate, called in the National Guard to help quell the unrest. In the days that followed, Harris took to the social media site Twitter, now known as X, and urged her followers to “chip in” to a bail fund to help those arrested post bond.

It’s unclear if Harris, who tweeted “End money bail” as a presidential candidate, still supports the idea. She abandoned her primary campaign in 2019 and was picked the next year to join Biden’s ticket. Her campaign declined to directly address the question.

“She believes that we need a system where public safety, not wealth, determines who should stay behind bars following an arrest. Anyone who is a danger to society should be detained regardless of how wealthy they are,” said Singer, the spokesman.

‘I did inhale’

Harris also changed positions on two other hot-button issues: marijuana and gun control.

Most Americans live in states where marijuana is legal in some form, and Harris is now the first major party presidential nominee to advocate for marijuana legalization.

But at different junctures of her time in office, she has been an enforcer of cannabis laws and an opponent of legalized use for adults in California.

Though she defended marijuana’s use for medicinal purposes as district attorney, her prosecutors in San Francisco convicted more than 1,900 people on cannabis-related offenses.

In 2010, when she was running to become California’s top law enforcement official, she opposed allowing marijuana sales for recreational use. At the time, she said it would cause confusion in the state’s loosely regulated medicinal marketplace.

When running for reelection as California attorney general, Harris said she did not support legalizing recreational use of marijuana — a position endorsed by her Republican challenger.

By the time she was running for president in 2019, she had reversed course and was even joking about having smoked the drug.

“I did inhale,” she quipped during a radio interview, referring to smoking pot in her college days, twisting a line Bill Clinton used in his 1992 campaign to deflect criticism that he had used the drug.

Earlier this year, she said it’s “absurd” that the federal government classifies marijuana as more dangerous than fentanyl, and she criticized the federal classification of cannabis as “patently unfair.”

Harris has undergone an “evolution in thought on the issue that is representative of the American public at large,” said Morgan Fox, political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.

With most American adults supporting legalization, Fox said, “it’s not surprising that any particular politician also would.”

Since becoming vice president, Harris has pulled back from her support for mandatory gun buy-back programs, which helped her stand out in a crowded 2019 Democratic primary. Such policies would force millions of gun owners to sell their AR-15s and similar firearms to the government, a proposal that found little support among other Democrats or gun safety advocates.

She now advocates for more moderate and politically popular proposals, including universal background checks on gun sales and “red flag” laws that generally allow family members or law enforcement officers to seek a court order restricting gun access to those posing an immediate risk to themselves or public safety.

“She’s a political animal, there’s no question about it,” said Geoff Brown, a former San Francisco public defender who knew Harris during her time as a Bay Area prosecutor. “But you don’t get to be president unless you are one.”

Blood reported from Los Angeles and Suderman reported from Richmond, Virginia.

Maplewood: Memory care community to host ‘world’s shortest’ parade

posted in: Adventure | 0

A Maplewood memory care community will host the “world’s shortest” parade Aug. 27.

Hosted by the Anthem Memory Care facility Elk Ridge at 6 p.m., the parade will span one block and take place at 1700 Beam Avenue in Maplewood.

The event — which is free — will include classic cars, an ice cream truck, a mini zoo with therapy horses, face painting and more.

“This will be an end of summer celebration for our community and a fun event for our residents and families,” said Elk Ridge life engagement director Laura Bidgood, in a statement. “We hope everyone can join us for this brief but vibrant showcase of community spirit, creativity and joy.”

Anthem Memory Care, based in West Linn, Ore., operates and develops memory care communities in nine states.

Related Articles

Things to Do |


St. Paul woman arrested in fatal Maplewood hit-and-run, held pending murder charge

Things to Do |


Ramsey County: A public presentation on the Purple Line project to be held this week

Things to Do |


‘Someone out there knows’: Billboards feature cases of missing Minnesotans

Things to Do |


3M names Otis executive to be new CFO

Things to Do |


3M shares soar after positive earnings forecast from new CEO