Amy Klobuchar: Democrats are ‘moving forward’ after Biden stepped down from 2024 race
ABC News
(WASHINGTON) — Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D, said Sunday that Democrats are “moving forward” after President Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign and passed the baton to Vice President Kamala Harris.
“This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl on Sunday pressed Klobuchar on comments Biden made, saying that Democrats were concerned that his presence atop the ticket this November would drag down House and Senate candidates. Klobuchar didn’t speculate on what caused Biden to step down from the 2024 presidential race but cast Harris’ candidacy as a turning of the page in the Democratic Party.
“He made the honorable decision, he took the honorable path. And for me, I am not looking in the rearview mirror about who said what, and who hurt whose feelings. For me, this is about, as Kamala Harris has said over and over again, this is about moving forward and not going backward,” Klobuchar said.
“People are interested in moving forward, and they respect President Biden. I love Joe Biden, but we are moving forward as a party and as a nation,” she said.
Klobuchar, like other Democratic lawmakers, expressed excitement about Harris’ candidacy and her selection of Tim Walz — Klobuchar’s state governor — as her running mate, swatting away attacks that the pair is too liberal to defeat former President Donald Trump.
“Kamala Harris is [a] voice of the future, but when you look at what she’s done in her life, she was a prosecutor running the biggest attorney general’s office in the United States of America. She put people behind bars. She went after murderers and rapists. So, they can try to paint her whatever way they want, but that was her North Star for many, many years,” Klobuchar said. “She is not going to let this get to her, and nor is Tim Walz, who was a fantastic choice for vice president.”
Still, Klobuchar had to play some defense for the new Democratic ticket.
Harris has not extensively talked to the media since becoming the presidential nominee, sparking criticism from Republicans — though she did say she hopes to schedule a sit-down interview with a media outlet by the end of the month.
“Twenty-one days, Jonathan, of running for president, before that she did tons of interviews. She’s done interviews with you. She’s done interviews. I’m sure she’s going to do interviews. Just last night in Nevada she talked to the press. I was reading about some of her answers. Look, she is going to talk to the press,” Klobuchar said.
Klobuchar also defended Walz, who found himself facing criticism last week over past comments suggesting he served in combat during his 24 years in the Army National Guard, even though he did not. (In a video clip tweeted out by the Harris campaign last week, Walz tells an audience that he carried guns “in war” while trying to make the case for restrictions on gun access.) Republicans also raised questions over his retirement and whether he knew his unit was going to be deployed to Iraq when he retired to run for Congress.
The Harris campaign said he misspoke about serving in a war zone, and Klobuchar and other Democrats have defended the timing of his retirement, with conflicting reports emerging over whether he was aware of the pending deployment when he made his decision in 2005.
“I think he made the decision that he was going to run for Congress, and that was his decision. He served four years longer than he would have had to serve to retire in the Guard. He stepped down simply because he made a decision to run,” Klobuchar said. “That’s why he stepped down, and it’s completely acceptable.”
(WASHINGTON) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, two previous Democrats, have joined former President Donald Trump’s transition team, the campaign confirmed to ABC News.
“As President Trump’s broad coalition of supporters and endorsers expands across partisan lines, we are proud that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have been added to the Trump/Vance Transition team,” Trump campaign’s senior adviser Brian Hughes told ABC News in a statement.
“We look forward to having their powerful voices on the team as we work to restore America’s greatness,” Hughes continued.
Kennedy, who was until recently Trump’s opponent in the presidential race and a subject of Trump’s name-calling, and Gabbard, the former congresswoman who represented Hawaii and left the Democratic Party after her 2020 presidential run, have both endorsed Trump in the last few days.
It’s not yet clear what roles Kennedy and Gabbard will be playing in the Trump-Vance transition team.
Others leading the transition effort include some of Trump’s family members as well as his major donors, including former U.S. Administrator of the Small Business Administration Linda McMahon, billionaire and Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick, running mate Sen. JD Vance and sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.
Gabbard joined Trump on the campaign trail in Detroit on Monday where she later endorsed him.
She will also join him and moderate a town hall in La Crosse, Wisconsin, later this week. Gabbard has been helping Trump prepare for his first debate against Vice President Kamala Harris on Sept. 10, the Trump campaign previously told ABC News.
After suspending his campaign on Friday, Kennedy endorsed Trump and said he would remove himself from the ballot in states where his presence could hurt Trump.
The New York Times was first to report the new additions to the transition team.
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump is attempting to clean up his vice presidential pick’s resurfaced comments disparaging Democratic officials who don’t have children as “childless cat ladies” with a simple message: Sen. JD Vance “loves family.”
“He’s not against anything, but he loves family. It’s very important to him,” said Trump during an appearance on Fox News’ “Ingraham Angle” on Monday night.
“He feels family is good, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong in saying that,” Trump said.
In an unearthed 2021 Fox News interview, Vance suggested that Democratic failures are due to a lack of biological children, specifically pointing out vice president, and current presidential candidate, Kamala Harris; Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg; and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
His comments immediately sparked a backlash from the politicians he named, as well as women who have struggled with fertility — nothing that Vance himself voted against establishing federal protections for IVF.
Harris’ family, including second gentleman Doug Emhoff’s ex-wife and her stepdaughter, all came to her defense, rejecting the idea that family is only biological. Buttigieg told anchor Kaitlin Collins that Vance shouldn’t comment on other people’s children.
The former president attacked Democrats on Monday, accusing them of taking Vance’s words out of context.
“I think they understand it. No, I think they understand it,” said Trump when asked what his message would be to concerned voters, specifically those without children.
“The Democrats are good at spinning things differently from what they were. All he said is, he does like I mean, for him, he likes family. I think a lot of people like family, and sometimes it doesn’t work out.”
Trump then went a step further, saying Vance’s strong family values are actually an asset to the Trump campaign’s coalition of voters when asked to reassure voters that Vance was “an excellent pick.”
“Well, first of all, he has got tremendous support, and he really does among a certain group of people. People that like families,” Trump said.
The former president, attempting to walk a fine line between supporting his newly minted vice presidential pick while also trying not to alienate voters, went on to say that “in many cases” people without a family are better off than those with one.
“You don’t meet the right person, or you don’t meet any person, but you’re just as good, in many cases, a lot better than a person that’s in a family situation,” Trump said.
Vance has spent his time on the trail cleaning up his comments himself, calling them “sarcastic” while at the same time doubling down on his argument.
“Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment,” Vance said on the “Megyn Kelly Show” podcast last week. “People are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said, and the substance of what I said, Megyn, I’m sorry. It’s true. It is true that we become anti-family.”
Vance’s original comments form 2021 mentioned the “choices” those Democrats had made that led them to be “miserable” and “childless cat ladies.”
While Vance claims Democrats are “anti-family and anti-child,” President Joe Biden and Harris have advocated for the child tax credit. The expanded child tax credit put in place during COVID expired in 2021 after pressure from Republicans and independent Joe Manchin. Democrats continue to fight to bring it back — with Biden calling for it to be put back in place in his FY2025 budget.
Trump also had to defend his own comments, which sparked criticism. Over the weekend while speaking to Christian conservatives, Trump told the crowd they won’t have to vote anymore after four years.
The Harris campaign quickly latched on to those comments, accusing Trump of vowing to end democracy, which the former president swiftly rebuked.
“I said, typically Christians do not vote … Don’t worry about the future, vote on — you have to vote on Nov. 5. After that, you don’t have to worry about voting anymore. I don’t care because we’re going to fix it, and the country will be fixed,” Trump told Ingraham, arguing he hadn’t even heard of the criticism. “If you don’t want to vote anymore, that’s OK. And I think everybody understood it.”
(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday announced he’s pulling a planned vote for the afternoon on a short-term government funding bill.
The measure includes the SAVE Act, which would require individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to vote. Johnson said he will continue to rally support for the act to be included in the spending bill.
“The American people demand and deserve that we do everything possible to secure the elections. That’s what we’ve been saying consistently. That’s what I have heard from the people across the country in 198 cities across 39 states. It’s consistent from coast to coast, north to south,” Johnson said, maintaining his support for the bill. A number of Republican lawmakers have said they oppose the measure, including Reps. Cory Mills, Tim Burchett, Thomas Massie, Jim Banks and Matt Rosendale, among others.
Johnson said he tasked Majority Whip Tom Emmer “to do the hard work and build consensus” on the plan.
“We’re going to work through the weekend on that. And I want any member of Congress in either party to explain to the American people why we should not ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in U.S. elections,” Johnson, R-La., said. “We’re going to work on that issue around the clock because we have an obligation to the people to do it. And that’s what the fight is. That’s what’s important.”
“It’s the most pressing issue right now and we’re going to get this job done,” he added. “No vote today because we’re in the consensus-building business here in Congress. With small majorities, that’s what you do. That’s what I’ve been doing since I became Speaker.”
Johnson can only afford to lose the support of four Republicans on a party-line vote if there are no absences. House Democrats are expected to remain unified against it for the most part. However, moderate Maine Democratic Rep. Jared Golden said he would vote in favor of the bill.
Former President Donald Trump posted Tuesday on his social media platform that if congressional Republicans “don’t get absolute assurances on Election Security,” they should vote against a continuing resolution to fund the government.
The White House, Senate Democrats and House Democrats have all slammed Johnson’s plan to tie the voter eligibility legislation to government funding.
House leaders regularly attach priority items to must-pass stopgap funding bills as a means of pushing through measures their members demand.
Johnson’s opening salvo to address the looming funding deadline likely won’t be a winning solution. But with a narrow majority and conservatives clamoring for the SAVE Act, he will attempt to lay down a legislative marker in the House — and give GOP members legislation to point to on the campaign trail.
Sources said Johnson previously told members that he wanted to hold a vote on his short-term funding plan early this week. It was on the
Pressed if he’d accept a short-term funding bill without any policy riders like the SAVE Act, Johnson has said, “Let’s see if they [White House and Senate] have the guts to tell the American people they want illegals to vote in these elections.”
Senate Democrats have already said the SAVE Act is a non-starter for them, noting that it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote, but Johnson’s move sets up a showdown between the chambers with just months remaining until Election Day.
What is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act?
The SAVE Act, which has the backing of former President Donald Trump and the far-right House Freedom Caucus, is a bill that seeks to expand proof of citizenship requirements to vote in federal elections. It bans states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
The House passed the SAVE Act on July 10 by a bipartisan vote of 221-198, with five election-year vulnerable Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with all Republicans. It’s unclear whether that same support would carry over into Johnson’s planed showdown vote over funding the government.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus calls the bill “extreme and dangerous” and warns it would purge millions of legal voters from state rolls and make it much more difficult for Americans to reregister to vote.
“Let’s call it what it is — this is a direct attack on hard-working families, including Latino communities,” the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said in a statement following House passage of the bill.
During a press briefing last Tuesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called on Republicans to drop the SAVE Act from their funding bill and to instead advance a clean short-term version, called a continuing resolution, or CR.
“We want to see a clean CR,” Jean-Pierre told ABC’s Karen Travers. “That’s what we want to see.”
The administration “strongly opposes” the SAVE Act, Jean-Pierre said. “It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. It’s already illegal.”
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shalanda Young said that “Congressional Republicans are wasting time” when there is a bipartisan path for funding.
“Their 6-month CR approach ignores pressing needs that have real consequences for our defense, our veterans, and our communities,” Young said in a statement last week. “We urge Congress to quickly pass a bill to keep the government open and provide emergency funding for disaster needs across the country, as they have done on a bipartisan basis many times in the past.”
Senate Democrats almost sure to oppose
Johnson’s proposal will set off a fierce fight between the House and the Senate, as Senate Democrats will almost certainly reject the stopgap bill because of the inclusion of the SAVE Act.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray had called it a “poison pill” and a “nonstarter.”
“We’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. Senate Democrats will continue to work in a bipartisan way to ensure we can keep the government funded and deliver responsible, bipartisan spending bills that can actually be signed into law before the end of the year,” Murray said.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not yet outlined a plan for dealing with government funding, but he warned House colleagues against the inclusion of any partisan matters in a must-pass funding bill.
“As we have said each time we’ve had CR, the only way to get things done is in a bipartisan way and that is what has happened every time,” Schumer said in a statement to ABC News.
In floor remarks today welcoming the Senate back from a six-week recess, Schumer on Monday called Johnson’s opening proposal “transparently unserious and seemingly designed for scoring political points instead of avoiding a shutdown.”
The March 2025 extension date proposed by Johnson also is not likely to sit well with Democrats, who may seek a much shorter stopgap that allows them to continue to debate and potentially lock in annual appropriations during the lame-duck session at the end of this year.
Schumer on Monday flatly rejected Johnson’s timeline and called for a bipartisan path forward, suggesting Democrats will hold out for a clean, shorter extension.
Another funding fight
If it feels to you like we just did this, you’re not wrong.
Government funding expires annually at the end of the federal government’s fiscal year on Sept. 30.
Passing annual appropriations for 2024 was especially calamitous. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy lost his job over it. Johnson was installed because of it, but not without also facing threats to his position. Johnson ultimately implemented a never-before-seen two deadline system to help push the ball over the line.
Congress did not complete its work codifying current spending levels until mid-March, blowing months past the annual deadline. By the time all the bills were passed, they only funded the government for about six months.
Once again, the deadline is fast-approaching at the end of the month.
As of Monday, the House had passed five of the 12 individual government funding bills, including for Defense, Homeland Security, Interior-Environment, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and State-Foreign Operations.
House GOP leaders hoped they would be able to clear all 12 bills, but the reality is that there is not enough time to do so.
Right after taking the gavel in October 2023, Johnson said in a letter obtained by ABC News to colleagues that he would not break for August recess until all 12 appropriations bills had passed the House.
“DO NOT break for district work period unless all 12 appropriations bills have passed the House,” Johnson wrote in his first letter as speaker.
That promise was not kept.
Meanwhile, to date, the Senate has not passed a single appropriations bill.
