InsideSources

Some local headlines of the Betsy DeVos confirmation hearing showed Sen. Maggie Hassan making her mark early in her first term.

“Hassan emerges as fierce critic of Trump’s Cabinet nominees,” reads an article from the Associated Press. Hassan’s questioning of President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of education earned her 15 minutes in the national spotlight after she hammered DeVos on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and school vouchers.

But a look at Hassan’s record shows she has taken advantage of school choice, despite questioning DeVos about it.

Hassan sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) and voted against DeVos’s nomination on Tuesday in a committee vote. The freshman senator, whose son has cerebral palsy, is an expert on public education for students with disabilities. Her son, Ben, went to public high school.

But DeVos has received a significant amount of criticism from Senate Democrats and the media due to her lack of experience in the public school system and for being in favor of school choice and school vouchers. The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) are also against her nomination.

However, six of the 10 Senate Democrats on the HELP committee attended private or parochial schools, or have children and grandchildren attending them, according to information obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group.

Sens. Robert Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Michael Bennet of Colorado sit on the committee and have never attended public school, according to the investigation.

For Hassan, her husband Tom, served as the principal of the elite Phillips Exeter Academy, where their daughter, Margaret, attended, as well. Tom was censured last year for failing to disclose sexual misconduct charges against a faculty member.

Hassan received approximately $10,000 from the NEA during her Senate campaign and the union also spent $1.5 million against her opponent, incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. AFT also spent $4,400 against Ayotte.

“It’s just bizarre to see people who have exercised those school options suggesting that it’s somehow problematic or malicious to extend those options to all families,” said Frederick Hess, executive editor of Education Next, to the Daily Caller.

Hassan’s record on school choice is also revealing. While she was a supporter of public charter schools as governor, she did veto a bill that would enable small school districts to pay tuition, at public or private schools, for students of any grade level if it is not available within their resident district.

On a recent interview with NPR, Hassan reiterated her support for charter schools, but she took issue with DeVos position of a voucher system.

“I am a proud supporter of public charter schools here in New Hampshire, as well,” she said. “But there is a real difference between public charter schools, which can be established working with local communities and educators to fill a particular need in the public school system and provide more alternatives and more choice for learning styles and families – than a voucher system, which diverts money from the public school system, generally and often doesn’t cover the full cost of the private school that the student is attending.”

During DeVos’s confirmation hearing, Hassan also questioned her on her role in her family’s foundation, the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation. While it’s being debated if DeVos was accurate with statements during the hearing about having a role or not, she is also being charged that she and her family have donated extensively to groups which promote the idea that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students must undergo “conversion therapy.”

The claim comes from Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., who cites their large donations to the Focus on the Family group as evidence. Politifact found his claim to be “Mostly False” saying they found indications that the group supports conversion therapy, but there was no evidence that they believe that LGBT students must undergo it.

A recent report by The New York Times, highlights another side of DeVos not seen in public. She has supported her gay friends and advocated for LGBT rights as far back as the 1990s. This shows her coming out in support significantly earlier than a lot of Democrats who are questioning her on these beliefs.

“At that time, two colleagues recalled, she made accommodations for a transgender woman to use the women’s restroom at a Michigan Republican Party call center,” the article states. She also used her political connections to help persuade other Michigan Republicans to sign a brief urging the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015, though she did not sign it herself.”

“This aspect of Ms. DeVos’s personal story is not only at odds with the public image of her and her family as prominent financiers of conservative causes, but it also stands out in a nascent administration with a number of members who have a history of opposing gay rights,” the report continued.

Hassan has been a champion for LGBT rights in New Hampshire, dating back to her time in the state Legislature. In June 2016, she issued an executive order that banned discrimination in state government based on gender identity.  

However, her colleague, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, hasn’t always been supportive of LGBT rights. Shaheen has announced that she will vote “no” on DeVos’s nomination.

As governor, Shaheen initially opposed same-sex marriage. After Vermont signed into law a “civil union” bill in 2000, Shaheen said she didn’t support it.

“I believe that marital unions should exist between men and women,” she said at the time.

However, she came out in favor of marriage for same-sex couples in 2009 and became a sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act in the U.S. Senate. She also voted in favor of the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military and supported government recognition of same-sex spouses of military members and other government personnel.

Although Hassan and Shaheen didn’t mention DeVos’s stance on LGBT student rights when they said they wouldn’t vote in favor of her nomination, it is interesting to note the differences in time of support between them of LGBT causes.

Shaheen agrees with Hassan, saying that DeVos is “unqualified” to be the next secretary of education. The full Senate is expected to vote on DeVos’s nomination on Thursday.

Congressional Republicans introduced a measure Wednesday aimed at making union dues voluntary for everyone across the country.

Federal law currently allows states to decide on their own whether they want to be right-to-work. The policy outlaws mandatory union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Republican representatives Joe Wilson and Steve King introduced the measure in the hopes of making the law national.

“Our bill would protect workers by eliminating the forced-dues clauses in federal statute,” Rep. Wilson said in a statement provided to InsideSources. “Right-to-work states, like South Carolina, have seen first-hand that job creation and economic growth comes from expanded freedoms.”

Kentucky became the most recent state to pass right-to-work following 26 others. Those in support argue the policy merely gives workers a choice while creating a more business friendly environment. The National Right to Work Committee (NRTW) has been at the forefront of supporting the policy.

“Voluntary association is a quintessential American ideal, and the case for Right to Work has always rested on the principles of employee freedom,” NRTW President Mark Mix said in a statement provided to InsideSources. “But passage of a National Right to Work law will also pay economic dividends.”

Democrats, labor unions and other critics, however, warn it could undermine worker rights. They argue it hampers how effective unions are at negotiating with employers, which allows them to lower wages, benefits and workplace standards.

“By many measures, quality of life is worse in states with right to work laws,” the AFL-CIO claims on its website. “Wages are lower, people are less likely to have health insurance and the necessary resources for a quality education, poverty levels are higher as are workplace fatality rates.”

Research has been fairly mixed when it comes to what impact right-to-work actually has on workers. The Economic Policy Institute found the policy results in decreased wages and benefits. The Heritage Foundation, however, found wages and benefits in right-to-work states aren’t actually less when you adjust for the cost of living.

Unions have often attacked right-to-work as a means of destroying the labor movement. The policy, however, usually only causes a decline in membership within the first year before it bounces back to a consistent level. Union behavior and changes to the local economy are likely the primary reasons unions membership bounces back.

The passage of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act first allowed states to decide whether they want to be right-to-work or not. Americans overwhelming support the policy despite its very adamant opponents. Gallup found in a 2014 poll the policy has 71 percent support. The same poll showed unions were generally supported as well but at only 53 percent.

A national right-to-work law would have a huge impact and is likely to face fierce opposition. Nevertheless, Republicans hold a congressional majority, making its passage a possibility. President Donald Trump has already noted his support for right-to-work laws.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

During the seven-hour hearing for Frank Edelblut’s nomination as the state education commissioner, there were several comparisons of the former state representative to Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of education.

Edelblut is to NH as DeVos is to US. We can do so much better on both levels. #nhpolitics

— Gerald W.R. Ward (@wardports) January 31, 2017

Both DeVos and Edelblut have little experience with the public school system. They are both strong supporters of school choice.

While Edelblut is a product of public schools himself, he and his wife homeschooled their seven children. Edelblut did receive his bachelor’s degree in business at a public institution, the University of Rhode Island, and eventually received a master’s in theological studies at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.

Since 2009, Edelblut has served on the board of the Patrick Henry College Foundation, which is partnered with the evangelical Christian college in Virginia. This affiliation became a contentious point during his hearing between Edelblut and Democratic Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky of Concord. According to the college website, affiliates of the school must attest to a “Statement of Biblical Worldview” and follow “God’s Creative Works,” which is the belief that God created humanity and started with Adam and Eve as the basis for human ancestry.

“You will be the chief educator to whom all of the science teachers in our state will report,” Volinsky said. “Do you subscribe to this such that the science teachers need to worry about whether you will require creationism to be taught alongside evolution?”

Edelblut said he believes “there are other understandings of human origins.”

“And finally, as the commissioner of education, I will not have jurisdiction or responsibility for the development of curricula,” he said. “That I believe remains in the domain of the science teachers and the local school boards.”

And that’s where advocates for Edelblut believe that his lack of public education experience could be one of his biggest strengths.

With Gov. Chris Sununu’s nomination of his former Republican gubernatorial primary rival (Edelblut came in a close second, only losing by about 800 votes), it signals a departure from previous state education commissioners, who all had some sort of public education experience. It was a point Volinsky wanted to make, by reading the resumes of every education commissioner for the past 40 years.

But Sununu doesn’t want another career educator in the driver’s seat. He wants Edelblut, a businessman, to be in charge of this billion dollar industry. Many opponents don’t like that he’s against Common Core and is pro-charter schools. And they say he’s looking to “destroy public education.”

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “I want to see public education work well for all students. My job will be to implement the policies of the state board of education.”

The state board of education sets policy, curriculum, and standards for the public schools in the state. While the state education commissioner plays a role in the process, it’s ultimately not up to him to make those decisions.

Edelblut said he supported outgoing education commissioner Virginia Barry’s focus on “personalized learning.”

“Home education is personalized learning,” he said. “It recognizes that each individual student is unique, that they develop differently and at different paces.”

The same sentiments could be found in DeVos’s confirmation hearing earlier this month.

“Parents no longer believe that a one-size-fits-all model of learning meets the needs of every child,” she told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. “And they know other options exist, whether magnet, virtual, charter, home, faith-based or any other combination.”

DeVos attended a private high school in Michigan and also received a bachelor’s in business from Calvin College. Her four children all went to private school and although she has never worked in a school, she is very philanthropic toward school systems that she personally supports. She backs school choice and school vouchers, allowing students to attend private schools with taxpayer support.

DeVos has been one of the most contentious cabinet nominees for Trump. But it can be argued that Trump and Sununu are looking at education in a similar manner. Trump sees DeVos as a strong advocate for school choice and able to use the budget for the education department to make education better for all students.

Both DeVos and Edelblut don’t necessarily have that much power when it comes to changing policy in the positions they will likely hold. They help set the agenda, but ultimately, any changes go through Congress and the states, and in New Hampshire, that means through the state board of education and the Legislature.

It’s no surprise that Trump and Sununu are facing a lot pushback on their respective nominees for education. After all, Sununu was one of Trump’s supporters during the presidential race, his support never wavering. But many supporters of the two politicians appreciate the comparison of Edelblut and DeVos. They both symbolize change and a departure from the Democratic “status-quo,” they have felt for the past eight years in D.C. and 12 years in the Granite State.

The people of New Hampshire should expect more similarities between the federal government and New Hampshire (or with Sununu and Trump) to pop up during the next two years.

 

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

President Donald Trump’s pick for labor secretary has been denounced by critics for mistreating his own employees, but supporters Tuesday argued the opposite is true.

CKE Restaurants President Andy Puzder was nominated Dec. 8 to become the next labor secretary. The Fight for $15 movement has launched protests, claiming his own employees oppose him. Republican lawmakers, supporters, and a handful of people working for franchises of CKE brands countered the critics at an event on Capitol Hill.

Puzder oversees several franchise chains including Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s. The Employment Policies Institute (EPI), a conservative advocacy group, hosted the event to make the case the opposition doesn’t reflect reality. Franchise employees at the gathering contested that they are happy with where they work.

“The manager now, that I have, she gives me flexible hours, so if I need to go to an awards assembly for my children, I know that I can,” said Carl’s Jr. employee Cherie Abarquez. “She works with me when it comes to my children. She’s always been that way. It’s an awesome place to work. I love being there.”

There were only a handful of employees, however, that attended the hearing. EPI Research Director Michael Saltsman argues the group reflects a much larger consensus. EPI released a survey Jan. 10 which showed that employees at those franchises are generally satisfied with their jobs.

“What we’ve seen from the survey of employees is that their stories are special, but they’re not unique,” Saltsman said at the event. “We’ve seen from talking to employees at Carl’s Jr. and Hardy’s franchises around the country that there’s broad satisfaction with the workplace, that they feel safe and respected.”

The survey found that 92 percent of employees agree that Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s are great places to work. The Fight for $15 movement, however, argues the employees actually oppose Puzder and his stance on numerous workplace issues.

“The next four years are going to be about low pay, wage theft, sexual harassment, and racial discrimination,” Fight for $15 states on its website. “He opposes the minimum wage. He thinks workers are overprotected. He is against unions. He even said he wants to fire workers and replace them with machines.”

Puzder isn’t completely opposed to the minimum wage, despite what many critics have contested. He does oppose the $15 minimum wage but isn’t outright opposed to moderate increases. Dwyer Group Chairwoman Dina Dwyer-Owens notes he expressed similar views while serving on the International Franchise Association board.

“He was one who, in discussions, was certainly open to increasing the minimum wage,” Dwyer-Owens said during the event. “I think he has very specific ideas on how best to do that because it can also cause many challenges.”

The Fight for $15 movement launched its largest protest against the nominee Jan. 12. It reported that franchise employees from across the country participated in it by rallying outside their place of work. Saltsman believes the protests and opposition don’t reflect the overall consensus among the franchise employees.

“This isn’t unique to the restaurant industry, I’m sure within the halls of Congress there are a couple people working who may not love their jobs,” Saltsman said. “But I think the important takeaway is that those voices don’t define the Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s brands.”

The Fight for $15 movement has been aggressively opposed to the nomination, but it’s not Puzder’s only critic. The Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, a union advocacy group, released its own survey Jan. 10 that found franchises of CKE brands are rampant with sexual assault and over staffing.

Democratic lawmakers and labor unions have been particularly opposed to his nomination. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka argued during a press call Dec. 22 that the president has already betrayed his promise to the working class by picking Puzder.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), however, is leading a coalition urging his approval. A letter was signed by 17 free-market organizations that hope he can bring balance to the Department of Labor. His supporters have argued the department has become overly politicized and has overregulated the economy.

The Senate is scheduled to hold a hearing next week to determine whether his nomination will be approved. Puzder, if approved, would be the top federal official for enforcing and issuing workplace policies. He would play a key role in shaping the economy and the national workforce.

The Fight for $15 movement did not respond to a request for comment.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

President Donald Trump sparked protests that continued on into Monday after signing an executive order which prohibits travel from several Muslim-majority countries.

Trump and his administration argued the temporary travel ban is designed to protect the country. Those opposed see it as religious discrimination and an overreach of executive powers. The order was signed Friday sparking national protests. The protests continued into the week with many gathering Monday outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I’m just coming in solidarity with a lot of things I’ve been discussing with friends and family,” Chase Williams, a protester, told InsideSoruces. “To me, America is a place that is welcoming, it’s a place that already heavily vets refugees, it’s a place that places a premium on helping the least of those. That’s what brought me out here tonight. ”

“It warms my heart that this much humanity came out to standup for immigrants and refugees,” Rudi Riet, a protester, told InsideSources. He adds the executive order “seem to go counter to everything America has stood for over the years. It’s as if the president didn’t read the words that are at the base of the Statue of Liberty which was in his front yard.”

The executive order temporarily bars citizens from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. It came suddenly resulting in 109 travelers from those countries being detained. They were already in transit on their way into the country when the order was signed. For some protesters, the order came as a personal blow.

“I’m a first generation Iranian-American and my parents both became citizens during my adult life and both of them met in the United States as non-citizens so its an issue that’s dear to my heart in a way,” Maramany, a protester, told InsideSources. “From a personal standpoint, I’ve grown up always feeling life a hyphenated American, and so this kind of enforces those personal feelings.”

Federal Judge Ann Donnelly issued an emergency stay Saturday by stating travelers who have already arrived with a valid visa could not be deported. Protesters over the weekend quickly converged onto airports and cities from across the country. The New York Post reports that everyone detained has since been released.

“I think what Donald Trump is doing goes against what the country should stand for,” Maramany said. “It’s definitely startling to a lot of people and I think it makes a lot of people kind of alarmed because this country, I think, should feel like a beacon of hope for everyone.”

Many protesters believe the executive order goes against what the country stands for. Several courts have issued a partial or complete stay on the order as its legality comes into question. Congressional Democrats have urged the administration to obey the courts and are looking to pass a law to reverse the order.

“It’s just frustrating,” Michael Broyles, a protester, told InsideSources. “I know a lot of people that are being affected by this personally and it’s just not looking good. I think a lot of these people are fed up already with how things are going with this administration.”

Trump and his administration argued Sunday that the order isn’t designed to discriminate against Muslims. They instead state its targeted towards countries known for terrorism. The administration plans to lift the ban once it can properly vet travelers from those regions.

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border,” Trump said. “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Trump added that former President Barack Obama issued a similar ban in 2011. He notes the seven countries included in the executive order have previously been identified by the last administration as sources of terror. Critics have pointed out the ban leaves out several countries where terrorists have actually come from.

“The places they are banning are cherry-picked countries,” Broyles said. “Part of it seems to be business interests on Mr. Trump’s part but it seems, just in general, it just doesn’t add up.”

The protests are showing no signs of slowing down with more rallies scheduled over the coming week. It marks the latest in a series of protests the president has faced since first being elected and even throughout his campaign.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Americans generally hold a favorable view of labor unions, despite declining membership rates, according to a new poll.

Labor unions are designed to help workers negotiate with employers through collective action. Their membership rates, however, have been in decline over the decades as the national workforce has changed. The Pew Research Center found union favorability has been on the rise and now sits at 60 percent.

“About six-in-ten adults today have a favorable view of labor unions,” the analysis stated. “The public’s opinions of corporations and unions were largely positive throughout the early 2000s, but turned more negative during the Great Recession. Today, favorable opinions of each are at their highest levels in nearly a decade.”

The poll also found that corporations are generally viewed favorably, as well, but at only 56 percent. Public opinion for both unions and corporations has grown from 48 percent since March 2015. Democrats are far more likely to hold a favorable view of labor unions.

“Republicans and Democrats have long been divided in their views of labor and business, and that remains the case today,” the poll stated. “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are much more favorable toward labor unions than business corporations, while the inverse is true for Republicans and Republican leaners.”

Democrats polled reported a 76 percent favorable view of labor unions. Republicans only hold a 44 percent favorable view of unions. Younger adults and lower income earners are also more likely to have a favorable view of labor unions compared with corporations.

“Households earning less than $30,000 a year also are more favorable toward labor unions than business corporations,” the poll stated. “There are no significant demographic differences among Democrats in views of labor unions, but Republicans are divided along age, educational and ideological lines.”

Nevertheless, the improving labor union favorability doesn’t seem to be translating to membership rates. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday that union membership hit a record low last year at 10.7 percent. The record low rate follows decades of decline.

Former President Barack Obama worked to reverse the trend when he was in office. He argued numerous times that unions are critical to protecting workers. His administration implemented many regulations to help bolster the number of unionized workers but the trend continued.

Some opposed to his workplace agenda have contested it helped unions at the expense of workers. President Donald Trump has not been as welcoming to labor unions despite building his platform around workers. His promises aim more at helping workers through overall economic expansion and protectionism.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

A coalition of free-market groups sent a letter Monday urging the Senate to approve President Donald Trump’s pick for labor secretary.

CKE Restaurants President Andy Puzder was nominated Dec. 8 to lead the Department of Labor (DOL). He was immediately attacked by some lawmakers and unions for his lack of government experience and conduct as an employer. But a coalition of groups, led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is urging his approval.

“We believe a change of labor policy at the federal level is crucial to encourage job creation and spur economic growth,” the letter stated. “Andrew Puzder would bring a welcome, fresh perspective to the U.S. Labor Department that our country needs.”

Former President Barack Obama and his administration issued numerous regulations aimed at protecting workers. Those opposed have argued the regulations have overwhelmed employers, hurting workers in the process. Puzder operates several franchise chains and has been an outspoken critic of the regulations.

“Over the years, he has warned about the harmful impact of overly burdensome workplace regulation, and his firsthand experience dealing with those burdens should prove invaluable in identifying and targeting regulations that do more harm than good,” the letter stated.

The letter was signed by 17 free-market organizations including Americans for Tax Reform, FreedomWorks, the Freedom Foundation, and the Center for Individual Freedom. It was addressed to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee.

“American workers need a Labor Secretary with real-world experience creating jobs and opportunities, and we believe Andrew Puzder will fulfill that role,” the letter concluded. “By making sure the Labor Department promotes deregulatory policies, Andrew Puzder can foster and encourage the business formation that makes job creation possible.”

Puzder supporters see his nomination as a way to bring balance back to the Labor Department. The letter notes that during the previous administration the department imposed $55.7 billion in regulatory costs on employers. It adds that during that time gross domestic product growth averaged less than two percent, while an increased number of people dropped out of the labor market.

Obama has argued the goal was to strengthen worker rights and protections. He stated numerous times during his time in office that unions are critical to protecting workers. Critics have contested the regulations actually helped unions at the expense of workers.

Nevertheless, Puzder isn’t without critics who have painted him as a sexist who mistreats his employees. Democratic lawmakers and union leaders have been particularly critical of the nominee. The union-backed Fight for $15 movement has even held protests which apparently included employees that work for his franchises.

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka argued during a press call Dec. 22 that the president has already betrayed his promise to the working class by picking Puzder. Murray is currently the ranking Democrat on the Senate HELP Committee.

The HELP Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing next week to determine whether his nomination will be approved. Puzder, if approved, would be the top federal official for enforcing and issuing workplace policies. Obama, for instance, initiated much of his economic agenda through department regulations.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

After President Donald Trump issued his immigration executive order on Friday, which put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria and six other countries, New Hampshire’s congressional delegation was quick to respond.

But for some of the Democratic lawmakers, their statements are at odds with their previous rhetoric and voting records.

Before getting into their statements, it’s important to reiterate what Trump’s executive order entails. You can read guides from USA Today and Reuters. But here’s the quick highlights:

1. His executive order suspends all refugee entry for 120 days.
2. It indefinitely suspends entry by Syrian refugees.
3. The order blocks for 90 days all immigration of citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, which are Muslim-majority countries.

Since he announced his executive order, Green Card holders and permanent residents of the United States have been detained at airports, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the order, and protests have erupted at airports across the country. Trump’s administration has made it clear that the immigration ban would not apply to Green Card holders.

Sen. Maggie Hassan probably has one of the most unclear records when it comes to immigration and Syrian refugees. Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Hassan became the first Democratic governor in the country to call for a pause in Syrian refugee resettlement.

“The governor has always made clear that we must ensure robust refugee screening to protect American citizens, and the governor believes that the federal government should halt acceptance of refugees from Syria until intelligence and defense officials can assure that the process for vetting all refugees, including those from Syria, is as strong as possible to ensure the safety of the American people,” said Hassan’s spokesman at the time.

And she never wavered from that position throughout the extremely close campaign against Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte was known for being a foreign policy and immigration hawk.

But now, it seems Hassan is singing a different tune. She called Trump’s executive order “un-American” and her office said that she never supported an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

“Senator Hassan believes we can strengthen the vetting process for all entryways into the country while staying true to the values that make America the greatest country on earth. She never has and never will support a policy like what the President has put into place with this executive order, which is a backdoor Muslim ban and religious test that goes against American values. Senator Hassan will work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reverse this un-American executive order that will make America less safe,” her office said in a statement to WMUR.

“Senator Hassan strongly opposes this un-American and dangerous executive order which includes an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, something that the Senator has never supported,” her office added. “The Senator believes that we can strengthen the process for all entryways into the country while remaining true to our values and engaged in addressing this humanitarian crisis.”

So while that statement is technically correct, since she only supported a “temporary halt” in Syrian refugees, not an indefinite ban, some people are wondering where she really stands on the issue. Was she reacting to the Paris attacks with what she thought was the best decision or was she pandering to voters on her right? It’s still unclear.

@SenatorHassan yes or no? Do you support a ban on Syrian Refugees as you previously said you did? #MuslimBan #nhpolitics #NHpolitics

— Winston Smith (@RumpoleinUSA) January 30, 2017

Rep. Annie Kuster also has an interesting position on Syrian refugees and immigration policies.

Kuster called for a broad expansion of former President Barack Obama’s administration’s program to bring Syrian refugees to the United States before the Paris attacks. She joined other House Democrats in signing a letter to Obama, calling on him to increase the number of refugees to be allowed in the United States to 200,000 by the end of 2016.

But after the terrorist attacks, Kuster didn’t mention anything about bringing in more Syrian refugees. She actually voted with Republicans for a stronger vetting process.

“I am fiercely protective of our national security and believe we must be tough and smart in pursuing policies that protect Americans both at home and abroad,” she said in a statement. “As we work with our allies to defeat ISIS without endangering American lives in another civil war, we must maintain and expand rigorous screening and security checks for any Syrian refugee fleeing terrorism by seeking to enter our country.”

She joined 46 other Democrats and all of the House Republicans to pass the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act. The bill expanded the screening process for refugees attempting to enter the United States from Iraq or Syria by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct its own background checks in addition to those conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

In defense of her vote, Kuster told New Hampshire Public Radio that, “it doesn’t pause the program. It doesn’t apply a religious test. It’s a certification that the person does not pose a threat to the security of the United States.”

But Kuster is now the only member of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation that did not release a statement after Trump’s executive order was announced. Instead, she took to Twitter for a very brief statement that didn’t really say if she was for or against the ban.

America can & should be a beacon of hope around the world. Urge @realDonaldTrump to honor the values of inclusion that make us truly great.

— Ann McLane Kuster (@RepAnnieKuster) January 29, 2017

She followed that tweet up later with another one that said, “Not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, we can balance security & compassion. USA founded on freedom from religious persecution.”

Both Kuster and Hassan have brought up religion in their statements, saying they believe his executive order is a religion test as a way to ban Muslims from coming to the United States. That point is still debateable and up for interpretation. There are many media reports that have former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani saying it is a “Muslim ban” as Trump put it.

But other articles say religion already plays a role in federal asylum and refugee law. David French from the National Review has an extensive piece on it and Politifact rated former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s claim that religion plays a role in refugee screenings as “Mostly True.” Obviously, the law leaves much room for interpretation, so expect several legal experts to weigh in on the subject in the coming weeks.

As for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, they both have been the most consistent in their language when discussing Syrian refugee resettlement and immigration.

Shaheen was supportive of allowing more Syrian refugees to come to America during Obama’s presidency and she hasn’t changed her mind after Trump’s executive order.

“We’re among those members of Congress who think that the United States can and should do more, both to try and take in more of the refugees who have been vetted, but also to support — in every way we can — the humanitarian crisis that has been created,” she said in 2015.

After Trump’s announcement, she said in a statement, “This executive order is un-American and grossly inhumane. We are a nation of immigrants and should remain welcoming to all nations and faiths, particularly those who are fleeing violence and oppression. Refugees, from Syria in particular, are fleeing unspeakable terror and hunger, and it’s unconscionable that the United States will no longer provide any of these refugees a safe haven.”

Shea-Porter said the United States should welcome Syrian refugees, but should also ensure they are properly vetted. She voted with House Democrats against a 2013 Republican amendment that would defund Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

“I think we’re very capable of absorbing a certain number of refugees who are fleeing their country for the same reasons that we would,” she said in 2015. “I think we all need to know exactly what kind of vetting is being done.”

She released a very straightforward statement on Saturday rejecting Trump’s actions.

“Our nation’s founders built this nation on dreams of a better, more tolerant society, and now we must stand together and defend and preserve those ideals,” she said. “I call on President Trump to immediately reverse his actions, and I invite all Granite Staters to join me in letting our refugee and immigrant neighbors know that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them as one community.”

 

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

There are 19 groups in New Hampshire that have signed on to completely resist President Donald Trump, and they’re trying to take a page out of the Tea Party’s playbook.

A new national organization called “Indivisible” is going back to the basics: push back against Trump from the grassroots level. The group published a manifesto, essentially a manual on how to resist the Trump agenda, written by former Democratic congressional staffers.

“We examine lessons from the Tea Party’s rise and recommend two key strategic components: A local strategy targeting individual members of Congress; a defensive approach purely focused on stopping Trump from implementing an agenda built on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption,” they wrote.

Indivisible, which has more than 2,400 local groups registered with them, is advising voters to assemble at the local level and have members focus on their respective elected senators and representatives by speaking out at town hall meetings, asking their elected officials questions at local photo-ops and ceremonies, showing up at their district offices for meetings, and overwhelming their phone lines with coordinated calls.

“We can all learn from their [the Tea Party] success in influencing the national debate and the behavior of national policymakers,” the group wrote. “To their credit, they thought thoroughly about advocacy tactics.”

Many progressives are trying to recreate the circumstances that led to a wave of Republican victories in Congress and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, gained more seats in the Senate, and flipped several state legislative seats, mostly campaigning on conservative ideals and anti-President Barack Obama rhetoric. But liberals could find it difficult to implement a similar strategy and might find more success if they work with Trump when possible.

The Democratic Party enters the Trump presidency completely shut out of power, with Republicans in control of the White House, House, Senate, and even most state governments. And they’re already divided amongst themselves with progressives versus moderates, and whether they should oppose Trump or work with him on common interests.

Just after his first week in office, it looks like many Democrats and progressive activists want to resist him at every step. The American Civil Liberties Union already filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order that temporarily bars entry to refugees from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen due to terrorism concerns. A federal judge granted an emergency stay Saturday to stop deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the United States.

But if they continue that mentality, they might run into some trouble in the 2018 midterm elections and even the 2020 presidential election. Even though the party in charge usually doesn’t do well in midterm elections, many House seats will still favor Republican control due to gerrymandering. And Democrats have to defend 10 Senate seats in Republican-controlled states. The political terrain isn’t favorable for them right now.

By refusing to compromise, Democrats may be unable to influence policy even when the president’s agenda aligns with traditional Democratic interests. It’s true that rejecting compromise can reveal internal differences and struggles within the president’s own party, such as with the ongoing Republican debate on repealing Obamacare. More damage could be done by working with Trump and exposing the internal divide in the Republican Party that’s been there since the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

An area some Democrats and Trump could work on together is infrastructure spending, albeit with some disagreements on how to fund it. Trump will almost need Senate Democrats to help get it through Congress. Some of his ideas resemble the “big-government conservatism” of George W. Bush that upset many Tea Partiers. Working out a few deals with Trump could anger some Republicans, and it might do more damage to the president than being vehemently opposed to everything he does.

If the Democrats could unify around that message, they could be in much better shape to retake Congress and the presidency, and ultimately be able to govern themselves and the country better than before.

Uncompromising Democratic opposition is essentially saying the party wants to be more like the Republican Party, by trying to emulate what the Republicans did in 2009. But while the Republicans were “unified” by being anti-Obama anything, they didn’t take the time to rebuild as a party and create a clear message for the base. That was evident by the loss of Mitt Romney in 2012. And now, look at them. They ended up nominating a candidate who barely aligns with their platform. They have full control over the federal government, but they still are struggling to be unified over how to run it, as exhibited by disagreement over many of Trump’s policies.

While it’s understandable that Democrats and progressive activists would want to go about rebuilding their party the same way the Republicans did in 2009, it’s better for their party to engage with Trump in policy debates because those issues are ones they can build a campaign on, and not just on partisan rhetoric.

The Democrats have a prime opportunity to genuinely build their party from the grassroots level up. If the loss of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election taught them anything, it’s that they need to listen to the working class in Middle America again and create a message that appeals not only to their base, but also to disenfranchised voters who feel left out of the system.

It’ll prove to be difficult for them to do that though, especially with some major players on the national stage that see the party going in a different, more radical direction.

Just look at the confirmation hearing battles. Several Democratic senators who are looking to run for president in 2020 won’t vote for anything put forward by Trump out of fear from attacks to their left. John Kelly was confirmed as secretary for homeland security by a vote of 88-11. Some of those “no” votes came from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The more moderate Democrats might feel pressure to vote a certain way in order to follow suit, and especially when the media reports that former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Warren, and Booker voted one way, it could make it seem like the Democrats who don’t fall in line aren’t supportive of the party.

An unpopular Trump could win another four years if the next Democratic presidential leader is too far outside of the political spectrum.

And speaking of leaders, the race for the next chair of the Democratic National Committee is revealing to show how anti-Trump and against compromise the Democratic Party could be. While members of their party were participating in the Women’s March earlier this month, most of the 10 candidates for DNC chair were at a private fundraising conference held by liberal political operative David Brock. The message that could send to grassroots leaders is that the Democratic Party hasn’t learned its lesson from its recent defeat and instead, continues to listen to big money rather than voters.

The latest forums between the candidates have also shown that there aren’t many disagreements between them; they don’t have many new ideas to jumpstart the party, and they all have zero desire to work with Trump.

“That’s a question that’s absolutely ridiculous,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley at one of the forums, when he was asked about working with Trump.

If the Democrats try to imitate the Tea Party movement, don’t create a unifying message for its voters, and resist Trump at every turn, then they’re in for a long eight years.

 

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.