output.json

{
"2018 Election Key Races":{"title": "2018 Election Key Races", "authors": [], "publish_date": null, "text": "Key Races : House\n\nHouse Senate\n\nCNN's 2018 Race Ratings are based on a number of factors and data points. These include candidate recruitment, fundraising strength, districts' voting history, voter registration data by party and recent voting trends, as well as CNN's political reporting and analysis.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/key-races"},
"Media News – Latest Headlines on CNN Business":{"title": "Media News \u2013 Latest Headlines on CNN Business", "authors": [], "publish_date": null, "text": "What the NFL's TV ratings look like so far this season", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/business/media"},
"How to Watch VR":{"title": "How to Watch VR", "authors": [], "publish_date": "2017-3-4", "text": "IN YOUR HEADSET...\n\nHeadsets are hands-down the best way to watch VR stories. You can see the latest from CNNVR on the Samsung VR app , the Oculus Video app on Rift , or on the CNNVR app on Google Daydream . Just look left or right to explore the 360 world around you. Believe us, you need to try this.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/04/vr/how-to-watch-vr"},
"Trump is disposing of a great American value: concern for human rights":{"title": "Trump is disposing of a great American value: concern for human rights", "authors": ["S.E. Cupp", "Rob Morrow"], "publish_date": "2018-10-13", "text": "S.E. Cupp is a CNN political commentator and the host of \" SE Cupp Unfiltered .\" Rob Morrow is an actor, musician, director and producer. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) America is turning inward, and that's making the whole world a more dangerous place.\n\nThis isn't a neoconservative talking point, but, in our case writing as one conservative and one liberal, a shared concern from the left and the right. The United States, under President Trump, is abdicating an important moral obligation to all democracies by seeming to shrug off the most egregious of human rights violations from both our allies and our enemies.\n\nIn a new interview with CBS , when pressed about the disappearance of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi, a US resident with children living in this country, from the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Trump insisted there will be a \"severe punishment\" for the Saudis if they were responsible.\n\nAt least for now, that punishment does not include withdrawing our official presence at Saudi Arabia's Future Investment Initiative later this month. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin has stated he still plans on attending\n\nBut Trump's latest statement is a welcome - if vague - shift in tone from earlier in the week when Trump seemed to dismiss his possible murder as not our problem . \"It's in Turkey, and it's not a citizen, as I understand it. But a thing like that shouldn't happen.\"\n\nThe \"thing\" that shouldn't happen, of course, is that a journalist was possibly the victim of an extrajudicial killing on foreign soil, at the behest of one of our allied partners, Saudi Arabia, according to US officials. The President's words imply that somehow Khashoggi's fate should be less horrifying because he wasn't an American.\n\nIt's admittedly naive not to acknowledge Saudi Arabia's important role in fighting terrorism in the Middle East and providing stopgap protection against Iranian threats . But that this President seems to believe Khashoggi's citizenship somehow diminishes our responsibility to strongly rebuke the kingdom is deeply disturbing.\n\nWorse, the President's cold calculation of the cost of action -- \"I don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States,\" he said of our arms trade with Saudi Arabia (which thus far has only earned $14.5 billion) -- effectively puts a bounty on dissidents' heads. For $110 billion in weapons, or far less, you can allegedly kill a dissident journalist without so much as a whiff of indignation from the US President. The quantifying of Khashoggi's life is despicable.\n\nIt's also signaling to the rest of the world that the United States will no longer lead when it comes to denouncing human rights violations, or holding the violators accountable, so long as the political or economic calculus favors silence or inaction. But being a shining beacon of democracy for the rest of the world should not only be the privilege but the obligation of our lifetimes.\n\nJUST WATCHED Trump: 'I will be calling Saudi Arabia's King' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump: 'I will be calling Saudi Arabia's King' 01:33\n\nFrom a genocide in Syria that's claimed the lives of half a million people, to a staggering refugee crisis in Myanmar and protests and violence in Venezuela , there is a contagion of humanitarian crises sweeping the globe while the United States has receded into the background.\n\nThe ripple effect is that other countries feel emboldened to act out. Whether that's in the case of Russia, which is widely believed to have extrajudicially murdered ex-spies; or in China, which abducts its own citizens -- most recently an actress and an Interpol chief -- before charging them with crimes after the fact; or in Egypt, where officials were accused of torturing, mutilating and murdering an Italian postgraduate student and dumping his body outside Cairo, to few if any repercussions.\n\nHow can we credibly profess our outrage at Russia, China, Egypt or anyone else when, just one year after the death of American college student Otto Warmbier after being imprisoned by the North Korean government, President Trump welcomed Kim Jong Un with open arms -- and a commemorative coin -- to a show summit in Singapore, where he heaped upon Kim the kind of lavish praise usually denied dictators who starve their own people?\n\nJUST WATCHED Tapper: 'Trump harder on Taylor Swift than Saudis' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Tapper: 'Trump harder on Taylor Swift than Saudis' 01:43\n\nInstead, brutal dictators, despots and war criminals are granted an open ear and open mind from President Trump. He extolls despots and dismisses our democratic allies as weak or unimportant.\n\nThis perverse affinity for strongmen limits America's potential as well as democracy's potential around the world. A strongman rules by fear -- inherently viewing citizens as weak and governments as powerful. Democracy should be the opposite.\n\nWhen America pays lip service but little more to horrors like the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, instead proclaiming convenient but arbitrary loopholes in our moral obligations, we just give the world's worst bullies more ammunition and power.\n\nThere are no loopholes when it comes to basic human rights.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nEvery American, no matter his or her politics or point of view, knows our unique existential gift -- we are our aspirations. So, with the world watching, the question is, to what do we aspire?", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/13/opinions/trump-saudi-journalist-khashoggi-moral-failure-cupp-morrow/index.html"},
"What Democrats need to do to win":{"title": "What Democrats need to do to win", "authors": ["Patti Solis Doyle"], "publish_date": "2018-10-13", "text": "Patti Solis Doyle, a CNN commentator, was an assistant to the President and senior adviser to then-first lady Hillary Clinton, was chief of staff on Clinton's 2000 and 2006 Senate campaigns, and Clinton's presidential campaign manager in 2007 and early 2008. She is president of Solis Strategies, a Washington-based consulting firm that specializes in serving nonprofits, nongovernmental organizations and corporations. Follow her @pattisolisdoyle . The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) During the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump tapped into Americans' anger and frustration with our government, our politics, the media, the banks and the status quo.\n\nAs a campaign operative, I gave Trump a lot of credit for understanding just how angry folks were and having a game plan to manipulate that anger into votes. He beat a formidable field of Republican candidates, then beat the most qualified, most experienced presidential candidate on the Democratic side since, well, ever.\n\nAs he moved through the primaries and into the general election, Trump shifted from tapping into our anger to fueling it. Early in the campaign, he said Mexican immigrants were \"bringing crime. They're rapists\" -- and dominated the news for days.\n\nOver time, he came to identify with the crowds of people he attracted, and they fed off one another. The Donald and the Deplorables became a thing. When protesters disrupted his speeches, Trump urged his supporters to \"knock the **** out of them,\" and said he'd pay their legal fees.\n\nAmid the fistfights and chants of \"Lock her up,\" Trump called out a reporter by name to his angry crowd (and regularly singled out news organizations for derision). As President, he said there were fine people among the white supremacists, some of whom had shouted \"Jews will not replace us\" last year in Charlottesville, Virginia.\n\nAnd now Democrats are angry. Women are especially angry. Some are expressing their anger by running for office. Most of us are voting in record numbers. And millions are protesting, marching, calling, tweeting, posting and screaming at their televisions. It's an advantage, yes, but how Democrats use it now will mean the difference between winning and losing.\n\nIt's no surprise that Trump can dish it out, but he can't take it. He called football players kneeling during the National Anthem \" sons of bitches \" who should be thrown off the field. Now he's calling Democrats \"a mob.\" Yes, the guy who tells his crowds to beat up protesters and reporters is calling us a mob. Well, ain't that a kick in the ass?\n\nSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has picked up Trump's \"mob\" attack approach, accusing Democrats of the \"fact-free politics of hate, fear and intimidation.\" Kellyanne Conway insists Trump has called for civility and that he represents \"all Americans.\" Really?\n\nTrump's self-righteous, hypocritical manipulation of our anger will work again -- at least for some Americans. (Trump's base will believe him, no matter how Democrats behave.)\n\nBut here's the problem: There are a lot of independents out there who are tired of the fighting in general -- and they will blame both sides equally. Losing their votes could cost Claire McCaskill, Beto O'Rourke and Joe Donnelly in their Senate bids. Democrats need to be careful.\n\nMichael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels and potential (he says) presidential contender in 2020, says he thinks he could beat Trump by fighting like Donald Trump. \"When they go low, we hit harder,\" he promises, in a pretty clear rebuke to Michelle Obama's \"we go high\" credo. A strong argument, yet many analysts in both parties argued that his inserting himself into the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process hurt the Democrats' case and helped Republicans.\n\nIn 2016, Hillary Clinton argued we are \"stronger together\" -- and lost. Today, she believes \"you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. ... If we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.\"\n\nRepublicans want to lump Clinton and Avenatti together, but I think there's a difference between being strong (Hillary) and trying to beat Trump at his own game (Avenatti). If you get in the gutter with Trump, no one will be able to tell the difference between the two of you. A three-round mixed martial arts fight between Avenatti and Donald Trump Jr. may be a spectacle to rival one of Trump's press conferences, but really, have we gone that low?\n\nLook at Eric Holder, former US attorney general who is now defending his \"when they go low, we kick them\" statement. Holder is a star in the Democratic Party who was our nation's top law enforcer. Of course, he was not advocating violence with his recent statement at a Georgia rally -- just saying Democrats need to be tough when fighting for principles. In truth, the \"fight like Trump\" style did not work for him and frankly, we should be grateful for that.\n\nSo, what should Democrats do?\n\nFirst, stick to the facts, because they still matter to independents. Focus on Trump's rhetoric, which has divided our country more than any time I can remember. Focus on how the GOP tax cuts helped the rich and passed costs onto our children. Focus on Trump's hard-line attitude toward immigration, which has caused our government to rip children away from their mothers at the border and place them in pens. (There are still more than 200 children who have not been reunited with their parents.)\n\nFocus on how Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs have hurt American manufacturers and strained relations with our allies. Focus on how with Kavanaugh's appointment, Trump has successfully turned the Supreme Court into a conservative political entity for the next generation -- and, in the process, thumbed his nose at victims of sexual assault and harassment everywhere.\n\nSecond, as Democrats have been doing for the last two years, channel anger in productive ways. Protests, advocacy and civil disobedience can be remarkably effective. We've seen how this can energize voters in the special elections that Democrats have already won, and in the incredible over-performance by Democratic voters across the country.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nMaking sure your elected officials know where you, as a citizen, stand is the hallmark of our democracy. But forcing Ted Cruz and his wife out of a Washington restaurant doesn't do anything except garner sympathy for the senator from Texas. However, making your case directly to a pivotal vote in the Senate may result in a long-sought-after FBI investigation of a Supreme Court justice nominee. Such was the case with Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher, who confronted Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona at an elevator in the US Capitol during the Kavanaugh confirmation process.\n\nThird, stay focused on what, in the end, can make the difference. Register to vote. Get 10 friends to register to vote. Knock on doors. Make phone calls. Drive folks to their voting place. And for the love of god, go vote!\n\nFinally, focus on the big picture. Hillary Clinton's \"stronger together\" may not have been the best campaign message, but it's a great philosophy for organizing -- and life. Don't get me wrong, I'm angry. I'm enraged. But I will not let Donald Trump use my anger toward him and his policies to his advantage. Not this time.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/13/opinions/what-democrats-need-to-do-to-win-opinion-doyle/index.html"},
"Brunson case fits with Trump's hostage release foreign policy":{"title": "Brunson case fits with Trump's hostage release foreign policy", "authors": ["Julian Zelizer", "Cnn Political Analyst"], "publish_date": "2018-10-13", "text": "Julian Zelizer is a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University, editor of \" The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment \" and co-host of the \"Politics & Polls\" podcast. Follow him on Twitter: @julianzelizer . The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) The Trump administration has secured the release of another American imprisoned overseas -- North Carolina pastor Andrew Brunson. President Donald Trump denied that a deal was struck with Turkey to let Brunson go after two years, possibly to create the illusion that the United States doesn't strike deals to free hostages. The pastor was to meet Saturday with the President at the White House at a heated moment for foreign policy.\n\nThe allegation that the Saudi Arabian government killed Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi has shaken the White House, which has banked much of its Middle East diplomacy around relations with the Saudi government. Trump has indicated he does not want to end a $110 billion arms deal, but Congress is asking for measures that could lead to sanctions\n\nMeeting with Brunson fits well with the kind of diplomacy that Trump enjoys. Releasing hostages has been one of the most successful parts of his presidency. Indeed, Trump can claim success in a number of high-profile cases, including the release of Aya Hijazi from Egypt, Caitlan Coleman and her family from Afghanistan, and three American hostages from North Korea.\n\nIt is not a surprise that the President has devoted so much of his attention to these releases. For someone who was in this 30s when the failure to free hostages (Jimmy Carter) or the success at doing so (Ronald Reagan) played a big role in the measure of a president, Trump naturally finds himself attracted to this kind of challenge. We're still suffering from a loss of respect that goes back to the Carter administration, when helicopters were crashing into one another in Iran.\n\n\"That was Carter's emblem,\" Trump said in a 1990 Playboy interview . The release of hostages also fits into Trump's businessperson mentality. Unlike the messiness of most diplomatic initiatives, where each side usually has to concede to complex deals that are difficult to package as black or white, freeing a hostage has the simplicity of a Hollywood movie.\n\nPolitically, his ability to free hostages fits into an essential aspect of his presidency: his theatrical style of politics. Trump has a keen eye toward how his efforts look to the public through the lens of television as well as on the video clips that stream through the internet. He invests great effort in doing things that will generate immense media attention and play into a storyline that he hopes to tell about his first term in office. More so than his recent predecessors, Trump is attracted to presidential challenges that will bring immediate big payoffs for him and for the base of his party.\n\nWhile the release of hostages is a major accomplishment that should not be discounted, it doesn't have the kind of long-term, macro-impact that major diplomatic deals are able to bring. And this is a realm where the President has been much less effective thus far. After having devoted little attention to the health and vitality of the State Department as an institution under former Secretary Rex Tillerson, Trump's major efforts in international negotiations have centered around withdrawing the United States from key deals, such as the Iran nuclear agreement or the Paris climate accord.\n\nAlthough he promised a breakthrough with North Korea, thus far the major moment has come with a high-profile summit -- also a made-for-television event -- that has not been accompanied by substantive progress on reducing Pyongyang's nuclear weapons stockpile. The release comes at a time when the administration is losing one of its few diplomatic voices, Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations.\n\nYet Trump's opponents should not underestimate the political impact that freeing hostages can have on the public imagination. Trump saw this firsthand when Reagan enjoyed a huge political bounce after the Iranians released American hostages a few minutes after his inauguration in January 1981 -- even though it was Carter who had spent months negotiating and reaching the terms that were to free those who had been captured in the US Embassy in Tehran in November 1979.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nBut in terms of a president's policy legacy, the ability to craft long-term, durable agreements are really what will make or break his legacy in the history books. Whether one talks about Carter's role in the Camp David Accords of 1979 that brought a long-term peace between Israel and Egypt or Reagan's historic breakthrough with the Soviet Union in 1987 with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the drudgery and messiness of diplomatic negotiations are the stuff that great presidents are made of.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/13/opinions/brunson-trump-diplomacy-opinion-zelizer/index.html"},
"What Trump gets wrong about Medicare-for-all":{"title": "What Trump gets wrong about Medicare-for-all", "authors": ["Steffie Woolhandler", "David U. Himmelstein"], "publish_date": "2018-10-13", "text": "Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., MPH and David U. Himmelstein are both distinguished professors at The City University of New York's Hunter College, primary-care doctors in the South Bronx, and lecturers in medicine at Harvard Medical School. The views expressed in this commentary belong to the authors. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) President Trump's critique of \"Medicare-for-all\" reform assaults the truth. Contrary to his claims, the single-payer bills in the House and Senate would upgrade coverage and broaden choice for seniors, along with the rest of Americans. And Medicare-for-all would slow the growth of medical costs, assuring Medicare's long-term financial health.\n\nMedicare currently leaves many seniors facing unaffordable medical bills. According to estimates from the Commonwealth Fund, the average enrollee spends $3,024 out of their own pockets on medical bills each year, and medical costs eat up more than 20% of total income for one in four seniors.\n\nTo escape some of those costs, many seniors are fleeing to private Medicare Advantage plans that restrict their enrollees to narrow networks of doctors, and often exclude cancer centers and other top-tier hospitals. But the trade-off might not be worth the savings, since the average person enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan is still saddled with $2,472 in uncovered medical bills.\n\nMedicare-for-all would plug these coverage holes, eliminating virtually all copayments, deductibles and uncovered services. It would also free seniors to choose any hospital and any doctor, and spare doctors from the managed care paperwork and restrictions on referrals imposed by Medicare Advantage plans, freeing up more time to spend with patients.\n\nThe President's claim that Medicare-for-all would break the bank rests on a study by the Mercatus Center, which receives funding from the conservative Koch brothers. But Trump leaves out the fact that even the Mercatus study concluded that a single-payer reform would actually reduce medical spending by $2 trillion over 10 years ; the federal government's health spending would rise, but spending by employers, state and local government, and families would fall by an even larger amount.\n\nJUST WATCHED Ocasio-Cortez: Medicare for All not just 'pie in the sky' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Ocasio-Cortez: Medicare for All not just 'pie in the sky' 11:12\n\nThe bottom line of the Mercatus study (which probably underestimates single payers' savings), and many others is that single-payer reform would lower costs for the vast majority -- including seniors -- and avert the funding crisis that looms over Medicare.\n\nMedicare-for-all can upgrade coverage while lowering costs by cutting out the insurance middlemen who currently drain hundreds of billions annually from our health care system but add no value. This year alone, private health insurers' overhead -- the money they collect in premiums that goes for marketing, accounting, executives' bonuses, profits and more, instead of care -- will total $256.3 billion, 12% of their premiums . That's fivefold higher than the traditional Medicare program's 2% overhead , according to 2017 data.\n\nAnd Medicare-for-all would shrink billing and paperwork costs for doctors and hospitals, which currently contend with the arcane billing, coverage and documentation requirements of hundreds of different insurance plans. In countries with single-payer programs like Canada (Canada's program is called Medicare) and Scotland, hospitals spend half as much as US hospitals, percentagewise, on administration. And according to research published in 2011, the average doctor in the United States was spending $89,975 each year dealing with insurance paperwork, $60,770 more than Canadian doctors spent under that nation's Medicare-for-all system.\n\nOverall, a single-payer reform could save more than $500 billion annually on insurance overhead and providers' billing costs. In addition, our research shows that a Medicare-for-all program could use its market clout to bargain down drug prices to the levels in Canada and Europe, saving another $113 billion . The savings on bureaucracy and drug prices are more than enough to cover the nearly 29 million Americans uninsured in 2017, and improve the coverage for seniors and the tens of millions of others with unaffordable copayments and deductibles.\n\nIn his effort to tar Medicare-for-all as a socialist plot, the President invokes the example of Venezuela. But he ignores the successes of single-payer programs in capitalist countries like Canada, Australia, Scotland and much of Europe. The national health insurance programs in those nations cover everyone, cost half as much (per person) as our system, and get better results; US life expectancy, which used to lead the world, has stagnated and now lags years behind that of Canada and most of Europe. For what we're now spending, we could have a Rolls- Royce version of Canada's system.\n\nThe President's fear-mongering about waiting lists, bankrupt doctors and hospitals, and socialism mirrors rhetoric in the campaign to block Medicare in the mid-1960s. Back then, The Wall Street Journal warned about \"patient pileups,\" and the American Medical Association mounted a campaign featuring Ronald Reagan that smeared Medicare as creeping socialism that would rob Americans' freedom.\n\nBut today, America's doctors are rallying to Medicare-for-all. Polls show that many doctors , and most Americans , favor such reform, and thousands have endorsed Physicians for a National Health Program's single-payer proposals. A 2018 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found six in 10 favor a national health care plan.\n\nIronically, the President claims the mantle of Medicare's protector, even as his chief economic adviser has announced plans for \"entitlement reform\" -- Washington-speak for cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to press for the repeal of the ACA's coverage expansions, and its pre-existing condition protections. While the sham replacement they offer would guarantee people with a pre-existing condition the right to buy coverage, insurers could refuse to pay bills for the condition.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nPresident Trump's Medicare-for-all attack rests on fake facts and baseless smears. The insurance companies and drug firms whose profits would shrink under single payer will no doubt welcome his words. But the truth is that Medicare-for-all isn't just the best way to fix our broken health care system -- it's the only way.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/13/opinions/trump-op-ed-gets-medicare-all-wrong-woolhandler-himmelstein/index.html"},
"Donald Trump: Democrats 'Medicare for All' plan will demolish promises to seniors":{"title": "Donald Trump: Democrats 'Medicare for All' plan will demolish promises to seniors", "authors": ["Donald J. Trump", "Opinion Contributor", "Published A.M. Et Oct."], "publish_date": "2018-10-10", "text": "The Democrats want to outlaw private health care plans, taking away freedom to choose plans while letting anyone cross our border. We must win this.\n\nPresident Donald Trump (Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)\n\nThroughout the year, we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around a new legislative proposal that would end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits that seniors have paid for their entire lives.\n\nDishonestly called \u201cMedicare for All,\u201d the Democratic proposal would establish a government-run, single-payer health care system that eliminates all private and employer-based health care plans and would cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years.\n\nAs a candidate, I promised that we would protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions and create new health care insurance options that would lower premiums. I have kept that promise, and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down.\n\nSTANDARDS EDITOR: Medicare op-ed and all the reaction show democracy in action\n\nRelated: Factcheck.org has looked into statements made in this column.\n\nI also made a solemn promise to our great seniors to protect Medicare. That is why I am fighting so hard against the Democrats' plan that would eviscerate Medicare. Democrats have already harmed seniors by slashing Medicare by more than $800 billion over 10 years to pay for Obamacare. Likewise, Democrats would gut Medicare with their planned government takeover of American health care.\n\nThe Democrats' plan threatens America's seniors\n\nThe Democrats' plan means that after a life of hard work and sacrifice, seniors would no longer be able to depend on the benefits they were promised. By eliminating Medicare as a program for seniors, and outlawing the ability of Americans to enroll in private and employer-based plans, the Democratic plan would inevitably lead to the massive rationing of health care. Doctors and hospitals would be put out of business. Seniors would lose access to their favorite doctors. There would be long wait lines for appointments and procedures. Previously covered care would effectively be denied.\n\nIn practice, the Democratic Party\u2019s so-called Medicare for All would really be Medicare for None. Under the Democrats' plan, today\u2019s Medicare would be forced to die.\n\nThe Democrats' plan also would mean the end of choice for seniors over their own health care decisions. Instead, Democrats would give total power and control over seniors\u2019 health care decisions to the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.\n\nMore: Donald Trump knows nothing about Medicare, health care or Democrats: Talker\n\nMy family escaped socialism, now my fellow Democrats think we should move the party in its direction\n\nBernie Sanders: Trump lies about 'Medicare for All' and he's made health care worse\n\nThe first thing the Democratic plan will do to end choice for seniors is eliminate Medicare Advantage plans for about 20 million seniors as well as eliminate other private health plans that seniors currently use to supplement their Medicare coverage.\n\nNext, the Democrats would eliminate every American\u2019s private and employer-based health plan. It is right there in their proposed legislation: Democrats outlaw private health plans that offer the same benefits as the government plan.\n\nAmericans might think that such an extreme, anti-senior, anti-choice and anti-consumer proposal for government-run health care would find little support among Democrats in Congress.\n\nUnfortunately, they would be wrong: 123 Democrats in the House of Representatives \u2014 64 percent of House Democrats \u2014 as well as 15 Democrats in the Senate have already formally co-sponsored this legislation. Democratic nominees for governor in Florida, California and Maryland are all campaigning in support of it, as are many Democratic congressional candidates.\n\nDemocrats want open-borders socialism\n\nThe truth is that the centrist Democratic Party is dead. The new Democrats are radical socialists who want to model America\u2019s economy after Venezuela.\n\nIf Democrats win control of Congress this November, we will come dangerously closer to socialism in America. Government-run health care is just the beginning. Democrats are also pushing massive government control of education, private-sector businesses and other major sectors of the U.S. economy.\n\nEvery single citizen will be harmed by such a radical shift in American culture and life. Virtually everywhere it has been tried, socialism has brought suffering, misery and decay.\n\nIndeed, the Democrats' commitment to government-run health care is all the more menacing to our seniors and our economy when paired with some Democrats' absolute commitment to end enforcement of our immigration laws by abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That means millions more would cross our borders illegally and take advantage of health care paid for by American taxpayers.\n\nToday\u2019s Democratic Party is for open-borders socialism. This radical agenda would destroy American prosperity. Under its vision, costs will spiral out of control. Taxes will skyrocket. And Democrats will seek to slash budgets for seniors\u2019 Medicare, Social Security and defense.\n\nRepublicans believe that a Medicare program that was created for seniors and paid for by seniors their entire lives should always be protected and preserved. I am committed to resolutely defending Medicare and Social Security from the radical socialist plans of the Democrats. For the sake of our country, our prosperity, our seniors and all Americans \u2014 this is a fight we must win.\n\nDonald J. Trump is the president of the United States. Follow him on Twitter: @realDonaldTrump\n\nYou can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.\n\nRead or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/10/donald-trump-democrats-open-borders-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/", "url": "https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/10/donald-trump-democrats-open-borders-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/"},
"In the Khashoggi disappearance, Trump risks being on wrong side of moral divide":{"title": "In the Khashoggi disappearance, Trump risks being on wrong side of moral divide", "authors": ["David A. Andelman"], "publish_date": "2018-10-12", "text": "David A. Andelman, visiting scholar at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School and director of its Red Lines Project, is a contributor to CNN where his columns won the Deadline Club Award for Best Opinion Writing. Author of \"A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today,\" he was formerly a foreign correspondent for The New York Times and CBS News in Asia and Europe. Follow him on Twitter @DavidAndelman . The views expressed in this commentary are his own.\n\n(CNN) Donald Trump may be positioning himself, and by extension the American people, yet again, on the wrong side of another profound moral divide -- defending an utterly criminal regime in the Middle East to which he plighted his troth from the earliest days of his presidency -- the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.\n\nWhen an urgent issue presented itself in 2017, Trump chose the wrong side of argument over the events in Charlottesville. This time, the subject of his sympathies, it seems, is not neo-Nazis in America, but the regime of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.\n\nIn the past 24 hours, reports have emerged that a government hit squad, said to have been dispatched directly by bin Salman, first in line to the Saudi throne, seized, interrogated, tortured, then killed and, using a bone saw, dismembered the body of a journalist. Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist, was one of the regime's leading critics.\n\nA central question now is just how far Trump may be prepared to go in defense of the kind of rabid values the Saudis now seem to have embraced. But even more important for American interests, at home and abroad, are the potential consequences.\n\nUnlike Charlottesville, this time Trump may have his hand forced by a horrified Congress, apparently united in bipartisan agreement.\n\nThursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Republican Bob Corker, and the ranking Democrat, Sen. Robert Menendez, delivered to the White House a formal letter , triggering provisions of the Global Magnitsky Act, which gives the President 120 days to decide whether to impose sanctions on any person or any country found to have been involved in any extra-judicial kidnapping, murder or egregious violation of internationally-recognized human rights.\n\nThe Magnitsky Act, passed in 2012, was originally aimed at Russia, in retaliation for the alleged murder in prison of attorney Sergei Magnitsky, who'd been defending the interests of exiled investor William Browder, an implacable foe of Vladimir Putin. It singled out 18 individuals , banning them from travel to the United States or dealings with any American banks.\n\nFour years later, the act was broadened to allow the President to sanction any violator of human rights anywhere in the world.\n\nFor some time, Trump has been prepared to overlook a host of questionable initiatives by bin Salman -- vast Saudi human rights violations in the Yemeni civil war, provoked and pursued by Riyadh with the backing of the United States; an outrageous boycott of Qatar, which neighboring countries, led by Saudi Arabia, accused of funding terrorism; and the imprisonment and extortion of a number of wealthy Saudis, including opposition members of the royal family.\n\nThe immediate goal of Trump's blinkered attitude throughout, which the President cited earlier this week, was to preserve contracts for purchase of American arms worth more than $100 billion\n\n\"They're spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs ... for this country,\" Trump told reporters Thursday. \"I don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States, because you know what they're going to do? They're going to take that money and spend it in Russia or China or someplace else.\"\n\nOf course, what Trump did not point out is that the crown prince, known as MBS, not to mention his family and fellow members of the royal family, far prefer to come to the United States, or Paris, London or Geneva, which would be likely to slap on similar bans, than to Moscow or Beijing to shop and, for some, drink the alcohol that is banned at home.\n\nThroughout his presidency, Trump has been keenly aware of the need to shore up and arm Saudi Arabia -- Iran's principal foe in the Middle East -- portraying Iran as the leading sponsor of terrorism in the region.\n\nThe Saudis have also been the leading supporter, alongside Israel, of Trump's widely condemned decision to withdraw from President Obama's prized nuclear agreement with Iran.\n\nMeanwhile, a close personal relationship has developed between MBS and Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law and lead Middle East peace negotiator.\n\nAll this has led to growing charges of the involvement of Trump and Kushner family interests in Saudi Arabia.\n\nBut with Khashoggi possibly abducted or dead, Trump may no longer be able to turn a blind eye to Saudi's moral failings. Congress may well force Trump into measures that could hold vast consequences. The cost of labeling Saudi Arabia and its crown prince pariahs could be a high one.\n\nSaudi Arabia as a nation and an economy are better insulated from the impact of sanctions than Russia. Still, both are heavily dependent on oil revenues, so sanctions against the sale of Saudi oil could affect that nation's economy more deeply than Russia, which is also heavily dependent on oil. But with just 32 million people to worry about versus Russia's 144 million, and with vast sovereign wealth funds to cushion any impact, the Saudis could presumably hold out far longer than Russia.\n\nAt the same time, Saudi Arabia, as the tentpole nation of the OPEC oil cartel, could lead to a retaliation that risks hitting America's economy hard. Restricting the sale of Saudi oil would only lead to higher oil prices, layered on top of a trade war with China, rising interest rates fueled by a ballooning budget deficit on the back of a sweeping tax cut and a plunging stock market right before the midterm elections.\n\nI first met Khashoggi more than a decade ago, in the offices in Riyadh of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the wealthiest investor in Saudi Arabia, who has hardly seen eye to eye with MBS and this side of the royal family.\n\nAt the time, Khashoggi told me he was exploring creation of a new satellite news channel to present a more Saudi-focused view of the region. Years later, Alwaleed was arrested and charged with corruption, along with 10 other princes and scores of other government officials . Khashoggi, closely tied to Alwaleed, and a bitter critic of MBS and his methods, fled into self-imposed exile in the United States.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/opinions/khashoggi-disappearance-trump-wrong-side-opinion-andelman/index.html"},
"Michelle Obama is still right":{"title": "Michelle Obama is still right", "authors": ["Sally Kohn", "Cnn Political Commentator"], "publish_date": "2018-10-12", "text": "Sally Kohn is a CNN political commentator and author of the book \" The Opposite of Hate .\" The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) In \"The Art of War,\" Sun Tzu wrote, \"If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.\" But what happens if you know the enemy but not yourself? Sun Tzu didn't address this, but lately Democrats sure have.\n\nIn 2016 Michelle Obama said this at the 2016 Democratic National Convention: \"When someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don't stoop to their level. No, our motto is, when they go low, we go high.\"\n\nThis week, former Attorney General Eric Holder offered an amendment: The saying for Democrats today should be, \"When they go low, we kick them.\" Hillary Clinton also spoke out against civility in this moment, saying, \"You cannot be civil with\" the Republican Party because it \"wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.\"\n\nI'm not with her. Or him. I'm still with Michelle Obama.\n\nWhat Obama is really talking about here are values -- the ideas and ideals we convey to those around us, young and old, by how we talk and behave. And Democrats and liberals in general must not let their values be defined by Donald Trump and Republicans in this moment.\n\nOurs cannot be a \"they started it\" morality -- where we're on our high horse until someone drags us down in the dirt. If we believe in respect and decency and civility and radical kindness, then we must act with respect and decency and civility and radical kindness regardless of how the \"other side\" is behaving. Values don't bend with the political wind. Values are what define us. No matter the storms.\n\nWhen Michelle Obama originally said \"When they go low, we go high,\" it was in the throes of the 2016 presidential campaign amid Trump's repeated hate mongering, and pretty much everyone left of center cheered. Not just because it was the right stance, presumably, but also because we thought it would work.\n\nJUST WATCHED Michelle Obama: I am tired of daily chaos Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Michelle Obama: I am tired of daily chaos 02:24\n\nThat decency would defeat hate. It didn't. And though obviously there were plenty of other variables in Trump's victory and Clinton's defeat, it raises the question, do we only believe the high road is the right choice if it leads to victory? Are our principles that conditional?\n\nSun Tzu also said, \"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.\"\n\nIf we know that we believe in civility and radical kindness -- and continue to show it, in spite of the nastiness and cruelty of our opposition -- then we may suffer some defeats, but we ultimately win the war. And, perhaps most importantly, along the way we help create a politics and culture worth fighting for.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/opinions/michelle-obama-is-still-right-kohn/index.html"},
"Trump is still fascinated by his rallies even if Fox News viewers aren't":{"title": "Trump is still fascinated by his rallies even if Fox News viewers aren't", "authors": ["Michael D'Antonio"], "publish_date": "2018-10-11", "text": "Michael D'Antonio is author of the book \"Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success\" (St. Martin's Press). The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) When I interviewed Donald Trump in 2014, he told me that one of his big beefs with President Obama was that after he took office, he had stopped being a good \"cheerleader.\" The man who would succeed Obama in the White House thinks rallying the country is one of a president's main responsibilities and he was disappointed that, in his view, someone with such obvious oratorical gifts neglected to apply them.\n\nThe president-as-cheerleader model helps explain why Trump went ahead with a campaign-style rally as Hurricane Michael ripped into Florida and then tore into neighboring states. Few things matter more to him than performing before a chanting crowd and he believes he's very good at it.\n\nWho could argue that Trump knows how to draw the aggressive energy out of an audience until a room crackles with the energy of a high school gym on basketball night in Indiana? \"Lock her up\" isn't so different from \"Defense! Defense!\" except that it is scarier to hear emanating from a crowd gathered to listen to the supposed leader of the free world.\n\nThe trouble with the cheerleader model as employed by Trump is threefold.\n\nFirst, he does it too much. Many occasions -- like, say, the moment when a storm is blowing apart coastal communities -- are not suitable for pep rallies. Second, his cheers aren't for all Americans but, rather, for his partisans. Third, he's mean-spirited. The tone Trump creates at his rallies is worse than what you'll experience at Yankee Stadium when the Red Sox are on the field.\n\nRead More", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/opinions/trump-still-fascinated-by-his-rallies-even-if-fox-news-viewers-arent-dantonio/index.html"},
"A little-known rule change could hurt the most vulnerable":{"title": "A little-known rule change could hurt the most vulnerable", "authors": ["Andrea Flynn", "Dorian Warren"], "publish_date": "2018-10-11", "text": "Andrea Flynn is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, where she researches and writes about issues that impact women and families. Dorian Warren is the incoming president of the Center for Community Change. The views expressed here are solely theirs. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) The last 21 months have made clear that the Trump administration and the Republican Party that supports it know no bounds when it comes to punishing immigrants seeking a better, safer and more secure life for themselves and their families. The Wall. The travel ban. Pushing out DACA recipients who have nowhere to go. Separating them from their parents and detaining them. And recently, the administration proposed a new rule that would make it measurably harder for immigrants who have received public assistance to secure entry or permanent status in the United States.\n\nThe result would be devastating for immigrant families -- and all Americans. It is yet another example of conservatives' four decades' worth of efforts to dismantle the safety net that was created to ensure a floor of well-being for those struggling to make ends meet.\n\nAndrea Flynn\n\nDorian Warren\n\nLate last month, the administration released its draft of a proposed change to the \"public charge\" rule. Individuals labeled \"public charge\" -- those deemed to be potentially too burdensome on the state -- can be denied legal entry into the United States or prevented from changing their immigration status. Historically, only cash-welfare programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) were considered when determining public charge status. The proposed rule would take into consideration a much broader slate of resources that help families meet their basic needs, including health care coverage through Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) and housing assistance to pay rent.\n\nThe effects of the Trump administration's mean-spirited policies toward immigrants -- with the public threat of more -- is already being felt in immigrant communities around the nation. Immigrant families struggling to put food on the table are being forced to choose to starve themselves and their children for fear of being deported if they access SNAP benefits. Many legal residents are forgoing health insurance to which they have access for fear of exposing undocumented members of their households. They are facing the impossible choice of going hungry or declining vital medicines rather than putting themselves on the radar of the federal government.\n\nBy expanding the scope of public charge, conservatives in the Trump administration are advancing two related priorities. The first is obvious: Excluding, shaming and blaming immigrants as part of an effort to divide us and distract us from the White House's harmful agenda. The second priority is enacting their long-term governing agenda: Reducing spending on public goods, dismantling the safety net and rewriting the economic rules to funnel profits and power to corporations and the one percent at the expense of the majority of Americans. These recent efforts will exact a disproportionate toll on immigrant communities and communities of color, but make no mistake: We are all the losers in this game.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/opinions/trump-public-charge-rule-change-warren-flynn/index.html"},
"Blasphemy ruling could signal strength of hardliners in Pakistan":{"title": "Blasphemy ruling could signal strength of hardliners in Pakistan", "authors": ["Rafia Zakaria"], "publish_date": "2018-10-11", "text": "Rafia Zakaria is the author of \"The Upstairs Wife: An Intimate History of Pakistan\" (Beacon 2015) and \"Veil\" (Bloomsbury 2017). She is a columnist for Dawn newspaper in Pakistan and The Baffler. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. View more opinion on CNN.\n\n(CNN) On Monday, Pakistan's Supreme Court heard the final appeal of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy in November 2010.\n\nThe verdict, not yet issued, could well signal if the hardline Islamists, who seek to create a full-blown theocracy, are gaining influence throughout the country and helping to shape its future.\n\nBibi's case began on June 14, 2009, when an ordinary altercation between women working in a field in an area north of Lahore turned into a feud over their faiths. Three women did not want to share a cup of water with Bibi because she was Christian and they were Muslim. After a heated argument, the three women trooped off to complain to the village cleric, claiming she had sullied the name of the Prophet Mohammed.\n\nRafia Zakaria\n\nAs Bibi's lawyer, Saiful Malook, argued on Monday, the legal case against her is weak at best, featuring blatant contradictions between witness statements. The cleric, who actually registered the case and made the allegations against Bibi, was not even present when the altercation between the women took place, and he did not have permission from the appropriate officials to register the case. These legal and evidentiary issues would likely be determinative in any other case, but in this one they may have little impact on the outcome.\n\nThe murky facts of Bibi's case may make it hard to discern whether the case, filed at a time when the region was seeing an increase in recruitment by hardline Islamists, was filed at the behest of a particular group. It is known that in the decade since then, hardline groups -- the Tehreek-e-Labbaik in particular -- have gunned down politicians and lawyers who have dared question the validity of the blasphemy law or championed the cause of blasphemy defendants.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/opinions/asia-bibi-final-appeal-pakistan-future-zakaria/index.html"},
"Opinion: Four girls under 10 have died recently from FGM, it's time to act":{"title": "Opinion: Four girls under 10 have died recently from FGM, it's time to act", "authors": ["Jessica Neuwirth For Cnn"], "publish_date": "2018-10-11", "text": "Jessica Neuwirth is the founder of Donor Direct Action , which supports organizations around the world working to end Female Genital Mutilation and other forms of violence and discrimination against women and girls. She writes for CNN on the International Day of the girl about the plight of Somalian girls who live in the FGM capital of the world. The views expressed in this commentary are solely hers.\n\n(CNN) Four young girls lost their lives recently after undergoing female genital mutilation (FGM) in Somalia. They had a lot in common. All four were almost the same age - between 10 and 11 years old. Everyone lived within a 200-mile radius.\n\nDeeqa Dahir Nuur was the first of the four to die in mid-July when she was taken to a traditional cutter in Olol village in the central state of Galmudug. She bled for two full days before her family took her to the hospital in the town of Dhusmareb , where she passed away.\n\nNews of her death reached international media and caused such an outrage that Somalia's deputy prime minister Mahdi Mohamed Guuled called for a full investigation . However, this has yet to happen.\n\nLast month, two sisters from the remote pastoral village of Arawda in Galdogob, Puntland, died in very similar circumstances.\n\nAasiyo Farah Abdi Warsame and her sister Khadijo, aged 10 and 11 respectively, died after they hemorrhaged for over 24 hours . Once again, their families did not seek medical help until it was too late.\n\nThey both died on their way to the hospital.\n\nIn late August, 10-year-old Suheyra Qorane Farah and her seven-year-old sister Zamzam underwent FGM in their home in Tuurdibi , a tiny village near the Ethiopian border.\n\nThey also bled profusely and, a week later, fell into a coma. The girls' mother decided to take them to a medical facility in Galdogob, where they both remained for close to two weeks. Zamzam's condition improved slightly, but her older sister died in late September, having contracted tetanus.\n\nSuheyra's father denied all knowledge of the plan for his daughters to undergo FGM and claimed he was away when it happened. He does not want the law involved and thinks the issue should be \"handled\" by religious leaders.\n\nEven when girls die from FGM in Somalia families continue to believe it was an \"act of God.\"\n\nIt has taken several decades for the reality to seep through that FGM is not a cultural practice, but rather a human rights violation, an extreme subjugation of women and girls -- often leaving them with harmful lifelong medical and psychological consequences, and sometimes even taking their lives through bleeding or infection.\n\nAccording to UNICEF at least 200 million women and girls around the world have been affected by FGM. In Somalia alone, 98% of women and girls have undergone it - the highest rate on the planet. We have no clear idea how many more girls have died along the way, but based on anecdotal evidence it is probably a very significant number.\n\nIt is clear to those of us who have worked on the issue for years that the recent deaths we have heard about in Somalia and elsewhere are not uncommon, but better reporting and communications have helped ensure that they no longer take place under a cloak of silence.\n\nAnd yet we still do not have a complete ban on FGM in several countries with higher levels of prevalence - including Somalia. Draft laws have been written - and partially approved - in both Puntland and at the federal level in Mogadishu, but traditional leaders have blocked politicians in getting either of these passed.\n\nAfter her sister died from it, Hawa Aden Mohamed, the center's Executive Director, committed her life to ensure that this abuse of girls in Somalia is eradicated.\n\nSomali girls at Galkayo Centre in Somalia where girls and their families are taught about dangers of FGM.\n\nWe worked directly with Hawa to amplify the recent fatalities in international media including CNN, and genuinely hoped that they would be a shocking wake up call for politicians who would hasten to ensure girls are kept safe.\n\nAlthough the silence has been broken in Somalia - and it is no longer possible to claim that girls do not die from FGM - we are still waiting for the country's politicians to even investigate these cases, much less prosecute them.\n\nAnother central strand of ending FGM is getting funding to groups like The Galkayo Centre , which has been successfully educating girls and their families about its dangers. Many of the girls Hawa works with have unfortunately already been cut, but they are the key to breaking the cycle for future generations. Groups like this are doing so much lifesaving work, with minimal funding.\n\nIt pledged \u00a335m, which was largely directed towards the United Nations Joint Programme, a research program mainly focused on secondary research and a communications program, run by a UK-based for-profit management consultancy.\n\nWhile helpful to the cause, this approach is no substitute for frontline grassroots advocacy.\n\nShortly after that funding was announced the late Efua Dorkenoo, known as the \"mother of the anti-FGM movement\" wrote about her hope that those existing programmes across African where countries are making progress should be funded . It is unclear how much funding has reached those frontline groups working to end it.\n\nSadly, it is likely to be very little, if any at all.\n\nToday is International Day of the Girl. There seems no better moment to really zone in on ensuring that girls like Deeqa, Aasiyo, Khadijo, and Suheyra are no longer killed from this abhorrent and unnecessary form of violence committed against them.\n\nWe hope that Somalia, Sudan, and Sierra Leone all ban FGM outright - but we also need to drastically rethink how the campaign is funded internationally so that we can ensure that those leading efforts to end it finally have the resources they need to do so.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/opinions/four-somali-fgm-africa-intl/index.html"},
"If Donald Trump doesn't confront Saudi Arabia, the world order could be upended":{"title": "If Donald Trump doesn't confront Saudi Arabia, the world order could be upended", "authors": ["Nic Robertson"], "publish_date": "2018-10-10", "text": "Istanbul In what world order can the head of Interpol be dragged off the streets , or a globally renowned journalist be made to disappear in front of his fianc\u00e9e's eyes?\n\nA world order that, one might speculate, is coming off its rails. One where a country can attack another, then look it in the eye and say it didn't happen.\n\nIn the world of Marvel heroes, this would never happen. The bad guys would get what's coming to them. But we are not in the Marvel Universe. We are in a post-2016 reality, where the world's top global cop, President Donald Trump, is taking a break from convention and letting misdeeds slide.\n\nThe world's most powerful man has made a virtue of shirking the expectation that America traditionally sets the world order, instead demanding allies do more while dialing back pressure on enemies.\n\nOf course, abdication of America's moral responsibility is something previous Presidents could be accused of. But there is something unique about Trump's America First lens at the cost of all else.\n\nOn North Korea, where he is exceptionally engaged with the country's notoriously duplicitous dictator, Kim Jong Un, who is talking up the hermit kingdom's denuclearization, despite the absence of real-world actions.\n\nMeanwhile, Trump looks at his regional allies in South Korea and Japan, and tells them that from now on, they need to shoulder the cost of their own security. If they don't, they face the threat of having to defend themselves alone.\n\nTo his base at home, the \"America First\" strategy sounds laudable. To his international allies, it's becoming increasingly laughable. And to his enemies, it is a moment of opportunity.\n\nFor seven decades, the United States has not only been at the forefront of keeping the world on a stable track, it also built the rails and set the moral compass for the direction of travel.\n\nBut this past week, there has been another noticeable wobble.\n\nThe Saudi Arabian journalist and former Saudi government official, Jamal Khashoggi, disappeared while visiting his country's consulate last week in Istanbul. In previous years, something such as this might have been addressed with a firm hand from the White House.\n\nSaudi officials say Khashoggi left not long after arriving. Turkish officials hint, darkly, that he may never be seen alive again. A Saudi official told CNN that Saudi Arabia categorically denies any involvement in his disappearance. The official added that \"Jamal's well-being, as a Saudi citizen, is our utmost concern and we are focusing on the investigation ... to reveal the truth behind his disappearance.\"\n\nThe situation is spinning out of control.\n\nTrump says he is \"concerned\" that no one knows what happened. Vice President Mike Pence is \"deeply troubled\" and that \"the world deserves answers.\" And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that the Saudis should support an investigation.\n\nSaudi Arabia has agreed -- much as it did when its air force mistakenly killed Yemeni women and children while targeting Houthi rebels with US-made bombs.\n\nHuman Rights organizations say that Trump is giving the Saudis an easy out.\n\nKhashoggi's fianc\u00e9e, along with the rest of the world, might never get the answers Pence says should be forthcoming in part, at least, because the Saudis know they are unlikely to be held to account.\n\nIt's not the first opportunity Trump has missed to get tough with his Saudi partners.\n\nHe likes to remind us they have committed to billions of dollars in arms deals over the coming years.\n\nJUST WATCHED Trump: Concerned about missing WaPo journalist Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump: Concerned about missing WaPo journalist 01:47\n\nBut he rarely raises the Saudis' massive falling out with Qatar, which happened only weeks after Trump visited Riyadh on his first overseas trip as President in May 2017 when he told the Saudi royals to get tough on terrorism.\n\nSince that visit, the Saudis' behavior has been increasingly autocratic -- from the mass detention of hundreds of Saudi royals and businessmen last year on corruption allegations, which led to the death of at least one detainee, to the arrests of women's rights activists this summer.\n\nThis was followed by a bust-up with Canada, leading to the recalling of dozens of diplomats and hundreds of students, barely a month after Trump flew into a rage with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau following the G7 summit.\n\nTrump has opted to ignore where he should have confronted. In doing so, he has become a role model to all the wrong people and for all the wrong reasons.\n\nHis summit with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki this summer was another missed opportunity to shore up world order. Rather than take the Russian President to task for attacking American democracy, he praised him. For Putin, it was a pat on the back that put a smile on his face all the way home to Moscow.\n\nWith Trump in the White House, Putin is acting with contempt and disregard for the international rules-based order. His military intelligence services continue to meddle in elections and infect social media with fake accounts. And he has the audacity to send his spies to poison people with an illegal deadly chemical weapon in the UK.\n\nPutin is not the only one reading Trump's weakness.\n\nChina is exploiting the moral vacuum. It has never been shy to lock up dissidents and political opponents, but President Xi Jinping is taking things to a new level. A few months back, a major movie star disappeared over alleged tax evasion. Then last week, we saw the kidnapping of the head of the world's policing body, Interpol.\n\nEventually, after much international pressure, Xi's officials fessed up to nabbing the man -- accusing him of corruption.\n\nDespite Trump's trade war with China and escalating military tensions, Xi enjoys a level of power that no Chinese leader has had in decades.\n\nIn Venezuela, a government official reportedly fell from a 10-floor window of the government's intelligence headquarters this week.\n\nIn the movies, it would be part of a daring escape. But in the real world, Venezuelan officials are calling it suicide. For whatever Trump's rhetoric about the country, it knows it can do as it pleases.\n\nIn the case of Saudi Arabia, increasing evidence pushed by Turkish sources through Turkish media implicates a complex Saudi government plot to capture Khashoggi.\n\nThe Washington Post is reporting that a video of his killing has been shown to US officials and that American intelligence picked up conversations between Saudi officials plotting Khashoggi's abduction (and possible death).\n\nTrump's most vocal critics are trying to get this issue heard.\n\nFormer Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spoke up this week about Khashoggi's abduction and its implications.\n\n\"While this authoritarian trend certainly did not begin with Donald Trump,\" Sanders said, \"there's no question that other authoritarian leaders around the world have drawn inspiration from the fact that the President of the world's oldest and most powerful democracy is shattering democratic norms, is viciously attacking an independent media and an independent judiciary, and is scapegoating the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society,\"\n\nTrump's worldview and its roots in America First may be selling well with his base at home. But overseas, it is buckling America's carefully crafted world order. And while it is not yet broken, it is already having irreversible repercussions.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/opinions/trump-saudi-arabia-robertson-opinion-intl/index.html"},
"The global right surges as Donald Trump enjoys victory":{"title": "The global right surges as Donald Trump enjoys victory", "authors": ["David A. Andelman"], "publish_date": "2018-10-9", "text": "David A. Andelman, visiting scholar at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School and director of its Red Lines Project, is a contributor to CNN, where his columns won the Deadline Club Award for Best Opinion Writing. Author of \"A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today,\" Andelman was formerly a foreign correspondent for The New York Times and CBS News in Asia and Europe. Follow him on Twitter @DavidAndelman. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.\n\n(CNN) Somehow, it all seems to be coming together at once.\n\nOver the weekend, a Trumpian-style, right-wing politician surged into a runoff election for presidency of Brazil , only narrowly missing the 50% vote in the first round that would have meant instant victory.\n\nIn Germany, the neo-fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is poised to claim its first seats in Sunday's regional elections for the Bavarian parliament, which would mean representation for the party in 15 of the 16 regional German parliaments.\n\nIn Italy, where unemployment is as high as 29% in some southern provinces, Matteo Salvini's Five Star Movement is in a ruling coalition with the right-wing League.\n\nAnd Salvini has now joined forces with France's right-wing leader, Marine Le Pen, vowing to \"storm the Brussels bunker\" in next year's European parliamentary elections.\n\nBut if they get there, they will find some congenial company awaiting them.\n\nRight-wing parties are already in power across vast stretches of eastern and central Europe.\n\nIn Austria, the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) has joined forces to form a coalition government with conservative Chancellor Sebastian Kurz.\n\nIn neighboring Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the grandfather of the European right, won a third term in office on a platform proclaiming that European was being invaded by Middle East immigrants who must be stopped at any cost.\n\nIn Poland, efforts by right-wing, anti-immigrant Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki to effectively shred his nation's judicial system rose to the level of a condemnation by the European Parliament, which referred the matter to Europe's highest court in Luxembourg.\n\nElsewhere, from Denmark to Slovenia to the Czech Republic, anti-immigrant feelings have swept the right to rapidly growing influence, if not outright rule.\n\nNone of these leaders, of course, would feel very out of place in Donald Trump's America. Indeed, many feel deep emotional attachment to the American leader, whom they see as very as a guiding moral force.\n\nJUST WATCHED Hungary right-wing leader wins new term Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hungary right-wing leader wins new term 04:42\n\nSo, when one of Saudi Arabia's leading opposition journalists, Jamal Khashoggi, disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate in Instanbul, and was feared dead, it did not escape notice that Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, has become a close confidant of Trump's son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner.\n\nThe great irony here is that Turkey's own right-wing leader, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan -- not a man with a great track record on the human rights of journalists himself -- felt compelled to come to Khashoggi's rescue and demand the Saudis prove he was not murdered.\n\nAnd then there's Donald Trump himself, who just last week assured a conservative dominance of the American system of justice for a generation or more.\n\nThe fact is that in all of these newly cloned right-wing nations -- though pointedly not in Saudi Arabia, where the ruling monarchy calls the shots -- leaders have been installed quite democratically at the ballot box.\n\nHow did we arrive at this conundrum? Was not enough blood spilled in Europe and beyond fighting Nazi oppression during World War II to last several lifetimes? Is there no memory left?\n\nNot since the peak of the Axis powers during the Second World War, it seems to me as an historian and journalist, has the global right seen such a resurgence of power and influence.\n\nTo what can we attribute this? A complex of factors all converging in a perfect storm.\n\nThe middle class, still growing worldwide, has been the primary engine of economic growth in a host of nations, especially the nations of eastern and central Europe, only recently -- in historical terms -- emerging from communism.\n\nJUST WATCHED Prominent Saudi journalist missing in Turkey Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Prominent Saudi journalist missing in Turkey 02:25\n\nYet, today in many countries, these often freshly enfranchised people find themselves still deprived of the real wealth that the post-communist system seems to have promised. They have only one real remedy -- the ballot box. And there are candidates waiting eagerly there to fulfill their dreams.\n\nThe middle classes can and do vote. And they have cast their votes for at least two fundamental values that many suddenly see as converging -- change and security.\n\nIt's just that both such constants have many costs that few seem to have anticipated -- at least not yet.\n\nChange can mean tariff battles that can hamper economic and job growth, while security can mean vastly increased attacks on migrants and protestors across the continent.\n\nOften this has also meant direct attacks on a free press from Poland to Saudi Arabia, as vicious and virulent as anything seen since the Nazi era.\n\nIn Sweden, two researchers have suggested that the alarming rise of a far-right political class may be attributed to the fact that \"the established parties have been deaf to the preferences of their own citizens.\"\n\nIndeed, such a trend may be quite clear across Europe, as established figures like Germany's center-right Chancellor Angela Merkel still tries desperately to cling to power without giving up entirely on efforts to help the hordes of migrants that keep knocking at Europe's doors.\n\nLast year, in France, the deafness of parties from the left-wing Socialists to a host of moderate agglomerations sent a 40-year-old political neophyte, Emmanuel Macron, to the Elys\u00e9es Palace as the nation's president.\n\nAnd now, while he has managed to achieve any number of reforms, riding on the wave of support for his own self-created political party, La R\u00e9publique en Marche, he is also being faced with the need to reshuffle his entire cabinet this week after losing two key members -- Interior Minister Gerard Collomb, who quit suddenly late one evening last week and the popular ecology minister, Nicolas Hulot, who quit on a live national radio broadcast in August.\n\nThe big question is how much of a political turn will Macron be prepared to take barely 18 months into his five-year term of office.\n\nMuch of Europe, particularly the centrist elite, horrified by the Trump phenomenon, as well as the resurgent right-wing, will be watching closely the results of the American midterm elections in four weeks for some clue as to how the winds may blow over the final two years of Trump's first term.\n\nWith his extraordinary sway across any number of nations, however, the President would do well to reflect carefully on the kind of world he is playing a central role in creating.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/trump-wins-all-over-the-world-opinion-intl/index.html"},
"Blockbuster climate report tells us it's vital to remove carbon from the air":{"title": "Blockbuster climate report tells us it's vital to remove carbon from the air", "authors": ["Andrew Steer"], "publish_date": "2018-10-8", "text": "Andrew Steer is the President and CEO of the World Resources Institute, a global research organization that works in more than 50 countries. Dr. Steer joined WRI from the World Bank, where he served as Special Envoy for Climate Change from 2010 - 2012. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. See more opinion at CNN.\n\n(CNN) For decades, the fight against climate change has focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it is now clear that these measures on their own -- however rapidly they accelerate -- will no longer be enough to prevent dangerous climate change. We must now also urgently take carbon out of the atmosphere.\n\nThe new blockbuster climate report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations makes two things startlingly clear. First, we must massively accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy. This will require rapid system-wide transformations in the way we build our cities, generate energy, grow food and manufacture goods. And second, we must capture carbon right out of the air.\n\nAndrew Steer\n\nThe report finds that all pathways to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) rely on carbon removal.\n\nIt may sound like science fiction, but it's not. Last month, World Resources Institute published a series of research papers that offer a clear-eyed view of the challenges and opportunities of six ways to remove carbon from ambient air. The assessment shows that far from being optional or a distraction, carbon removal, combined with reducing emissions, is critical to limit warming and ensure a safer future.\n\nThe obvious starting point is to use nature. Trees have been storing carbon in trunks and roots for millions of years. By restoring forests and degraded lands and using smarter farming practices, we can capture much more. There is overwhelming evidence that these natural solutions can pay for themselves quickly, improving food security, creating jobs, reducing poverty and extracting billions of tons of carbon.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/un-climate-report-decarbonization-steer/index.html"},
"Jamal Khashoggi is a victim of brutal Middle East politics":{"title": "Jamal Khashoggi is a victim of brutal Middle East politics", "authors": ["Chris Doyle"], "publish_date": "2018-10-8", "text": "Chris Doyle is the director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, a London-based NGO. The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author.\n\n(CNN) The disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi after he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week remains a mystery.\n\nThere is a startling lack of detail concerning his whereabouts\n\nBut what's clear is that -- whatever has happened to Khashoggi -- this story lies at the nexus of increasing power games and regional rivalries across the Middle East, where the space for dissent and opposition to the ruling elites is shrinking fast.\n\nThe Turkish-Saudi relationship is but one part of this.\n\nThese two powers are nominally western allies. Both were initially opposed to the Syrian regime in the now seven-year civil war taking place in that country. But they also have very different ideas as to what the endgame looks like for Syria.\n\nTurkey has been keen to manage its relationship with the Saudis, while being more critical of the Saudis' key regional partner, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).\n\nThe two nations have significantly different geopolitical priorities, while both are trying to become the leading Sunni power in the region.\n\nMeanwhile, Saudi Arabia and its Shia rival Iran are currently engaged in a furious cold war, being fought principally in Yemen and before that in Syria. (The Saudis have also tried to limit Iranian influence in both Iraq and Lebanon.)\n\nAs part of this growing pressure on Iran, Saudi Arabia -- together with Israel and other allies -- aggressively lobbied President Donald Trump to rip up the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. Most of these nations almost certainly would relish a US-led attack on Iran.\n\nBy way of contrast, Turkey has an important relationship with Iran, despite being very different regimes. Iran is an Islamist Shia theocratic state whereas Turkey is Sunni albeit under increasingly autocratic and de-secularized rule.\n\nJUST WATCHED Prominent Saudi journalist missing in Turkey Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Prominent Saudi journalist missing in Turkey 02:25\n\nTurkey benefits hugely from trade with Iran, which it is not prepared to see stop, given its current need for oil and gas.\n\nWhen it comes to Syria's future, Iran is happy to let Turkey get its way over the Kurds if Turkey agrees to Iran's role in the country and the survival of the Assad regime.\n\nFurther to their disputes over Iran, Turkey and the Saudis disagree vehemently over political Islam. Erdogan has broadly supported the Muslim Brotherhood and encouraged the Arab uprisings from 2010-2012, events that Saudi Arabia viewed with alarm.\n\nErdogan was opposed to the 2013 coup in Egypt, which saw the removal of the pro-Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi -- a change that Saudi Arabia and the UAE backed.\n\nBoth the Saudis and Emiratis want to see the Muslim Brotherhood crushed. This is one of the root causes in its quarrel with neighboring Gulf state Qatar.\n\nSaudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain imposed a blockade on Qatar in May 2017 . Turkey and Iran came to Qatar's aid, with Iran becoming a major trade partner in essential goods including food, while Turkey dispatched forces to Qatar in order to deter any aggression.\n\nBut even within these new regional blocs, supposed allies disagree on vital issues. Egypt has become closer to the Syrian regime in recent years and has not participated in the war in Yemen. The UAE is more focused on the Muslim Brotherhood than the Saudis.\n\nAnd, of course, both the US and Russia are playing increasingly important roles in these regional rivalries.\n\nUnder Presidents Trump and Vladimir Putin, both the US and Russia have engaged in a Middle East power struggle where the rulebook has been long forgotten.\n\nPutin has tried to fill the vacuum left by a more isolationist US. Russia intervention in the Syrian civil war has given it a far more prominent role in the region. This is useful when you consider that it covets greater influence in Egypt and in the Gulf.\n\nUnder Trump, the US has hardly calmed the regional waters. The relationship with Saudi Arabia -- particularly the Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman -- has rarely been warmer, albeit not always smooth.\n\nBeing close to Trump was one of the things Khashoggi criticized his leadership for. (The Saudis were not impressed with Trump telling King Salman: \"You might not be there for two weeks without us.\")\n\nAnd when Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, it did far more than just raise eyebrows in Riyadh.\n\nConversely, US-Turkish relations are borderline Siberian. Erdogan is flirting openly with Putin, going as far as buying Russian S-400 antiaircraft missiles, greatly upsetting NATO allies. Turkey has also the US arming what it sees as Kurdish terrorist groups.\n\nSo, when a Saudi journalist and critic goes missing in Istanbul -- and both states blame the other -- the story trespasses on one of the great fault lines of regional power politics.\n\nDon't expect this drama to end amicably -- or soon.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/jamal-khashoggi-and-middle-east-geopolitics-opinion-intl/index.html"},
"I'm glad Melania is in Africa, but her trip won't change anything":{"title": "I'm glad Melania is in Africa, but her trip won't change anything", "authors": ["Christine Mungai"], "publish_date": "2018-10-4", "text": "Christine Mungai is a writer and journalist based in Nairobi. She is a 2018 Nieman Fellow at Harvard University. Her work has been recently published in the Boston Globe, Nieman Reports, and The Elephant, a Kenyan publication of long form essays. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. View more opinion on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Melania Trump is in Africa this week -- and child health and well-being is at the top of her agenda during a four-country tour that will take her \"to every corner of the vast and impoverished continent.\"\n\nThat's how The Associated Press described the trip. At first, I was ready to spring into action to destroy this problematic framing -- a four-country tour is not \"every corner.\" Malawi, one of the countries she is visiting, is actually more in the southeastern middle of Africa than in a corner, per se. And as for \"vast and impoverished,\" that's just lazy, stereotypical and clich\u00e9d.\n\nBut then I realized that her trip -- and the reporting around it -- doesn't actually enrage me enough to write a scathing review.\n\nIn fact, everything around it is, well, boring. But it's not only boring; it's a waste of US taxpayer money and a waste of African time and attention.\n\nIn Kenya, where I am from, she will reportedly take that very well-worn VIP circuit in Nairobi, making the same familiar stops -- a \"courtesy call\" to the President and first lady of Kenya, a viewing of a dance performance, a visit to a children's home and a stop at the Nairobi National Park to \"adopt\" a baby animal and possibly name it. No matter that some of the same baby elephants, for example, have been named several times over by VIP after VIP, according to the investigative book \"The Big Conservation Lie,\" by journalist John Mbaria and ecologist Mordecai Ogada.\n\nBut there are so many more interesting things going on in Nairobi, especially for a high-ranking American visitor. If she really wanted to get a flavor for Kenya, she'd adjust her itinerary accordingly.\n\nFor example, if Melania wants to get a feel for China's influence in Africa, and what that means for US dominance in the region, she should take a ride on the Madaraka Express from Nairobi to Mombasa. The railway is Chinese-financed, built and run, and the United States, through the construction firm Bechtel Corporation, is trying to counter by building a brand new highway along the same route.\n\nIf she wants to grasp how white American evangelicals -- a solid constituency supporting her husband -- are shaping the world in their own image, she should visit some of the megachurches in Nairobi, which might make her feel like she's in a congregation right in Oklahoma or North Carolina, except for the Swahili praise and worship.\n\nShe can even try to visit Js Bar or The Alchemist in the upmarket western suburbs of the city, which are teeming with eager young American expats who have come to \"make a difference in Africa\" by building one app or the other. They might want to discuss the implications of the difference between being an immigrant and an expatriate. Or maybe Melania might have some words of inspiration for them, being an immigrant (not an expatriate) herself into the United States.\n\nBut none of this will happen.\n\nAnd so, her extended photo-op tour will be largely pointless, particularly given that she doesn't really dictate US policy. And even the thought that merely her raising awareness over an issue facing Africans will bring substantive change is insulting on two fronts. It assumes that Africa is a blank slate mired in problems waiting for a savior to project her good intentions on. It also assumes that those problems are so basic and ultimately so ethereal that the mere presence of an American first lady would make a difference.\n\nTo be sure, sometimes a first lady does bring that charisma, star power, and je ne sais quoi to have a symbolic, yet tangible sway in government policy (I'm looking at you, Michelle Obama). But what use is symbolism in an administration where norms have been shaken from their foundations, where political mores have been trashed and where seemingly naked power rules the day?\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nHer husband cannot be trusted to follow through with whatever good influence she might have on him, not to mention his January 11 remark denigrating African countries that provoked a fierce, continent-wide reaction.\n\nAnd if child well-being is the focus of her trip, then what does it say that her husband's recent policies on migrant children entering the United States have involved forcibly ripping bewildered toddlers from their parents' arms without clear plans on how to reunite them?", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/opinions/melania-trump-africa-trip-wont-change-anything-mungai/index.html"},
"14 midterm races that could change America":{"title": "14 midterm races that could change America", "authors": [], "publish_date": "2018-10-2", "text": "(CNN) The midterm elections , a little more than a month away, are a national drama -- with voters deciding whether Republican control of the House and Senate will give way to Democrats, who have been hankering for a chance to challenge the priorities and actions of President Donald Trump. But they are also an intensely local story as voters get ready to make their choices in 435 House and 35 Senate races and in 36 gubernatorial contests. We asked commentators to tell us which race they are watching most closely and why. The views expressed are solely their own.\n\nIs Ted Cruz Beto-able?\n\nThe crowds and the media love him. But will Texas voters turn out for Beto O'Rourke? In November, the faceoff to watch will be between Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and his Democratic challenger Beto O'Rourke. This contest could upend the political order in the Lone Star State. And an August NBC News poll showed O'Rourke within 4 points of Cruz.\n\nThis race is fascinating because it is the Democrats' best chance in years to turn Texas blue. Democrats have long looked to the state's changing demographics -- Texas is about 40% Hispanic - - with hopes of putting the state into play.\n\nHowever, Texas' electorate is not the same as its demographics. In 2016, despite a slight increase from prior elections, less than half of the state's eligible Latino voters turned out at the polls.\n\nIronically, this race is between one of the country's most prominent Hispanic politicians (Cruz), who supports Trump's wall and admittedly doesn't speak Spanish well , and a white upstart (O'Rourke) who is against the wall and fluent en Espa\u00f1ol.\n\nStill, it will take more than viral videos and friendly appearances on \"The Ellen DeGeneres Show\" to put O'Rourke over the top. He remains David to Cruz's Goliath. While O'Rourke's likability factor is huge, his effort will hinge on voter mobilization. To win, he will have to perform strongly with millennials, Latinos and voters in Texas' more liberal cities. In interviews, O'Rourke has often asserted that Texas is not a red state, it is a nonvoting state. He's got that right -- and so his success will depend on upending this paradigm.\n\nRaul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes\n\nWill Arizona elect its first Democratic senator since 1988?\n\nWith the House expected to fall to Democrats and Republicans expected to keep and possibly even make gains in the Senate, sweeping 2020 projections will be tricky to make after these midterms. But I'm watching the Senate race in Arizona with a few things in mind.\n\nFirst, putting aside the historic promise of Arizona electing its first woman to the Senate, it's possible Arizona is about to elect its first Democrat since 1988. President Donald Trump only won Arizona in 2016 by a little over 3 percentage points -- if Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema pulls out a win over Republican Rep. Martha McSally, it will be hard not to see the significance of a reliably red state voting blue.\n\nSecond, if that happens, exit polling will be key. Was Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric and child separation policy a factor? That, specifically, will have national implications and might serve as a forecast of his 2020 re-election hurdles among Hispanic voters.\n\nFinally, if McSally, an Air Force veteran, wins, the significance won't be that a Republican kept the seat red. It will be the kind of Republican who did it. McSally easily beat out Trumpian Kelli Ward in a race that was supposed to send a message to perceived \"moderates\" like McSally, the outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake and even the late Sen. John McCain that their kind has fallen out of favor among conservatives. McSally's win here will prove there's at least some desire for less \"Trumpy\" Republicans, even in a historical red state.\n\nSE Cupp is a CNN political commentator and host of \"SE Cupp Unfiltered.\"\n\nMother of a slain young man runs for Congress\n\n\n\n\n\nThe electoral race that most encapsulates the potential of this political moment and the future of politics in our nation is Lucy McBath's contest to unseat Republican incumbent Karen Handel in Georgia's 6th Congressional District, just north of Atlanta.\n\nUnlike Handel , the former secretary of state of Georgia, who has taken strong stances against Obamacare and regulations, McBath is not a career politician interested in dismantling Washington legislation. She's not even a lifelong activist. She was, by her own account, just a regular \"suburban mom\" until her son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed outside a gas station in Florida in 2012 in a dispute over playing loud music. Davis is black, and the white man who killed him had a conceal carry permit. In that horrific moment, McBath became , as she told me over the phone recently, \"a mother on a mission.\"\n\nSpeaking out about her son's death and the need for comprehensive solutions to gun violence and systemic racism, McBath joined \"Mothers of the Movement,\" women whose black children have been killed by gun violence or the police. McBath also became a national spokeswoman for Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.\n\n\"Then Parkland happened,\" McBath explained to me. \"Those children were the same age as Jordan when he was murdered.\" She thought maybe now, finally, policies would change. But when they didn't, McBath took the next big step -- and declared her candidacy for office.\n\nMcBath represents the moment we are in as a country today -- where more and more people are not only protesting and lobbying against status quo injustices but also transforming their anger into real political power. \"This is our modern day civil rights movement,\" says McBath.\n\nYet while progressive movements for change haven't always embraced electoral politics or have been slow to do so, the recent surge of multi-issue, multiracial progressive protest has quickly focused the movement on political change. Mitt Romney won GA-06 in 2012 by 23 points. But Trump just barely won the district in 2016 by one point. And when Handel won the special election a year ago over Democrat Jon Ossoff, the race was still quite close.\n\nSo, McBath has a real shot at victory. But either way, she's blazing the trail for ordinary people to become engaged in the political process, including running for office. \"I intend to win,\" says McBath, \"but no matter what happens, this is a win-win.\"\n\nSally Kohn is a CNN political commentator and author of the book, \" The Opposite of Hate.\n\nWill an anti-Trump, liberal Democrat win in rural Kentucky?\n\n\n\n\n\nThis race in Kentucky's Bluegrass region features a well-funded incumbent, Republican Andy Barr, running against an outsider Democrat, Amy McGrath, who easily beat two establishment politicians in her primary. Polls close at 6 p.m. ET and votes are counted quickly in Fayette County (Lexington), the district's largest, which means we'll know early whether Barr weathered the storm\n\nA Democrat win likely means a big night for their party. The Cook Report rates the district R+9 and Trump won here by more than 15 points . If Democrats are knocking down contested jump shots like this, it means the \"blue wave\" is real.\n\nMcGrath, a former fighter pilot, leans on her military credentials to fend off the usual attacks that sink Democrats in Kentucky. Shortly after the May primary, internal polling from both parties showed her with a decent lead.\n\nBut Barr's campaign smartly went on offense in August, dropping brutal attack ads featuring audio of McGrath claiming : \"I am further left, I am more progressive, than anyone in the state of Kentucky,\" a bold statement given Kentucky's only Democratic congressman, John Yarmuth, is one of the most liberal in Congress.\n\nMcGrath has been taped at numerous fundraisers staking out liberal positions on abortion and taxes, stances better left to campaigns in California than Kentucky. Republicans believe their barrage will have conservative Democrats reaching for the ejection handle on McGrath's bid.\n\nBoth parties are all in, with donations and outside spending piling up. Can an anti-Trump, liberal Democrat win in rural Kentucky? You'll know before dessert on election night.\n\nScott Jennings, a CNN contributor, is a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and former campaign adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell. He is a partner at RunSwitch Public Relations in Louisville, Kentucky. Follow him on Twitter @ScottJenningsKY.\n\nWill the Tennessee Senate race be a referendum on Trump?\n\n\n\n\n\nKeep a close eye on Tennessee, where Republican Marsha Blackburn is facing off against Democrat Phil Bredesen, a former governor. This race will be a good lens through which to see what kind of damage, if any, President Donald Trump might be inflicting on the GOP. The state is now in comfortable Republican territory. The GOP has a supermajority in the state House, controls seven congressional seats and now holds onto both Senate seats.\n\nHowever, a majority of the nation does not approve of how Trump is doing his job, with his approval rate hovering in high 30s and low 40s. So, how will Trump's tenure impact this partisan dynamic?\n\nThe Tennessee Senate race to replace Bob Corker pits the popular two-term governor against a Trumpian Republican who elicits the strong support of anti-abortion activists. While Bredesen promises to expand health care access and opposes the Republican tax cuts, Blackburn has been a harsh critic of the Affordable Care Act and voted in favor of recent tax cuts.\n\nAnd though Bredesen is an unusually popular Democrat and leading in the latest CNN poll, his victory would signal a big chip in the partisan armor of the GOP, which would inevitably be blamed on Trump's impact on his own party.\n\nWhile one part of the story in November will revolve around who wins control of Congress, another big issue that political observers are watching is whether Trump, with his unstable behavior and radical approach to governance, will stimulate any sort of backlash within his own party that goes beyond words of reprimand.\n\nIt would take major midterm losses, including defeats that cut deep into Republican territory, to push congressional Republicans into actually taking a stand against the President and beginning a soul-searching process. If this Tennessee Senate seat goes blue, that would be the kind of outcome that could have a real-world impact on Capitol Hill.\n\nA Democratic veteran aims to win in Trump country\n\n\n\n\n\nThere are so many remarkable women and men running for office this year -- Rashida Tlaib, Beto O'Rourke, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- but, out of all of them, West Virginia's Richard Ojeda might be the one most worth watching.\n\nOjeda voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and now he's the Democratic candidate for his state's 3rd Congressional District. Trump, not surprisingly, is not his biggest fan -- calling him a \"total whacko\" at a recent rally in West Virginia.\n\nIt's a wide-open race: Republican Rep. Evan Jenkins vacated his seat, leaving Ojeda to compete against state Rep. Carol Miller. In a district that went for Trump by 50 points, Ojeda is polling at 40% to Miller's 48%. And 12% are undecided. If you're wondering why he's got a shot, just give him a listen.\n\nOjeda is an emboldened, outraged veteran, who came back from battle to find his home embattled. While many Americans risked their lives in nations abroad, many more struggled in our own nation -- persistent income inequality, a disappearing middle class -- and even died, as a pernicious opioid epidemic, for years, went ignored.\n\nYet his opponent doesn't seem to prioritize these issues. Instead, Miller makes it clear she endorses Trump -- and that the President endorsed her. She appears concerned with defending the Second Amendment, cutting taxes and lining up behind the agenda of the commander-in-chief who Ojeda regrets voting for.\n\nMeanwhile, Ojeda speaks the story of struggling Americans in a dialect that dyes progressive populism with the hues of a very red state. This explains why, in addition to his support for more affordable education, comprehensive immigration reform and the decriminalization of medical marijuana, he vocally supports West Virginia's coal industry, even as he acknowledges the reality of climate change and strives to keep his state competitive through investment in clean and alternative energy sources.\n\nSuch politics explodes the myth of insurmountable and immutable partisanship. Good for America. But helpful to me, too, as I find myself increasingly unable to singularly identify as a progressive or a conservative.\n\nOjeda suggests that we don't have to be only and forever Democrats and Republicans, that we can grow and mature. And we don't have to be milquetoast centrists. We could refuse the political boundaries imposed on us, for what are boundaries but limits, and who are Americans except people who refuse to believe anything is impossible?\n\nHaroon Moghul is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Policy. He is the author of the new book \" How to be a Muslim .\"\n\nWill Georgia elect first black female governor?\n\n\n\n\n\nThere's a dead heat in Georgia, and I'm not talking about the weather. The race for governor of Georgia could not be closer. Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams are deadlocked . The latest Real Clear Politics polls shows Kemp at 45% versus Abrams at 45%.\n\nIn other words, Republicans in this center-right red state realize they are in a real fight.\n\nIt's not hard to see the headwinds on the national level are blowing through the Peach State. The proverbial soccer moms of suburban Atlanta are conflicted with the tone and tenor of President Donald Trump. But there is time for a course correction before Election Day.\n\nAfter all, the two candidates could not be more different. Secretary of State Kemp is campaigning on \"Putting Georgians First\" with a focus on jobs, public safety and education. Former State House Minority Leader Abrams -- who could be the first female black governor in the country -- has fully embraced the progressive agenda\n\nKemp seeks to expand gun rights, while Abrams supports gun-control measures. Kemp wants quality, affordable private health care for all, while Abrams wants to expand Medicaid. Kemp support anti-abortion measures, while Abrams wants to protect abortion rights.\n\nThough Abrams is charismatic, as a native of Atlanta myself, I can say her positions are too extreme for the state. Georgia remains a center-right state. Kemp is a center-right candidate, running a center-right campaign. As long as he continues to focus on what's going right with the economy, Georgians will come home to the GOP.\n\nAlice Stewart is a CNN Political Commentator and former Communications Director for Ted Cruz for President.\n\nFamiliar third-party candidate challenges status quo\n\n\n\n\n\nThose who aren't on board with President Donald Trump's agenda but just can't bring themselves to support the Democrats have a sliver of hope in New Mexico, where former Gov. Gary Johnson, a libertarian, has entered a three-way race for a US Senate seat.\n\nAs the Libertarian Party's candidate for president in the 2016 election, Johnson earned 3% of the vote, the best finish for a national third-party candidate in 20 years. Still, the outcome was something of a disappointment for Johnson, who had hoped to capitalize on historic levels of dissatisfaction with the two main party candidates, but instead became a punchline after a series of gaffes. (Remember, \"what is Aleppo?\") Afterward, he swore he was done with politics.\n\nBut now Johnson is mounting an unlikely but far from impossible challenge to incumbent Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich. A former Republican governor of the typically blue state, Johnson is still popular in New Mexico: A recent poll showed Heinrich leading the race at 39%, with 21% for Johnson and 11% for Republican Mike Rich. Some 30% are still undecided.\n\nJohnson is an economic conservative known for vetoing hundreds of bills during his first term in office. But he's also a social liberal who supports abortion rights, immigration and drug legalization. And he's no fan of the President; in fact, he said Trump's election \"could be the end of the republic as we know it.\" A good showing for Johnson would be a win for the Libertarian Party, while also proving that centrist liberals, independents and Never Trump Republicans can find a compromise candidate.\n\nRobby Soave writes for the libertarian magazine Reason. Follow him on Twitter @robbysoave\n\nCan a Republican win again in a Clinton district?\n\n\n\n\n\nOn November 6, my eyes will be glued to the returns coming in from Texas' 23rd Congressional District. Three features of the race that pits Republican incumbent Will Hurd against Democratic newcomer Gina Ortiz Jones make it especially important.\n\nFirst, it's one of the 23 House districts Hillary Clinton won in 2016, but that sent a Republican to Congress. Both parties are laser-focused because it's prime real estate to flip. If the Democrats don't win this district, it's hard to imagine a path to majority control in the House of Representatives.\n\nSecond, Gina Ortiz Jones has the candidate profile that seems to be motivating Democratic turnout across the county. She's young. She's gay. She's a woman of color. She's an Iraq War veteran. And she's progressive. If Jones can't turn out the vote, then that bodes poorly for Democratic candidates with less compelling personal stories.\n\nThird, Hurd isn't a Donald Trump acolyte. He differs from the President on DACA and the border wall (not surprising given that the district is 55% Hispanic). And as a former CIA official, he has condemned the administration for how it handled Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Hurd poses a challenge for Jones in a way that not all Republicans in similar swing districts do.\n\nIn short, if TX-23 goes blue, then it's likely that the wave is nothing short of a tsunami.\n\nJennifer L. Lawless is the Commonwealth Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia.\n\nIs Maryland ready for a civil rights leader turned governor?\n\n\n\n\n\nI have known Ben Jealous, the Democratic candidate for Maryland governor, for 2\u00bd decades. What strikes me most about him: Every week, month and year that I have known him, he has been passionately working to help people who needed a strong champion. He is known as the youngest ever president of the NAACP, a venerable, ailing civil rights organization that he fixed and turned around. But he has not helped only African-Americans.\n\nThough Jealous is running against Republican candidate Larry Hogan, who has tried to distance himself from Trump, Jealous' campaign, like many this November, is about President Donald Trump.\n\nAnd Jealous is everything that Trump is not. Where Trump seeks to divide and cater to a narrow base, Jealous has spent his life building diverse coalitions for change in the public and private sector, winning major victories for DREAMers, the LGBTQ community and abolishing Maryland's death penalty.\n\nIn the private sector, he is an investor who has helped over 20 socially conscious companies launch and grow, creating jobs and proving that you don't have to sell your soul to do well in business. He connects as easily with blue-collar white guys as he does with black female churchgoers.\n\nElecting a civil rights leader and businessman right on Trump's doorstep would send a huge signal that voters across the country are turning out to resist bigotry, division and corrupt government.\n\nYou don't have to guess what Jealous would do in office. He has been winning real victories for underdogs in every role he has ever played.\n\nVan Jones is the host of the #VanJonesShow and a CNN political commentator. He is the founder of the Dream Corps , a national nonprofit to close prison doors and open doors of opportunity.\n\nA moderate Democrat has a chance in the Texas 7th\n\n\n\n\n\nOne of the races I will be watching on election night is the Houston seat -- the Texas 7th -- currently held by Republican John Culberson.\n\nThere was a nasty Democratic primary fight that the national party actively engaged in with a ham-handed release of opposition research on the progressive candidate Laura Moser. Ultimately, they got what they wanted in Lizzie Fletcher, a more moderate nominee who Democratic leadership believes will have a better chance of knocking off a longtime incumbent.\n\nAnd Fletcher is still a young, fresh female candidate with a great resume and strong ties to the district. The first test will be whether Democrats coalesce around her candidacy to support her on Election Day like they have in other elections when the more progressive candidate was defeated, such as Virginia's governor race last year.\n\nCulberson has been in office for almost two decades, and he has voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act repeatedly, an issue that has become the No. 1 topic for Democrats running this fall. If that message works in the Texas suburbs, it will be a good sign of its effectiveness in other swing districts.\n\nFinally, the race also has the potential to benefit from the huge enthusiasm Democratic Senate nominee Beto O'Rourke is generating at the top of the ticket. Even if he falls short of knocking off sitting Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, his impact on the turnout could send Fletcher, as well as a handful of other new Democratic members from the deep red state of Texas, to Congress.\n\nJen Psaki, a CNN political commentator, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration. She is vice president of communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Follow her at @jrpsaki.\n\nWe're in for another Florida nailbiter\n\n\n\n\n\nIt has been 24 long years since Florida voters elected a Democratic governor. But all signs point to a possible history-making victory by the party's nominee, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum.\n\nThe race offers an early test of whether swing states like Florida support President Donald Trump's performance. Gillum, a progressive, favors single-payer health care and has called for an increase in corporate taxes and the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.\n\nHis Republican rival, Ron DeSantis, is a fervent Trump supporter, riding an endorsement by the President to victory in the Republican primary.\n\nWhile Trump's backing was enough to win over GOP voters, the November general election is another matter. Trump carried Florida in 2016 by only 113,000 votes , a margin of 1.2% of the more than 9 million votes cast.\n\nThat means the state is up for grabs this year, giving Democrats a chance to end their exile from the statehouse.\n\nFlorida is a true swing state, a fact etched in the nation's memory in 2000, when a razor-thin 537-vote margin delivered the state, and the presidency, to Republican George W. Bush.\n\nSince that infamous squeaker, the state has seesawed in presidential races, supporting Bush again in 2004, then switching to Democratic candidate Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 before flipping back to the GOP by supporting Donald Trump in 2016.\n\nDemocrats know that winning the state this year would give the party a head start on trying to carry the state in the 2020 presidential election.\n\nErrol Louis is the host of \"Inside City Hall,\" a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel.\n\nWill New Jersey elect its first Republican senator since 1972?\n\n\n\n\n\nThe last time Republicans won a Senate race in New Jersey, Richard Nixon was president . Over the last 46 years, Republicans have found spectacular ways to lose New Jersey Senate races, even when the GOP found success in wave election years nationally. They even lost when Ronald Reagan won a landslide re-election victory in 1984. Although New Jersey has been a traditional Democratic stronghold, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans by nearly 900,000, voters have elected Republican governors over the years. Yet the Senate has eluded the GOP since 1972.\n\nOpposite the national trend of Democrats running competitively in Republican leaning districts across the country, the New Jersey Senate race may actually be in play in a reliably blue state. GOP Senate candidate Bob Hugin, a wealthy former pharmaceutical executive and former Marine, has spent nearly $16 million of his own money attacking incumbent Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez as corrupt after his federal corruption trial ended in a mistrial and his severe admonishment by the Senate Ethics Committee.\n\nThe attacks seem to be working. According to the latest Stockton University poll , Menendez's once double digit lead is down to 2 points, 45% to 43%. While other Republican candidates across the country pledge their loyalty to President Donald Trump, Hugin is taking another approach by declaring himself a \"different kind of Republican.\" He's pro-abortion rights, against tariffs and critical of the GOP tax plan that hurt many of the state's property owners because of the cap on state and local tax deductions. All these positions are at odds with the President, who unsurprisingly, has a low approval rating within the state.\n\nNew Jersey's Senate race is probably too close for comfort for Democrats, who already have to defend 26 Senate seats, 10 in states Trump won in 2016. With a slim 51-49 GOP margin of control, every Senate race counts in 2018 -- even in New Jersey.\n\nTara Setmayer, a CNN political commentator, is the host of the \"Honestly Speaking with Tara\" podcast. Follow her on Twitter @tarasetmayer\n\nWill's Faso's racist Hail Mary pass throw him a lifeline?\n\n\n\n\n\nEvery race is critical: Here in California, where I live now, there are seven key House seats in districts that went blue in November 2016, and any path for Democrats to flip Congress will run through those. But the race I'm tracking most closely is actually in New York, my home state, albeit in the suburban reaches of upstate surrounding Albany: The dead-heat contest between vulnerable Republican incumbent Rep. John Faso and his Democratic challenger, Antonio Delgado.\n\nDelgado is an incredibly impressive candidate -- a Harvard-educated lawyer and Rhodes scholar who is running as a moderate progressive. He's also black, running in a district that's 84% white. Faso, in contrast, is a Trump-down-the-line checkbox in the House; until recently, he's been best known for voting to kill Obamacare despite vowing to a cancer-patient constituent that he would not compromise her insurance in a video that subsequently went viral.\n\nBut Faso has a new infamy attached to his name: Pressured by polls showing that Delgado was tied or even ahead in the race, the National Republican Congressional Committee released a disgusting, deeply coded campaign ad that uses clips from Delgado's youthful flirtation with hip-hop (rapping under the handle \"AD the Voice\") as evidence that Faso's challenger was out of step with the values of the district and \"unfit\" to serve as their representative. The race-baiting led The New York Times to run an editorial condemning Faso. Other publications have followed suit.\n\nWith any luck, Faso's racist Hail Mary won't throw him a lifeline, but an anvil. Given the demographics of the district and the nature of the race, if Delgado wins, it will be part of an overwhelming blue sweep of the midterm elections.\n\nJeff Yang is a frequent contributor to CNN Opinion, a featured writer for Quartz and other publications, and the co-host of the podcast \"They Call Us Bruce.\"\n\nCorrection: An earlier version of this article attributed the ad about Antonio Delgado to John Faso's campaign. However, the National Republican Congressional Committee is responsible for it. It also referred to the race as the New York Ninth, but it is the New York Nineteenth. This article has also been corrected to give Gina Ortiz Jones' full name.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/opinions/2018-midterm-campaign-watch-roundup-opinion/index.html"},
"The high-risk politics of hurricanes":{"title": "The high-risk politics of hurricanes", "authors": ["John Avlon"], "publish_date": "2018-10-10", "text": "John Avlon is a CNN senior political analyst and anchor. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Natural disasters, like hurricanes, can put human-made disasters, like politics, in perspective. When a storm hits, bitter personal rivalries seem small.\n\nBut when the water recedes, there are winners and losers. Sluggish hurricane relief response has crippled presidencies and swung elections.\n\nNow, with Hurricane Michael slamming into the Gulf Coast less than four weeks before the midterms, the result could impact pivotal races in Florida -- and raise questions about the politics of climate change denial in the conservative South.\n\nDisaster responses can make or break political careers. One of the first modern examples was the 1927 Mississippi River Flood, which deluged 23,000 square miles . It is perhaps best known today as the subject of the epic Randy Newman tune, \"Louisiana 1927,\" in which the songwriter depicts a callous President Calvin Coolidge, saying \"isn't it a shame/what the river has done/to this poor crackers' land.\"\n\nIn fact, Coolidge delegated the disaster response to his Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover (who, full disclosure, is my wife Margaret Hoover's great-grandfather). Hoover had come to international prominence saving millions from starvation in the wake of World War I, and he reprised that role with more comprehensive relief and rebuilding, earning the title \"the master of emergencies\" and boosting his national profile on the way to a landslide presidential victory in 1928.\n\nSecretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover broadcasts a plea to the nation to donate funds for disaster relief for the victims of the Mississippi flood in April 1927.\n\nFast forward to 1992, and perceptions of a sluggish FEMA response to the Category 5 Hurricane Andrew in Florida hurt President George H. W. Bush. He won the state narrowly but lost the presidency, and campaign aides believe the episode helped move the once-dependable Republican bastion into purple swing-state status.\n\nPresident George H. W. Bush, Barbara Bush and Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney visit with Marines taking part in the disaster relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in Homestead, Florida on Sept. 1, 1992.\n\nHurricane Katrina defined the domestic side of President George W. Bush's downward-spiral second term. The September 2005 storm devastated New Orleans and cost more than 1,800 lives . Bush was slammed for a delayed federal response after local officials like Mayor Ray Nagin went MIA. Bush's infamous praise of FEMA director Michael Brown -- \"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job\" -- became an internet meme that served as shorthand for clueless self-congratulation.\n\nLouisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declined to run for re-election under intense criticism, while Nagin was re-elected, with backing from the Bush White House, before being later indicted and imprisoned on charges of bribery and fraud.\n\nPresident Bush waves as he takes a walking tour of Biloxi, Mississippi, after Hurricane Katrina on September 2, 2005.\n\nSuperstorm Sandy hit the northeast US one week before the 2012 presidential election, with polls showing a tight race between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The disaster response highlighted Obama's role as \" comforter in chief, \" along with highly publicized praise from a frequent Republican critic, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.\n\nThe disaster raised questions about whether Romney's budget plans would cut FEMA funding. The New York Times ran an editoria l, \"A Big Storm Requires Big Government,\" that summed up many Democrats' belief that the response highlighted the positive role of government for Main Street America.\n\nPresident Barack Obama is greeted by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie upon arriving in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on Oct. 31, 2012, to visit areas hardest hit by Sandy.\n\nDonald Trump slammed Obama in a tweet at the time, claiming \"Not only giving out money, but Obama will be seen today standing in water and rain like he is a real President --- don't fall for it.\" Nonetheless, Gallup showed Obama received a small but decisive bump in job-approval polls from 50 to 52% heading into the election.\n\nDuring President Trump's tenure FEMA earned high marks for its response to Hurricane Harvey, which submerged large parts of Houston and surrounding areas. But when Hurricane Maria decimated Puerto Rico in September 2017, the federal response was sluggish, compounded by weak infrastructure. Trump attacked the Mayor of San Juan repeatedly as \"totally incompetent\" and then went on to deny the official George Washington University study commissioned by the government of Puerto Rico that showed the actual death toll was 2,975 -- some 46 times higher than the previous \"official\" death toll of 64.\n\nTrump's response represented an epic fail of the \"comforter-in-chief\" role. And to date, Congress has still not sought to implement a fact-finding mission into this deadly modern disaster.\n\nWith Hurricane Michael making landfall in the Florida Panhandle, Governor Rick Scott has seized the mantle of managing the disaster, which raises his profile in powerful ways weeks before he squares off against Democratic incumbent Senator Bill Nelson, who can only offer commentary and constituent services. At the same time, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum has suspended campaigning for Governor as he works to secure his city -- while leading Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis in the polls.\n\nThe hard work of disaster response on both fronts could have a tangible impact on these elections, benefiting executives who show they have the right stuff while running the risk that sustained power outages could anger constituents as they head to the polls. An additional X factor is whether the Sunshine State's large and growing number of Puerto Rican residents will vote against Republicans because of Trump's callous response to their friends and family impacted by Hurricane Maria.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nBut Hurricane Michael is part of a larger trend of major storms slamming into the Southern US, as studies show that climate change is contributing to more intense hurricanes. The total cost of US hurricanes this decade is at least $356 billion, and the Richmond Federal Reserve released a report that found \"evidence that higher summer temperatures could reduce overall U.S. economic growth by as much as one-third over the next century, with Southern states accounting for a disproportionate share of that potential reduction.\"\n\nWith Republicans disproportionately dominating Southern states, it's enough to wonder whether changing conditions and increased costs will cause some conservatives to distance themselves from Trump's description of climate change as a \"hoax\" and embrace policies that recognize and try to address this new reality. But that would require putting people and problem-solving ahead of partisan politics.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/opinions/hurricane-michael-high-risk-politics-avlon/index.html"},
"Taylor Swift, if you're going to talk politics, dig deeper":{"title": "Taylor Swift, if you're going to talk politics, dig deeper", "authors": ["Carrie Sheffield"], "publish_date": "2018-10-10", "text": "Carrie Sheffield, a conservative commentator, is the founder of Bold, a digital news network committed to bipartisan dialogue. She is also National Editor for Accuracy in Media, a citizens' media watchdog whose mission is to promote accuracy, fairness and balance in news reporting. The views expressed here are solely hers. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) The problem with Taylor Swift's endorsement of Tennessee Democratic Senate candidate Phil Bredesen heading into Election Day isn't that she spoke out. Civic engagement is vital, especially among the many young people who adore Swift's music, and freedom of speech is a bedrock American principle.\n\nCarrie Sheffield\n\nThe real problem with Swift's Instagram post was that she missed the bigger picture. It's a myopia typical of many young people, largely cultivated by insular reasoning prevalent in high schools and on college campuses , who focus on narrow wedge social issues without looking at broader macro conditions or grappling seriously with complex issues.\n\nThis is another common problem among young people \u2014 expressing anger and fear against a system rather than proactively seeking to change it. It's not unusual for some young people to miss the difference between expressive and persuasive communication, and while it's easy to sympathize with the impulse to express oneself, in a democracy failing to grasp this distinction can be a fatal flaw.\n\nOur country needs persuasion backed by intellectual engagement more than expression bolstered by emotion right now.\n\nSwift also risks a backlash from everyday Tennessee voters who believe she's lecturing them rather than trying to understand them -- the classic story of a hero who forgets her roots. Swift's hyperbolic wording, saying that Republican Senate candidate Rep. Marsha Blackburn's voting record in public service \"appalls and terrifies me,\" and associating Blackburn with \"systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color\" is one example of why our country is so divided right now.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/opinions/taylor-swift-gets-politics-wrong-carrie-sheffield/index.html"},
"Women are the future of the Democratic party":{"title": "Women are the future of the Democratic party", "authors": ["Jill Filipovic"], "publish_date": "2018-10-9", "text": "Jill Filipovic is a journalist based in New York and Nairobi, Kenya, and the author of the book \" The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness .\" Follow her on Twitter . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\nVoters favor a generic Democratic candidate over a generic Republican 54% to 41%, with 62% of Democrats saying they are \"very enthusiastic\" or \"extremely enthusiastic\" about voting this year. But the Democratic edge is not gender-neutral: While male voters are closely divided -- half say they will support a Republican, 45% a Democrat -- 63% of women say they will vote Democratic. Women are also more enthusiastic about voting this year than men, an important shift from previous elections.\n\nIn other words, any impending Democratic victory will likely be thanks to women. But we aren't just voting. A record number of us are running for office this year. Female donors are giving more money than ever to midterm races. We are working on campaigns, door-knocking, fundraising, and showing up at marches and protests.\n\nIf Democrats are smart, they won't just ride this pink wave; they'll put women's interests, and women themselves, at the forefront of the party's politics.\n\nDemocrats have long enjoyed support from women, but since the election of Donald Trump, that support has grown. Millennial women are especially drawn leftward: Fewer than a quarter of us identify as Republican or lean Republican, while 70% identify or lean Democratic, according to a Pew survey.\n\nDemocratic popularity is also driven by race and education. The number of white women who support the GOP is waning, largely thanks to the college-educated , who have thrown their support behind Democrats. And black women are an integral component of the party's backbone and are among its strongest supporters\n\nIf Democrats want to harness our energy going forward, they need to make women less of an interest group and more of a default interest. Still, even in progressive circles, women are treated as a kind of other, our interests deemed secondary to more traditional (and male-oriented) priorities -- things our leaders will get around to eventually, as long as we wait our turn. What if women's lives were at the heart of the Democratic Party, and our experiences were treated as the American norm?\n\nIf the party wants to keep us, that's what needs to happen. Yes, these House and Senate elections are more about staving off further Trump-fueled mayhem than moving progressive legislation forward. But at the state and city levels, there is much the party can do, especially in more progressive enclaves. And the national party can begin organizing now for 2020, and putting together a platform that doesn't just take women into account, but puts us first.\n\nThat means taking a strong stance against harassment and abuse -- unwaveringly opposing the elevation of men who have either been proven abusive or who stand accused but inadequately investigated. And politicians who support the elevation of alleged abusers without a thorough investigation, like West Virginia's Joe Manchin and the Republican senators who voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, should face tougher scrutiny. It also means crafting laws that better protect women from abuse and harassment, and giving us greater resources to counter bad treatment where we see it, especially in the workplace.\n\nDemocrats must also bring us into the 21st century on paid family leave, which disproportionately impacts women, as well as a fair minimum wage. Worker protections need to address the many female workers who are domestic laborers, contract workers, or who work for minimum wage in restaurants and in retail. Reproductive rights, including abortion, should not even be up for debate, and certainly not up for compromise.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nAnd finally, the Democratic Party needs to support women running for office and make a concerted effort to get to at least 50-50 gender parity (and frankly, given that their base is female and of-color, the party's representatives should have white men in the minority). Even if all the women running for office win this year, we still won't have anything near gender equality in the House or the Senate. That doesn't change organically; it requires effort and investment.\n\nWomen are sending a clear message: We are fed up with Trump, and will show up at the ballot box in November. But after that, the people we vote for need to show up for us.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/cnn-poll-women-democratic-party-opinion-filipovic/index.html"},
"Behind Nikki Haley's sudden exit":{"title": "Behind Nikki Haley's sudden exit", "authors": ["Se Cupp"], "publish_date": "2018-10-9", "text": "SE Cupp is a CNN political commentator and the host of \"SE Cupp Unfiltered.\" The views expressed in this commentary are solely hers. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) With the dust from the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation fight still far from settled, one of the Trump administration's top Cabinet members announced she is leaving.\n\nNikki Haley , the US ambassador to the United Nations, is resigning and leaving her post by the end of the year. As one of the few prominent women in the administration, Haley by leaving also spotlights the gender gap and gender issues plaguing a White House still reeling from the Kavanaugh confirmation.\n\nSE Cupp\n\nThis news is indeed startling -- Haley is one of the most respected officials in the administration, both internally and internationally, among America's allies.\n\nThere was a palpable and collective anxiety about her exit in some circles, as she's been one of the more stabilizing forces in an otherwise chaotic Trump orbit. She also put a much-needed polish on the public face of the United States when Trump seems to have preferred unsettling our partners in the world.\n\nAmong conservatives, who have long been critical of the United Nations' historical inefficacy, many of us believe Haley used her position well to stand up not just for America's interests but also democracy's. She was often a lone voice of support for Israel among a body that is hostile toward it as well as a powerful foil to Russia, Syria and Iran.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/nikki-haley-resignation-what-comes-next-se-cupp/index.html"},
"If young voters care about reproductive rights, they'd better vote in November":{"title": "If young voters care about reproductive rights, they'd better vote in November", "authors": ["Holly Thomas"], "publish_date": "2018-10-9", "text": "Holly Thomas is a British writer and editor based in London. She tweets @HolstaT. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who has spent the last several weeks battling disturbing accusations of sexual violence, is now one of the most powerful people in America. While his appointment to the US Supreme Court is devastating for much of the population, it is easy to forget what a triumphant victory it represents for many others.\n\nBarber, who is a devout Christian, was referring to a sometimes lethal (and by no means extinct) method of DIY abortion used by desperate women for whom safer legal methods are not available. He later deleted the comment. A fellow councilman has since come forward to say that Barber's post was a callback to an incident in Washington earlier this autumn, when a pro-choice activist threw a coat hanger in his face. Barber, who quit the Democratic Party last year citing its \"anti-Christian rhetoric,\" has yet to apologize for his remarks.\n\nBarber's language is extreme, but many Americans agree with his basic sentiment that abortion is wrong, and that nominally religious values ought to be reflected in the political discourse. It is no wonder, then, that he and so many others are delighted with the Supreme Court's newest appointee.\n\nOn the flipside, the potential for regressive, draconian reform which now rests in Kavanaugh's hands should shock and galvanize every young person who has hitherto taken their rights for granted. And while there is little the American public can now do about the Supreme Court, it will soon have a say in the makeup of Congress in the midterm elections. This is the remaining opportunity to dilute what might otherwise become an entirely conservative federal government.\n\nAccording to a June poll , only 28% of young voters say they will definitely vote in the midterms, compared with 74% of seniors. When it comes to issues like reproductive rights, which do not directly affect the elderly, this disparity leaves young people incredibly vulnerable to the whims of people who will not have to live with the consequences of their vote.\n\nYoung voters -- even those registered as independent -- are much more likely to lean toward the Democrats, who are mostly supportive of abortion, and for whom turnout will be key in the midterms. And there is some good news -- in the latest CNN poll , Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters say they are enthusiastic to vote in November. The most recent red wash of the executive and judiciary arms of government should therefore inspire serious urgency in young Americans to hit the ballot boxes and affect the legislature where they can.\n\nKavanaugh gives supporters of abortion reason to worry. In a 2003 memo, Kavanaugh wrote that the Supreme Court \"can always overrule\" Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision recognizing a woman's right to legally terminate pregnancies anywhere in the United States. (Before Roe, women could legally get abortions in some states.) Last year, Kavanaugh called late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who notably voted against Roe in 1973, his \" first judicial hero ,\" and lauded his efforts to stem \"the general tide of freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights\".\n\nJUST WATCHED Voter: Kavanaugh debate has energized women Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Voter: Kavanaugh debate has energized women 04:09\n\nHe also replaces Anthony Kennedy, a center-right and broadly socially liberal justice who has wielded the decisive vote in rulings, including the upholding of Roe v. Wade. In his absence, and with Kavanaugh in situ, the court will likely roll back a number of progressive rulings, including those concerning abortion rights.\n\nAbortion hasn't always been such a partisan issue. Until the mid-1970s, the majority of Republicans favored abortion rights , favoring all the self-determinism that position represented. The need to mollify the religious right saw a gradual shift toward the anti-abortion stance today's millennials most associate with the party. What might once have been a matter for individual social conscience is now a definitive political marker. As such, the Republicans are now almost completely united in their mission to scale back progressive abortion laws, and President Donald Trump has made it clear that he intends to spearhead the endeavor.\n\nReports vary, but it is generally agreed that over half of Americans under 30 are pro-abortion. And even with Roe v. Wade in place, several states have begun to impose restrictions on abortion. West Virginia, where the coat hanger-celebrating Barber is a councilman, is one of seven states which currently have just one abortion clinic. The fact that anti-abortion politicians have already made such headway in removing options for pregnant women should be of acute concern to the pro-abortion population, not least because of the broader social injustice it represents.\n\nAny measures to restrict abortion disproportionately affect minorities and the poor. In the wake of the 2008 financial collapse and as abortion rights were restricted, internet searches about self-induced abortions nearly doubled . And black women seek abortions at five times the rate of white women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which puts them at even greater risk when their rights are restricted.\n\nAnd it's important to remember that punitive measures don't deter women from attempting DIY abortions, but they do make them more hazardous. Self-induced abortions, even those managed with pills rather than invasive measures, are very dangerous.\n\nAmericans' reproductive rights were under threat long before Kavanaugh's confirmation, but his presence in the Supreme Court could accelerate their dissolution aggressively. And as Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, made clear this week, Kavanaugh's appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court is just one component of a broader Republican assault on women's bodily autonomy.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nAsked whether Trump was upholding his promise to work toward getting Roe v. Wade overturned, she said: \"He's nominating people -- 26 to the US Circuit courts and two to the United States Supreme Court -- who are going to apply the law.\" She stressed that the state would tackle late-term abortion and sex-selection abortion, and \"look at abortion after nonpartisan scientists and doctors say a fetus can feel pain.\"\n\nIn short, if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, that could prove the nail in the coffin for federal-mandated reproductive rights. Young people who were not born before Roe v. Wade could discover a grim world of DIY abortions, already familiar to many of America's poor and disenfranchised, if their states pass strict anti-abortion laws. While this is more likely to occur in red states, some blue states have not yet passed laws protecting abortion. It is not only \"liberals\" who want or need abortions, as Barber's disgusting Facebook post suggested earlier this week. The option needs to be safely, legally available to all American women.\n\nThe majority of young voters agree, but unless they turn out to vote, their voices will go unheard. The Eric Barbers of America will celebrate their final, definitive triumph.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/kavanaugh-millennial-vote-abortion-rights-thomas/index.html"},
"Mitch McConnell has done grave damage to all three branches of government":{"title": "Mitch McConnell has done grave damage to all three branches of government", "authors": ["Paul Begala"], "publish_date": "2018-10-9", "text": "Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House. He was a consultant to Priorities USA Action, which was a pro-Obama super PAC before it was a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Once in a while, a politician becomes so powerful and yet so destructive that he or she does real damage to the branch of government in which she or he serves.\n\nObviously, Richard Nixon damaged the presidency, Newt Gingrich turned the House of Representatives into a mixed martial arts arena, and Roger Taney forever stained the Supreme Court with the Dred Scott decision. But it takes someone special, someone rare, someone spectacularly Machiavellian and malevolent, to screw up all three branches of government.\n\nLadies and gentlemen: Mitch McConnell. The soft-spoken Kentuckian has, in just a few short years, done lasting damage to the presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court: the hat trick of democracy destruction.\n\nTo wit:\n\nAmerican intelligence knew Vladimir Putin's henchmen were attacking America, using cyberwarfare tactics to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign. Yet when the nonpartisan leaders of our intelligence community briefed McConnell, his reply -- according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Greg Miller -- was purely partisan: \"You're trying to screw the Republican nominee.\" McConnell not only refused to condemn the Russians, Miller writes, he threatened to attack the US intelligence community, labeling its call to defend America an act of partisan politics.\n\nBy helping hobble our defense against the dark arts of Putin, McConnell has tainted Donald Trump's presidency. The noted media scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson has carefully examined the Russian effort, and has concluded that without Russia's help, Trump would not be President.\n\nJUST WATCHED Gergen: McConnell cares about getting it done Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Gergen: McConnell cares about getting it done 01:22\n\nTrump's legitimacy is questionable -- in part because McConnell refused to defend our presidential electoral system when it came under foreign attack.\n\nThe Senate. McConnell has broken the Senate. By refusing even to meet with President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, and by blocking hearings on his nomination, McConnell deeply harmed the comity on which the Senate is supposed to run.\n\nI am amused by the notion that, somehow, former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is the one who broke the Senate when he eliminated the filibuster for lower court judgeships. Right. If only Reid had been nicer to sweet ol' Mitch, then he wouldn't have been so doggone mean when he got power.\n\nIn truth, Reid had no choice but to limit the filibuster on lower court nominations, given McConnell's abuse of it. McConnell invoked the 60-vote rule to block Obama's nominees nearly as often as it had been used in all previous US history. Under all the presidents before Obama, 86 nominations had been blocked by filibuster. In just the Obama presidency alone, McConnell used the filibuster to block 82.\n\nMcConnell's naked partisanship has crippled the Senate. One wonders how it will ever recover.\n\nThe Supreme Court. Which brings us to the high court. Not content with simply stealing Garland's seat for Trump, McConnell rammed through the nomination of the Which brings us to the high court. Not content with simply stealing Garland's seat for Trump, McConnell rammed through the nomination of the profoundly unpopular Brett Kavanaugh. The court now has four justices appointed by Presidents who originally came into office after losing the popular vote.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\n(To be fair, George W. Bush nominated Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito in his second term after winning the 2004 election fair and square. But does anyone think he would have had a second term if the court had not installed him despite the will of the voters in 2000?)\n\nThe McConnell court is now every bit as partisan as one of the panels on my old show, \"Crossfire.\" Except on \"Crossfire,\" we didn't wear robes and pretend we were somehow above the fray. For decades to come, American citizens upset about any erosion of their constitutional rights -- civil rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, women's rights, reproductive rights, consumer rights, environmental protections -- can thank McConnell.\n\nLegacies are often hard to predict when a politician is still in office. Not this time. When you see bitter, hateful, vengeful hyperpartisanship infecting our national life -- from the White House to the Senate to the marble palace of the Supreme Court -- you can thank the \"Gentleman from Kentucky.\"", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/mitch-mcconnell-has-damaged-all-three-branches-of-government-begala/index.html"},
"Indonesia is in rubble. Why so little help from America?":{"title": "Indonesia is in rubble. Why so little help from America?", "authors": ["Jill Filipovic"], "publish_date": "2018-10-8", "text": "Jill Filipovic is a journalist based in New York and Nairobi, Kenya, and the author of the book \"The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.\" Follow her on Twitter. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, nearly 1,800 people are confirmed dead, and more than 5,000 people could still be missing after a 7.5 magnitude earthquake triggered a devastating tsunami less than two weeks ago. Bodies are still being dug out of the rubble, and family members continue to search for loved ones.\n\nJill Filipovic\n\nBut like so many stories about events outside of the United States, little American attention is being paid to this faraway tragedy.\n\nPresident Donald Trump promised to put America First, and his opponents denounced that kind of political narrow-mindedness and egoistic exclusion. But on both sides of the aisle, we've let that me-first vision win.\n\nThe United States is in a crisis. We are more divided than ever. A hostile foreign power meddled in our elections, and we remain unprotected against future infiltration. Our President, who has been accused of sexual harassment or assault by more than a dozen women, nominated a man to the Supreme Court who stands accused of attempted rape and appears to have lied under oath. Now he's an associate justice on the Supreme Court. There is a lot to worry about within our own borders.\n\nBut we make a huge mistake -- and abdicate America's pivotal role in the global order -- if we think we can ignore the rest of the world. And yet that's exactly what voters left, right and center appear to be doing. The large media outlets that are tarred as \"liberal\" for their rigorous fact-checking and actual reporting continue to cover world affairs. But few seem to be reading or reacting. Where is the American outcry for aid to countries in dire need?\n\nRead More", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/earthquake-indonesia-is-in-rubble-why-doesnt-america-help-filipovic/index.html"},
"The Kavanaugh investigation was a charade":{"title": "The Kavanaugh investigation was a charade", "authors": ["Josh Campbell"], "publish_date": "2018-10-8", "text": "Josh Campbell is a CNN law enforcement analyst. He previously served as a Supervisory Special Agent with the FBI and is currently writing a book on recent attempts by elected officials to undermine the rule of law. Follow him on Twitter at @joshscampbell. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles at CNN.\n\n(CNN) The country just witnessed a charade in the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.\n\nI'm not talking about the dramatic hearings nor the stream of serious allegations and full-throated defense to rebut them. Instead, I'm referring to efforts by the White House to manipulate the American people into believing the FBI's supplemental background investigation of Kavanaugh was comprehensive in nature and free from outside influence. The administration's convenient, newfound confidence in the FBI was also a sight to behold.\n\nThe remarkable orchestration was successful in two key areas: The puppet masters overseeing the FBI's work were able to convince a large segment of society that the bureau had \"free rein\" in digging into the judge's past, while also benefiting from the often blurred distinction between an FBI criminal investigation and a background investigation of a White House nominee.\n\nIn criminal cases, the bureau has wide latitude to utilize an array of investigative tools in order to ferret out violations of federal law. These investigations are conducted independent of meddling politicians and go wherever the facts lead.\n\nBy contrast, in background investigations, the FBI merely acts as the investigative arm of the White House and can only operate within strict parameters set by the administration. The goal is not to gather facts for a criminal case, but instead to collect information the White House can then use to determine whether a potential nominee is suitable for high office.\n\nRead More", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/kavanaugh-fbi-charade-opinion-campbell/index.html"},
"Kavanaugh shows how easily Washington forgives its own":{"title": "Kavanaugh shows how easily Washington forgives its own", "authors": ["Lev Golinkin"], "publish_date": "2018-10-8", "text": "Lev Golinkin came to the United States as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in 1990. He is the author of the memoir \"A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka.\" The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.\n\nBrett once worked for Ken Starr, who set out to publicly humiliate Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in the most vicious way possible. Bill was forgiven, including by many feminists\n\nKen, it seems, was forgiven, too, and he became president of Baylor University, where some athletes raped and sexually assaulted some women.\n\nKen, in turn, was forgiving to the athletes, and got into trouble for it. As he left Baylor, he got a $4.52 million payout as a consolation prize.\n\nBrett then went to work for George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq on an unjustified pretext and destroyed countless lives. George then retired, took up painting and was forgiven\n\nBrett then got a job offer from Donald Trump, who'd done lots of horrible things and continues to do lots of horrible things, but is continuously forgiven -- not just by his base, but also by GOP politicians , who claim they don't forgive Donald but wind up voting for things he wants anyway.\n\nIn order to get the job, Brett had to go through an important job interview. Brett's interview drew comparisons to Clarence Thomas, who was accused of harassing Anita Hill. Hill was eviscerated, but Clarence was forgiven, thanks to some help from Joe Biden. Joe has since been forgiven for helping Clarence. To this day, Joe feels the notion that he should acknowledge his full responsibility for Hill's treatment is \" unfair .\"\n\nBrett muffed his big job interview. Really muffed it. That's when Brett was defended by John Yoo. John was a lawyer for George. While working for George, John drafted the memos that paved the way for torture and eventually resulted in terms like waterboarding and rectal hydration becoming as American as apple pie. John was forgiven for helping to create the legal groundwork for government-run torture and is now a law professor at Berkeley.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nBrett's job interview was so bad, in fact, that it was mocked by Matt Damon on Saturday Night Live. Not too long ago, Matt got into trouble for his tone-deaf comments about Casey Affleck (who is now forgiven), Louis CK (who's working on getting forgiven), and Harvey Weinstein (who hasn't yet been forgiven, but can we really for sure say he won't be at some point?) who all got in trouble for sexual misconduct. But Matt was really funny on SNL, so he was forgiven for equivocating about Casey, Louis, and Harvey.\n\nA little while later, Brett got the job.\n\nAnd now everyone's mad at everyone else for some reason.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/meet-brett-kavanaugh-opinion-golinkin/index.html"},
"Justice Kavanaugh: What to expect":{"title": "Justice Kavanaugh: What to expect", "authors": ["Kevin J. Mcmahon"], "publish_date": "2018-10-8", "text": "Kevin J. McMahon is John R. Reitemeyer Professor of Political Science and director of the graduate program in public policy at Trinity College. He is the author of \" Nixon's Court: His Challenge to Judicial Liberalism and Its Political Consequences .\" The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion at CNN.\n\n(CNN) Now that Brett Kavanaugh has taken a seat on the Supreme Court, what might we expect? To help answer this question, it is useful to employ a modified version of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's quote about \"knowns\" and \"unknowns.\"\n\n\"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know\": Justice Kavanaugh is a conservative. While there is some disagreement about how conservative, every analysis I've read puts him at least to the right of Chief Justice John Roberts. This means that he is expected to join the chief and the other three Republican appointed justices to move the court to the right in clear and distinct terms over the next decade or so. After all, as a group, these five conservatives are quite young by historical comparisons. The oldest, Clarence Thomas, is 70, a full fifteen years younger than the oldest liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.\n\nThe new swing justice -- representing the ideological middle of the court and replacing the retiring Anthony Kennedy -- will likely be Chief Justice Roberts. And while Roberts has angered conservatives on occasion, particularly with his decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), he is generally quite conservative.\n\nWith this group of five in place, the list of cases likely in line for elimination or significant reconstruction is fairly well known: Roe v. Wade (abortion), Grutter v. Bollinger (affirmative action), and Morrison v. Olson (presidential power), among others.\n\n: Will Justice Kavanaugh succumb to the so-called Greenhouse Effect? The list of victims rolls off the tongues of conservative critics: Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter are among the most prominent.\n\nThey were all justices appointed by Republican presidents who, once on the high bench, proved to be more liberal than expected when appointed. Conservatives were so perturbed by this phenomenon, they gave it a label: the \"Greenhouse Effect.\" But this has nothing to do with climate change.\n\nRather, the idea is that newbies on the bench sought to please the liberal Eastern elite, and more specifically, Linda Greenhouse , the longtime -- and now, former -- Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times. When they did, they moved to the left.\n\nTo combat this \"known unknown,\" Republicans in the White House have targeted for selection to the Supreme Court candidates who have spent substantial time working in a Republican administration in Washington, believing these nominees would be less likely to be, as Richard Nixon put it earlier, \"twisted by the Georgetown set.\"\n\nAfter all, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter spent little of their pre-Supreme Court careers in the nation's capital. In fact, Blackmun and Souter did not work there at all. Stevens served for a year as a clerk at the Supreme Court, and another on the staff of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives. Notably, he did not work in the executive branch.\n\nIn contrast, all of the current Republican-appointed justices have spent significant time working in DC -- all during the early and formative parts of their legal careers, and all in the executive branch. In fact, soon after graduating from law school, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh centered their lives there.\n\n\"Unknown Unknowns.\" Things we do not and cannot know at this time, including: From the brokenness of defeat, what will progressives do? And more importantly, how will voters respond to what they do?\n\nConsider the following: On November 3, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson won one of the largest electoral landslides in the nation's history by capturing 61.05% of the popular vote; no one before or since has won a greater share of that vote. In addition, he secured the electoral votes of 44 states and the District of Columbia, losing only his opponent's home state and five states of the Deep South. Recall, the Congress had passed and LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in July of that year, and white southern voters took out their anger on Johnson, a Texan.\n\nThe following year, LBJ named his good friend and leading liberal lawyer Abe Fortas to the court, replacing the slightly more conservative Arthur Goldberg. In 1967, he chose legendary civil rights attorney and his current solicitor general, Thurgood Marshall, for a seat on the high bench, replacing the third most conservative justice at the time, Tom Clark. With the addition of Marshall, the new swing justice was William Brennan, who, as his biographers highlight in their book title, was a champion to liberals.\n\nBut change was underfoot. Some of the Earl Warren-led court's decisions, particularly those expanding the rights of the accused, were deeply unpopular. At the same time, typical street crime was soaring, riots were raging in the nation's urban core, and anti-Vietnam War unrest was disrupting college campuses across the land. Into this space, Republican Richard Nixon unleashed an anti-Supreme Court \"law-and-order\" campaign. Third-party candidate George Wallace, the former and future governor of Alabama, joined in the court-bashing, including references to the nation's highest tribunal as a \"sorry, lousy, no-account outfit.\"\n\nAs I explain in my book , \"Nixon's Court,\" Nixon's judicial strategy succeeded in not only pushing the court to the right on the issues he cared most about, it helped him build a Republican electoral majority. More specifically, Nixon's strategy appealed to disaffected Democrats living in the South and the urban and suburban North, and those voters -- the latter mislabeled as \"Reagan Democrats\" -- would become essential components of a Republican coalition that would dominate presidential elections for the next two decades, only narrowly losing the Watergate-influenced race of 1976.\n\nAs a result, Republican presidents were able to select the next 10 justices for the court.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nSo what does this story of conservative success mean for progressives today? Well, as liberals have known since the 1960s, success in the judicial arena does not necessarily translate into victories at the polls. And when forced to defend controversial court decisions, liberals didn't always convince voters of the rightness of their cause.\n\nToo often, at least according to some critics , they went back to the courts in an effort to score victories there, instead of building a grassroots movement to win on Election Day.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/justice-kavanaugh-what-to-expect-mcmahon/index.html"},
"What hasn't changed about women in power since Anita Hill":{"title": "What hasn't changed about women in power since Anita Hill", "authors": ["Kelly Dittmar", "Kira Sanbonmatsu", "Susan J. Carroll"], "publish_date": "2018-9-17", "text": "Kelly Dittmar is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University-Camden and a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers' Eagleton Institute of Politics. Kira Sanbonmatsu and Susan J. Carroll are professors of political science at Rutgers University-New Brunswick and senior scholars at CAWP. They are the authors of \" A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters \" (Oxford University Press 2018). The views expressed here are solely those of the authors. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) In 1991, Anita Hill testified in front of an all-white, all-male Senate Judiciary Committee about her allegations that she was sexually harassed by then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas (accusations that he denied). Nearly three decades later, another woman may sit in front of the same committee -- though its makeup has changed overall, its members from the majority party are still all men -- to share her own story of attempted rape by the man, who has also denied it, currently awaiting confirmation to the Supreme Court.\n\nDo the differences between 1991's Judiciary Committee and today's, especially when it comes to gender, matter? In our new book , Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, makes a case for why it does. \"I think it is easier for a female member to imagine what it's like to be victimized, to be disbelieved, disregarded, and retaliated against,\" she says. \"It is something that they can imagine happening easier than many of our male colleagues who can't imagine ever being victimized or disbelieved or disregarded because they've never experienced that.\"\n\n\"I think there is a fundamental difference between our world experiences that will allow us to empathize differently,\" she added.\n\nIn an election year in which record numbers of women are on the ballot, speaking with women officeholders provides some insights into the difference it might make if more women win so that they are at the tables -- and on the committees -- where major political decisions are being made. Whether by changing the conversation, or transforming the culture and image of Congress, women's presence in Congress matters. In her interview with us, Representative Donna Edwards, D-Maryland, said \"there's just not enough of us, period.\" 2018 might change that, and the congresswomen we interviewed make the case for why that's a good thing.\n\nDrawn from interviews with 83 congresswomen , the findings in our book point to at least five ways in which women's representation has made a difference in recent congresses.\n\nCongresswomen shape the policy agenda to include overlooked and underaddressed issues. Seated in a House Ways and Means Committee debate, Representative Linda S\u00e1nchez, D-California, provided a reality check to her male colleagues about the pressing challenges of finding affordable childcare. In her words, the distinct truth of women's lives \"never even crosses (men's) mind(s).\"\n\n\"I feel like my role as a woman on the committee is very important,\" she told us, \"because I don't just speak for myself, I speak for many similarly situated women. ... (Were I) not there, that perspective (would be) totally absent from the debate.\"\n\nJUST WATCHED As millennial women lean left, this GOP candidate took a stand for the right Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH As millennial women lean left, this GOP candidate took a stand for the right 03:07\n\nWhen Rep. Katherine Clark , D-Massachusetts, introduced the 2015 Prioritizing Online Threat Enforcement Act to compel the Department of Justice to enforce laws prohibiting online violence against women, she tied her advocacy to personal experience, noting, \"I don't think any woman who has ever run for office isn't a little familiar with online harassment.\"\n\nCongresswomen remedy oversights to the benefit of other women. In the 114th Congress, Rep. In the 114th Congress, Rep. Martha McSally , R-Arizona, worked with Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, to ensure that World War II Women Airforce Service Pilots could be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, citing her own military service as motivating her fight to honor those who came before her. After she was alerted to the possibility that women amputees were being underserved, Rep. Niki Tsongas , D-Massachusetts, included a provision in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act that evaluated the Department of Defense's ability to provide the best prosthetic limbs for women. \"Those questions would never get asked without us here,\" she explained.\n\nCongresswomen bring a results-oriented approach to governing. One of the most common refrains among congresswomen we interviewed was their belief that women are more likely than men to focus on achievement over ego. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California, said, in line with One of the most common refrains among congresswomen we interviewed was their belief that women are more likely than men to focus on achievement over ego. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California, said, in line with research on women's motivation to run for office, \"I don't think women come here to be somebody. I think we come here to get things done.\" That results-oriented approach appears to motivate women's bipartisan work, work that has also been facilitated in part by the relationship-building they have done in single-sex spaces -- including women's dinners, trips, and even sporting events.\n\nWomen in Congress are not the antidote to partisan polarization; like men, they are partisan beings. But, across party lines, congresswomen do believe they are more likely than men to be problem-solvers rather than problem-makers.\n\nCongresswomen have worked to bring more women into their ranks. Many congresswomen are committed to increasing the numbers of women in political office. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-New York, told us about her commitment to meeting with young women \"to encourage them to step up to the plate and add their voices to the conversation.\" This year, she has led candidate recruitment for the National Republican Campaign Committee, with a particular emphasis on recruiting women. Almost universally, congresswomen believe that the influence of women in Congress would be greater if there were more of them.\n\nCongresswomen inspire the next generation of women leaders. Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, described the symbolic importance of her presence in Congress as a black woman: \"(Having more women of color in Congress) makes a difference when little African-American girls can dream that they, too, can serve in Congress.\" As a little girl who \"never thought I would be sitting in the United States Congress,\" Beatty described the privilege she feels in being able to make policy in Washington, DC and then \"go back home and sit in the classroom or to sit in the neighborhood center and be able to honestly say, 'Somebody in this room -- lots of you -- can do this.'\"\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nDisrupting expectations of who can and should lead will not only affect girls. As Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Indiana, notes, \"I think that we have to change the mindset not only of girls ... we have to change the minds of boys and boys who support girls.\"", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/opinions/anita-hill-brett-kavanaugh-why-women-in-congress-matter-dittmar-et-al/index.html"},
"The GOP is right to be worried about Kavanaugh":{"title": "The GOP is right to be worried about Kavanaugh", "authors": ["Sally Kohn", "Cnn Political Commentator"], "publish_date": "2018-9-24", "text": "Sally Kohn is a CNN political commentator and author of the book, \" The Opposite of Hate .\" The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Republicans seem worried about the prospect of their Judiciary Committee members questioning Christine Blasey Ford when she testifies on Thursday about her sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, an allegation the nominee denies. They are concerned about the optics of having only Republican men interviewing Ford, since there are no Republican female senators on the Judiciary Committee.\n\nAnd now, according to The New Yorker , a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale, Deborah Ramirez, has come forward with an additional allegation of inappropriate sexual behavior by Kavanaugh -- which Kavanaugh has also denied. (CNN so far has not spoken to anyone who is willing to corroborate Ramirez's story.)\n\nIn the face of these two allegations, Republicans are right to be worried. The Republican Party's stock with women voters in the midterms -- and beyond -- is at stake.\n\nIn July, when Kavanaugh's nomination was announced, a Morning Consult/Politico poll suggested a slight plurality of voters supported his confirmation. And in a July Fox News poll , 38% of voters said they would vote to confirm Kavanaugh, while 32% said they would not confirm him and 30% were undecided.\n\nBut in polling conducted in the days after Ford made her allegations public, the numbers had shifted -- and not in Kavanaugh's favor. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll , more American voters now oppose Kavanaugh's nomination than support it. In that poll, 38% of voters oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation, while just 34% support it.\n\nThat's a problem for Trump and Republicans in general, but especially when it comes to women. As NBC reports , \"The increased opposition to Kavanaugh has come, in particular, from women over 50 (who were +3 on Kavanaugh's confirmation in August and are -7 now) (and) suburban women (-6 in August and -11 now).\"\n\nThe divide is still largely partisan. Republican women actually increased their support for Kavanaugh between August and the recent allegations, while Democratic women decreased their support. But, most significantly, independent women had net support of 1% for Kavanaugh in August; they're now net opposed by 13%.\n\nAll this is before Christine Blasey Ford has even testified -- or been cross-examined by the Republican Judiciary Committee's flank of all men, some of whom have suggested that Kavanaugh should be confirmed no matter what Ford says. \"I'll listen to the lady, but we're going to bring this to a close,\" said Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-South Carolina. Later, Graham added, \"Unless there's something more, no I'm not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh's life over this.\"\n\nAnd Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that even if Ford's allegations were true, \"I think it would be hard for senators to not consider who the judge is today,\" insisting that Kavanaugh is \"a really good man.\"\n\nStill, it will be hard not to view the way these men handle the accusations as a proxy for their party as a whole. And, in recent days, GOP politicians haven't helped their cause. Just consider Republican Rep. Ralph Norman joking that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was groped by Abraham Lincoln, or Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher suggesting that, even if Kavanaugh assaulted Ford, it was back in high school, so \"Give me a break.\"\n\nI don't think women in either party will take well to Republican men making light of serious allegations of sexual assault. Of course, many of these same women voted for our current President, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by over a dozen women himself -- accusations which he, too, denies.\n\nBut will they keep overlooking the Republican Party's seemingly pervasive culture of misogyny? And how many other women will be newly motivated, or extra motivated, to kick the Grand Old Party out of office and replace them with candidates, especially female candidates, who take sexual assault claims seriously?\n\nPresident Donald Trump was already slipping in his approval numbers among the white women voters who played a key role in his electoral college victory. For instance, Ron Brownstein observes in the Atlantic, \"Compared to his 2016 vote, his 2017 approval among blue-collar white women in the Rust Belt represented some of his largest declines anywhere -- 18 percentage points in Ohio and 19 in Wisconsin and Minnesota.\"\n\nAnd these latest allegations won't help Trump or his party's approval ratings -- unless Republicans take Ford and Ramirez's allegations seriously.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nTo treat both women with respect and take the time needed to investigate is not a rush to judgment. This is about preserving the integrity of our Supreme Court and also sending a message to all Americans that sexual assault of any kind, at any age, is not okay.\n\nRepublicans should handle this situation the right way because it's the right thing to do, for our democracy and our society and our women. But Washington being Washington, that's not always motivation enough.\n\nToo many Republican politicians remain in the dark ages when it comes to even the most basic dynamics of gender equity and liberation. Botch this any further and the whole party could be cast into political darkness for generations.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/opinions/republicans-kavanaugh-women-midterm-election-kohn/index.html"},
"No president has seen the number of scandals Trump has":{"title": "No president has seen the number of scandals Trump has", "authors": ["Michael D'Antonio"], "publish_date": "2018-9-21", "text": "Michael D'Antonio is author of the book \" Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success \" (St. Martin's Press). The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Donald Trump seems determined to replicate in a few short years as President all of the Washington scandals of the past 50 years, from Watergate to the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings to the Hurricane Katrina debacle.\n\nCase in point: After first showing unusual restraint when Christine Blasey Ford came forward to say that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh -- a claim he denies -- when the current Supreme Court nominee was a 17-year-old prep school student, Trump on Friday did his best to own the controversy. He tweeted\n\n\"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!\"\n\nComparisons to the Clarence Thomas crisis of the George H. W. Bush administration are inevitable, even though Bush himself did not behave as Trump has. Trump had no way of knowing about Blasey Ford's allegation of Kavanaugh when he nominated the judge for the Supreme Court, but the President's handling of the matter has made it much worse. He has insulted her by calling her \"the woman\" and instead of asking the FBI to investigate, as Bush did with Thomas, he has said such probes are \"not the FBI's thing.\" This is false.\n\nOf course, every scandal is unique, so exact comparisons to the woes of earlier presidents cannot be drawn. But the echoes are unmistakable and have become impossible to ignore.\n\nTrump's response to the Kavanaugh situation may not be quite as bad as his reaction to the study that concluded that nearly 3,000 people died because of Hurricane Maria, which hit Puerto Rico last year. The President has said that he thinks the tally is false and was developed as a political attack. Puerto Rico has accepted the findings.\n\nWith Maria already regarded as his version of President George W. Bush's slow response to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Trump's complaint confirmed that his hurricane debacle was proof of his cluelessness as well as his incompetence.\n\nThen, of course, there is the Russia investigation, where the prosecution of Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn brings to mind the classic Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon.\n\nLesser quagmires have swallowed many of Trump's appointees.\n\nAmong them: Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, resigned amid ethical scandals; former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, who resigned when his use of private jets at taxpayer expense was revealed; and Rob Porter, a White House staff secretary, who resigned when domestic abuse allegations surfaced. Porter has denied the allegations.\n\nJUST WATCHED Watergate reporters compare Trump, Nixon Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Watergate reporters compare Trump, Nixon 02:08\n\nRemarkably, only one administration official, former national security adviser Flynn, has been removed from office because of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But here, again, Trump in on pace to outperform four decades' worth of presidents. One has to go back more than 40 years, to Nixon and Watergate, to find as much evidence of campaign-related scandal as has been revealed during the Trump presidency.\n\nCampaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents investigating the Russia scandal. In addition to Manafort, the campaign chairman, special counsel Robert Mueller had obtained a guilty plea from Rick Gates, who served in the Trump campaign and in the transition. Michael Cohen , who bragged about being the President's \"fixer,\" has pleaded guilty to crimes related to buying the silence of Karen MacDougal and Stormy Daniels, Trump's alleged extramarital sexual partners, in order to aid the Trump campaign. Trump has denied the affairs.\n\nDaniels is suing Trump and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, is seeking a sworn deposition from the President. Avenatti is making the same demand on behalf of another client, Summer Zervos, who was among a number of women who have alleged sexual harassment by Trump. Trump has denied the allegations of the women, including Zervos. Her defamation complaint has already put Trump in the position of having to answer written questions.\n\nThe peril Trump faces in the Daniels and Zervos matters appears similar to the presidential deposition in the Paula Jones civil suit , which was a turning point in the scandal that enveloped Clinton in the late 1990s. Clinton's evasions and lying led to an impeachment trial. (Under oath, during a deposition, Clinton said that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.) He escaped being removed from office following a trial in the US Senate.\n\nMost of Trump's problems, including the controversy affecting the Kavanaugh nomination, have recent historical precedent but the number of crises impacting his administration does not. Trump's record is all the more striking because he follows a President, Barack Obama, who suffered only one cabinet resignation due to controversy -- former CIA Director David Petraeus, who resigned after an FBI investigation confirmed that he was having an affair with his biographer -- in eight years. Coming after No Drama Obama, as he was called, Trump has been one-man chaos machine.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nAt the White House, insiders have been so aghast at Trump that, in the words of the anonymous writer who penned the recent article in The New York Times, \"many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office.\"\n\nIndeed, the man who says he knows how to find and hire the best people has presided over a team in constant turmoil.\n\nThe appointees who stand between Trump and his worst instincts recognize what many of us feel. They, and we, don't need a complete accounting of the debacles to conclude that a temperamentally, intellectually and morally unfit man occupies the Oval Office.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/opinions/trump-scandals-adding-up-kavanaugh-dantonio/index.html"},
"Mike Pence's plan to outlast Trump":{"title": "Mike Pence's plan to outlast Trump", "authors": ["Michael D'Antonio", "Peter Eisner"], "publish_date": "2018-8-28", "text": "This article is the first in a series of three by Michael D'Antonio and Peter Eisner, the authors of the new book, \"The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence.\" The opinions expressed in this commentary are their own. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Now familiar as a smiling, nodding presence at the President's side, Mike Pence was little known outside of his home state of Indiana when Donald Trump selected him as his running mate in 2016. A bit more than two years later, as he crisscrosses America to campaign for Republicans in the midterm elections, Pence is setting himself up to replace his boss if Trump leaves office early or does not seek re-election.\n\n\"Mike will be ready\" is the line Pence's aides and allies use as they contemplate his place in a post-Trump world.\n\nMichael D'Antonio\n\nPeter Eisner\n\nPence would never admit this. He plays the part of unctuous toady so fully that the conservative writer George Will called him \"America's most repulsive public figure.\" But don't be fooled. The vice president is doggedly pursuing his own ambitions on the side. The Oval Office has been his goal since high school. He has seeded the federal government with his loyalists and is building his own nationwide political organization.\n\nHe is acting, in fact, as if he is on a mission from God. Some may laugh, but many conservative Christians believe that God is merely using Trump to prepare the way for a so-called true man of faith. Pence's rise to power would affirm the \" Cyrus prophecy, \" which became a popular notion among Christian right circles when Pence joined the 2016 ticket.\n\nCyrus was a Persian king whom the Old Testament credits with returning the Jews to Jerusalem. He was a pagan who nevertheless served God. Right-wing evangelists such as Lance Wallnau cited that tale in 2016 when they declared that Trump -- a profane and sinful man -- could nevertheless do God's work and was thus worthy of conservative Christian votes. An estimated 80% of white evangelicals gave Trump their votes.\n\nRead More", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/opinions/mike-pence-plan-to-outlast-trump-dantonio-eisner/index.html"},
"The State Department's silence on racism is deafening":{"title": "The State Department's silence on racism is deafening", "authors": ["David A. Love"], "publish_date": "2018-9-16", "text": "David A. Love is a writer and commentator based in Philadelphia. He contributes to a number of publications, including Atlanta Black Star, WHYY and Al Jazeera. Follow him on Twitter: @DavidALove. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) The way in which America -- for years a self-proclaimed role model for human rights -- projects its values to the rest of the world has real, tangible effects on the global stage. In the age of Donald Trump, the US State Department has turned its back on the fight against racism and xenophobia. Even worse, the agency seeks to remove anti-racist language from international documents. The US government has a racism issue, and it is a dangerous problem with international implications.\n\nDavid A. Love\n\nIn a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, six House Democrats said they are \"extremely alarmed\" the administration has remained silent regarding racism and xenophobia in international fora and has not condemned hate speech and incitement. They also noted that Andrew Veprek, the deputy assistant secretary for refugees and migration, rejected the notion that leaders have a \"duty to condemn hate speech and incitement,\" and, according to a report by CNN , Veprek sought changes to UN human rights documents that denounce racism as a threat to democracy.\n\n\"The drafters say 'populism and nationalism' as if these are dirty words,\" Veprek wrote of one document. \"There are millions of Americans who likely would describe themselves as adhering to these concepts. (Maybe even the President.) So are we looking to here condemn our fellow-citizens, those who pay our salaries?\"\n\nFurther, Veprek took issue with language in a UN Human Rights Council resolution, which said national leaders have a duty to condemn hate speech. Veprek insisted that \"'duty to condemn' goes too far. Our public figures can't be obliged to police every intolerant thought out their (sic) at the risk of being condemned for intolerance themselves.\"\n\n\"This is dangerous policy,\" the lawmakers wrote to Pompeo. And they are right.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/opinions/state-department-silence-on-racism-love/index.html"},
"I was Anthony Bourdain's 'censor' at CNN":{"title": "I was Anthony Bourdain's 'censor' at CNN", "authors": ["Marianna Spicer Joslyn"], "publish_date": "2018-9-22", "text": "Marianna Spicer Joslyn is executive director of News Standards and Practices at CNN. Prior to her 24 years at CNN, she was executive producer of CBS News' \"Face the Nation,\" producer of ABC News' \"This Week With David Brinkley,\" \"World News Saturday and Sunday,\" and \"The Health Show,\" and an associate producer and writer for CBS' 60 Minutes\" and \"CBS Reports.\" The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN. The final season of CNN's \"Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown\" premiers Sunday, September 23, at 9 pm ET.\n\nNo, we don't really have \"censors,\" per se, at CNN -- we have Standards and Practices. I was the lucky one in our department to review \"Parts Unknown\" for things like graphic language or pictures, political bent or historical tweaking.\n\nI never met him. I never even spoke to him. I didn't have to. He spoke to me, and everyone else, through his work.\n\nAs a former documentarian, I especially appreciated the sheer beauty of his programs, and the talents of his team. I was blown away by the photography, the direction, the editing and, of course, the writing.\n\nAs many have remarked, Bourdain had a very distinctive voice. As a writer for \"60 Minutes,\" I did preliminary scripts for the likes of Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley and Diane Sawyer. I tried to hear their voices in my head as I wrote those initial tracks. I don't think I could have done that for Anthony Bourdain. His voice was too personal ... so visceral. I didn't know how he felt about what he was experiencing. Only he could tell us.\n\nTony -- and I think of him that way rather than by his formal name -- spoke plainly. Writers like him don't write to impress, they don't try to write poetry, and they don't even think about the impact their words will have. They write to share their experience as they are experiencing it -- not as a travelogue, but more trying to put you there with them. They can tell us what they see and hear and smell and taste and in a way that is organic.\n\nFor someone used to dealing with what news standards should be for our network, trying to find the \"bar\" for \"Parts Unknown\" was its own journey.\n\nIt's well known that Tony was profane. This was something new for CNN. We had hired him wanting him and everything that went along with it. But even though CNN is cable, it is also a brand. It's the most widely respected news network in the world, our viewers tell us, and we really don't want profane vernacular coming out of our anchors' mouths.\n\nBut we hired Tony to be Tony. Dilemma. So someone came up with the arbitrary \"two shits per show.\" F-words were verboten and muted, although of course you could see what was being said. Tony joked about the \"two shits\" rule on late night TV and said he was negotiating for three for the next season.\n\nI have to say, I eventually gave up on the \"shits.\" But those weren't the biggest problem.\n\nTony loved talking about genitals. Mostly his. \"Be careful after eating spicy foods to wash your hands before relieving yourself\" was his favorite. Various bugs and reptiles climbing up his pants and endangering the jewels was another. Then there was the show where people were leaping in ponds and having to spend the rest of the day with \"moist nuts.\"\n\nWhenever the opportunity presented itself, Tony made sure you knew how his body functions were impacted. On a trip to the French Alps with his good buddy and fellow chef Eric Ripert, where both of them ate copious amounts of cheese fondue, Tony warned Eric that he would be having large, concrete-like bowel movements.\n\nI learned that \"crap\" and \"shit\" were different. Who knew?\n\nFor one of the last episodes, about the Lower East Side of New York, I paid no attention to the \"shits\" uttered by Tony and his various guests. The multiple f-words, uttered equally by Tony and his dinner companions, would be muted.\n\nBut in this episode, Tony's guests were, hard to believe, more profane than he was. They told tales of 60's NYC and the very gritty art and music scene. A lunch companion, guest/singer/performer Lydia Lunch, spoke plainly about what it took to make it in the 60's -- hand jobs under the table to get her band to Europe. And that's one of her milder utterances. And millennials think they invented shock value. Let's just say \"let it all hang out\" wasn't a metaphor.\n\nJUST WATCHED W. Kamau Bell remembers Anthony Bourdain Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH W. Kamau Bell remembers Anthony Bourdain 15:22\n\nThe producers at Zero Point Zero and I had many discussions over the dispatching of animals. I've since read what Tony wrote about that, and I wished I'd read it before. He was on the record as saying after he killed his first pig with a spear, which he felt obligated to do, having ordered the execution of many, many animals as a chef, he felt it was hypocritical not to show where our food comes from.\n\nAgain, cable is not necessarily cable news. I am an animal lover and admittedly in denial about continuing to eat meat while I can't stand the thought, let alone the sight, of killing animals. I didn't feel our audience was ready for Tony's level of reality. I challenged his executive producer with the question, \"Would Tony want to bring a cow out to his dinner guests to see its butchering?\" We compromised, but not much.\n\nOf course, Tony was very, very funny. We had to seek a middle ground in many areas, especially politics. In one episode, Tony described a particularly disgusting-sounding food he tried somewhere in Africa as being so good he would \"eat it out of Chris Christie's jock on a hot summer day.\" Besides the fact that, at the time, Christie was a sitting governor and a presidential candidate, there was the TMI factor. Then the \"fat joke\" factor. I have the fortunate alternative of kicking these decisions to the next level. It passed, under the \"let Tony be Tony\" rule.\n\nTony seemed to love all things shocking, not really a surprise given his personal journey, because after all, what was really shocking to him? In an episode on Tokyo, he reveled in following a couple who \"taught\" bondage. There were many extended scenes of \"fun with ropes\" that rubbed my bosses the wrong way -- if you'll forgive the pun -- but Tony loved it.\n\nMy responsibilities included looking at several cuts of each program -- rough cut, fine cut, picture lock. I actually needed to look at all the cuts because I was convinced Tony (or maybe his producers?) loved playing the game of \"what else can I sneak in here that standards might miss on the second cut.\" Blurs needed to be checked and rechecked. Was there anything new? I'm sure I was just paranoid ... maybe.\n\nOne of my favorite challenges over the past five years was an episode on Chicago, where Tony visited a bar whose owner was also a painter. His work was primarily of political icons. One such painting was of Sarah Palin, naked, holding a shotgun, with a turkey being dispatched behind her. Uh. No. Please cover the vice presidential candidate's private parts. Made me think the show might be called \"Private Parts Unknown.\"\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nLike his viewers, I fell in love with Tony. He was a brilliant writer and storyteller, and you saw his toughness and sensed his vulnerability. His team at ZPZ are the most gifted filmmakers I have seen in a long, long time. His shows were brilliantly shot, directed and edited, always. His writing was poetry, although his friends say he denied being a poet.\n\nI can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate and will miss my small part in this program. And my small connection with one of the most brilliant storytellers of our generation. I will miss his voice. I already miss his voice.\n\nI have no claim to being more distraught over Tony's passing than any of his fans, and not in the same league as those who knew and worked with him. But like those who did know him well, I am really angry at his loss, and deeply sad. His kind won't come our way again.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/opinions/anthony-bourdain-parts-unknown-censor-spicer-joslyn/index.html"},
"Kanye West is no victim; he's a fully-grown, ignorant man-child":{"title": "Kanye West is no victim; he's a fully-grown, ignorant man-child", "authors": ["Clay Cane"], "publish_date": "2018-10-11", "text": "Clay Cane is a Sirius XM radio host and the author of \"Live Through This: Surviving the Intersections of Sexuality, God, and Race.\" Follow him on Twitter @claycane. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Less than a month before the midterm elections, a man who has admitted to being a proud non-reader of books and nonvoter met with Donald Trump at the White House. Yep, after faithfully stroking the President's ego, Kanye West finally got his narcissistic wish.\n\nClay Cane\n\nThe meeting between Trump and Kanye was high-octane foolishness and one of many debasing moments in Trump's circus-like White House. As people are fighting for their lives while enduring Hurricane Michael, which should have been the focus this week, we instead have two fame-obsessed, thin-skinned celebrities gushing over each other.\n\nThere are claims that Trump is exploiting Kanye West, who has admitted to having mental health issues, by inviting the press to witness his gesticulating and f-bomb throwing in the Oval Office.\n\nWhile Trump is known for exploiting any and everything -- even the September 11th terrorist attacks -- Kanye West is no victim. Moreover, it is wildly offensive to conflate having mental health issues and displaying erratic behavior with being a willfully ignorant man-child, which is what Kanye West has become. Mental health struggles have nothing to with one's political beliefs. In addition, a black celebrity worshipping a raging bigot is nothing new -- simply revisit Sammy Davis Jr.'s history with President Richard Nixon\n\nJUST WATCHED See Kanye and Trump's full White House meeting Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH See Kanye and Trump's full White House meeting 19:47\n\nYeezy is no victim and should not be empathized with as one. This is a person who claimed Malcolm X wasn't relatable, said Harriet Tubman shouldn't be on the $20 bill, and compared himself to Nat Turner.\n\nRead More", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/opinions/kanye-west-oval-office-meeting-clay-cane/index.html"},
"Michelle Obama: Educate every girl":{"title": "Michelle Obama: Educate every girl", "authors": ["Michelle Obama"], "publish_date": "2018-10-11", "text": "Michelle Obama is the former first lady of the United States. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) On my final trip overseas as first lady, I visited a high school in Unification Town, a small village about an hour outside Liberia's capital city of Monrovia. There, I sat in a classroom where the only light came from the cloudy, rainy sky outside. As heavier clouds rolled in, the entire room dimmed, and I began to find it difficult to make out faces across even a short distance.\n\nMichelle Obama\n\nWhat I remember most from that day, though, couldn't be more clear: It's the promise inside each of those girls -- girls who show up every day to learn. They show up even after walking for miles or waking up early to earn some extra money to help pay their school fees. They show up even though their families depend on them to take care of younger siblings, cook meals, and ensure their household is running smoothly. They show up even though many are pressured to marry as adolescents, sidetracking their own goals for a man's.\n\nThe girls in that school are joined by millions of others who aren't able to get an education at all -- today, more than 98 million adolescent girls around the world are not in school. The reasons for this are many, including scarce resources, early pregnancies, dangerous commutes, and threats of violence.\n\nEqually pernicious is something they're taught from an early age -- the belief that because they're girls, they're simply unworthy of an education. It's the same toxic mindset that keeps girls here in the United States from believing they can become computer scientists or CEOs. And it's a mindset that together, we've got to change.\n\nJUST WATCHED CNN Young Wonder: Christina Li Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH CNN Young Wonder: Christina Li 08:29\n\nThat's why today, on the International Day of the Girl, I'm proud to announce the Obama Foundation's launch of the Global Girls Alliance . We're seeking to empower adolescent girls around the world through education, so that they can support their families, communities and countries. The evidence is clear. Girls who attend secondary school earn higher salaries, have lower infant and maternal mortality rates, and are less likely to contract malaria and HIV. And studies have shown that educating girls isn't just good for the girls, it's good for all of us.\n\nRead More", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/opinions/international-day-of-the-girl-michelle-obama/index.html"},
"Melania Trump's destructive message to sex crime victims":{"title": "Melania Trump's destructive message to sex crime victims", "authors": ["Elie Honig"], "publish_date": "2018-10-11", "text": "Elie Honig is a former federal and state prosecutor and currently a Rutgers University scholar. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) In an interview with ABC News, first lady Melania Trump said that victims of sexual assault \"need to have really hard evidence\" before coming forward. She added, \"I do stand with women, but we need to show the evidence. You cannot just say to somebody, 'I was sexually assaulted' or 'you did that to me' because sometimes the media goes too far. ...\"\n\nThe hypocrisy is jarring. Trump proclaimed that she \"stand(s) with women,\" yet, in the next breath, opined that sex crime victims should not be believed unless they produce independent corroborating evidence for their allegations. In fact, Trump badly misconstrues how sex crime cases and investigations actually work. At the same time, she sends a dangerous message that threatens to discourage sex crime victims from coming forward to hold their attackers accountable.\n\nElie Honig\n\nTrump's statement is problematic because it distorts the law. Simply put, testimony is evidence. A core purpose of any trial is to elicit testimony and to enable the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witness. By her words, Trump promoted a problematic misconception that witness testimony -- particularly if that witness is a victim of a sex assault -- should not be believed, or should not be believed enough to visit consequences on the accused.\n\nTo the contrary, the law places great weight on the testimony of a witness, even if that witness stands alone. Judges commonly instruct juries that even the testimony of one witness, if credited, can be enough to convict a defendant in a criminal trial beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard of proof known to our legal system -- and that's even in the absence of other corroborating evidence.\n\nTrump's comments also are wrong from an investigative perspective. Law enforcement officers, and the public generally, do not expect victims of other types of crime to hunt for and obtain independent evidence. We do not expect robbery victims to dust for fingerprints, or fraud victims to track down bank records or hacking victims to run computer forensics. Why should it be any different for sex crime victims?", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/opinions/melania-trump-harmful-sexual-assault-comment-honig/index.html"},
"How myths about sexual harassment keep us in the dark":{"title": "How myths about sexual harassment keep us in the dark", "authors": ["Brigid Schulte"], "publish_date": "2018-10-9", "text": "Brigid Schulte is the director of the Better Life Lab at New America and author of \"Overwhelmed: Work, Love and Play When No One Has the Time.\" The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) When GOP supporters of now-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh attempted to explain away allegations of sexual assault as harmless teenage \"horseplay,\" as if sexual violence is part of a rite of passage, they were choosing to believe a powerful false narrative that \"boys will be boys.\"\n\nWhen, two years ago Sunday, a video emerged of Donald Trump bragging that he could grab women by their private parts, those who supported him endorsed his claim that it was meaningless \" locker room talk.\n\nAnd when President Trump and others mocked Christine Blasey Ford and dismissed her allegations because she waited decades before going public, they, too, were buying into a powerful and uninformed myth that traumatized targets of sexual harassment and violence make prompt reports.\n\nIn fact, a majority of sexual assaults are never reported to police. A newly released analysis of the prevalence and factors that drive sexual harassment across all industries that I authored, along with my colleagues at the Better Life Lab at New America, found that workplace sexual harassment is pervasive -- like wallpaper that becomes so familiar people don't even see it anymore. And that few targets, male or female, speak of or complain about it.\n\nThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that 87 to 94% of those who experience sexual harassment don't file a formal complaint . Some are forced into arbitration or sign nondisclosure agreements.\n\nOthers, rightly, fear what making a complaint will mean for them: One 2003 study found that nearly three-fourths of those filing complaints were retaliated against . (Blasey Ford, who said she was \"terrified\" to come forward, was right to be afraid. She was not only met with death threats, but with a hostile crowd at a campaign rally in Mississippi, whipped up by the president of the United States.\n\nSexual harassment, at its core, is driven by power imbalance -- with those who have it preying on those who don't. But it is also fueled by false narratives we tell ourselves and the destructive myths we choose to believe -- and ignore at our peril in this #MeToo moment, marking its one-year anniversary amid the painful and divisive Kavanaugh chapter in our national discourse on sex, gender and power.\n\nMy own story pales in comparison to the wave of pain and humiliation unleashed by the #MeToo movement of women and other targets sharing stories of horrific sexual harassment, assault, abuse of power and misogyny. As a national correspondent based in Washington in my 30s, an editor once pinched me on the cheek in front of our publisher and said something like \"We love reporters like you. You're so insecure you'll do anything we say.\"\n\nThe men laughed. I, shamefaced, diminished and humiliated, slunk back to my desk and tried to forget about it.\n\nIn my case, what kept me silent after being so knocked off balance was another damaging and far too pervasive story: the myth of the Good Girl. I didn't want to make a fuss, cause trouble for anyone or be seen as someone who couldn't hack a little macho newsroom ribbing.\n\nAnd, at heart, like so many good girls, I worried that the remark was meant to put me in my rightful place: that maybe I didn't belong, wasn't good enough, or, that, as some male colleagues whispered about some of us women (male colleagues who never once had their cheeks pinched, heads patted or had been repeatedly called \"kiddo\") that I had been hired not on my own merit, but because of some gender quota.\n\nThe myths and narratives like these that sustain our culture of sexual harassment are pervasive, toxic and cross lines of industry, region, race and class.\n\nOur research found that in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the arts, media and other male-dominated, white collar environments, the so-called \"Myth of the Creative Genius\" excuses bad behavior, keeps alleged abusers like Harvey Weinstein in power and creates an entire infrastructure of silence, willful ignorance and complicity.\n\nThe myth, like most myths, is not only wrong-headed, it's simply wrong. Michael Schur, for one, understands that he doesn't need bad-behaved \"geniuses\" to be successful. The TV producer, writer and actor has a \" no jerks \" policy, which, one assumes, would cover sexual harassing behavior, and has been part of creating some of the most successful and innovative TV shows like \"The Office,\" \"Parks and Recreation\" and \"The Good Place.\"\n\nNarratives that rainmakers, superstars and high performers are so valuable they must be protected at all costs, regardless of bad behavior, has not only fostered toxic work environments and kept women and other targets out of power, or sidelined, but has also actually cost organizations dearly in lost productivity, morale and talent.\n\nResearch collected by an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission task force under the Obama administration found that avoiding toxic workers can save a company more than twice as much as what a top performer can produce.\n\nFemale-dominated, \"pink collar\" workplaces often operate under the myth that they are oases free from sexual harassment, when in fact, our analysis showed that's far from the truth. Nearly 40% of employed women in the US work in occupations that are majority women , like education, health care and retail. Yet those in power in these work environments -- principals, doctors, supervisors, managers -- are far more likely to be men, a phenomenon known as \"vertical segregation.\"\n\nAnother widely believed myth -- that sexual harassment comes only from above -- is simply not true. The current legal standard plays into that myth: a perpetrator must have hiring or firing power over a victim before a victim can make a legal claim of sexual harassment. But harassment can often come from third parties like customers or clients.\n\nHarassing colleagues or managers without direct hiring and firing responsibilities can create hostile work environments. Restaurant workers who earn sub-minimum wages and rely on tips to make ends meet can't afford to challenge harassing customers. And the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession reported that one-half to two-thirds of women lawyers experienced or observed sexual harassment -- not only by colleagues and bosses, but by judges, clients, court personnel and other lawyers.\n\nBlue-collar environments often operate under the myth that crude and lewd behavior just comes with the territory. In court documents, Judith Vollmar, a machine operator and one of a handful of women who worked at a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania, complained of a workplace riddled with sexually explicit images, degrading signs, co-workers who would leer at her, make lewd, sexist comments, and call her a bitch \"several times a week.\"\n\nShe was also frequently told she didn't know what she was doing when it came to the work. In seeking to dismiss her case, the company argued that such behavior was typical in blue-collar environments. Just the way things are. A federal district court judge disagreed, writing , \"That a particular workplace is considered 'blue collar' -- whatever that is supposed to mean -- does not absolve an employer of fostering a workplace hostile for female employees.\"\n\nAt the most fundamental level, sexual harassment is driven by the stories we tell ourselves and what we choose to believe about gender roles, about who should do what and who belongs where in our society.\n\nThe outdated narrative that the world of work, of leadership and power, belongs to men, and that the domain of home and children are a woman's primary responsibility, that the ideal worker is solely devoted to work and has no life outside of it, fuels work cultures where someone's gender can be used as a weapon to show they aren't welcome and can't do the job, whether it's women in the corner office, the factory floor, law enforcement or in combat, or men taking on nursing or caregiving jobs.\n\nDenial -- thinking that sexual harassment doesn't happen that much, isn't a big deal, that Blasey Ford's allegations don't matter anymore now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed, or that victims should ignore it or worse, should assume they've brought it on themselves -- is perhaps the most pernicious and destructive myth of them all. It's the one our President endorses when it comes to allegations of his own sexual misconduct.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nThese myths, like all myths, are lies. And until we all stop being blinded by them, and begin to tell ourselves truer, more complete stories of what it means to be human, and how to treat one another with civility and respect, then the sexual harassment already so deeply woven into the fabric of every industry, in every sector will only continue to trap, limit, harm and diminish us all.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/kavanaugh-spotlights-sexual-harassment-myths-new-america-schulte/index.html"},
"How saying 'I do' can help millions of girls to say 'I don't'":{"title": "How saying 'I do' can help millions of girls to say 'I don't'", "authors": ["Mabel Van Oranje", "Darren Walker"], "publish_date": "2018-10-9", "text": "Mabel van Oranje is the co-founder and board chair of VOW, and the co-founder of Girls Not Brides, a global partnership of over 1000 civil society organizations committed to ending child marriage. Darren Walker is the president of the Ford Foundation, one of the largest social justice philanthropy foundations and a major philanthropic seed funder for VOW and the Girls First Fund. View more opinion on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Every bride gets a little nervous on her wedding day. It's a moment of intense anticipation, as friends and family gather to witness the beginning of a lifelong commitment. Thankfully, for most brides, it is a day of joy and beautiful memories.\n\nBut what if the bride is a 12-year-old girl? And instead of walking excitedly down the aisle, she is dragged into a secluded room to be married to a man she has never met?\n\nWe tend to think of a wedding as a happy, consensual occasion, but, according to UNICEF, for 12 million girls each year, marriage is rarely a matter of choice. Child marriages upend the lives of young women around the world, preventing them from attending school and severely limiting their future opportunities. Instead, child marriage puts them at great risk for early pregnancy and childbirth (and the associated health risks), as well as violence and poverty.\n\nThe costs of child marriage for these girls, and the world, are enormous. According to the World Bank and the International Center for Research on Women, failure to end child marriage by 2030 will cost developing countries hundreds of billions of dollars in loss of potential earnings by women and higher welfare costs. This is because child marriage is directly linked to higher fertility, poverty and poor health. Keeping girls in school, marrying later and having fewer children are key components of global poverty alleviation and development efforts.\n\nOf course, in the United States, we think differently about what it costs to get married. Every year, Americans spend $100 billion to say \"I do.\" Weddings are a huge business -- one that involves planners, designers, venues, travel companies, bakers and much more. It's a jaw-dropping disparity, but perhaps one that can be leveraged to help us bridge the gap between child marriages and those entered into with support and ceremony.\n\nToday, the wedding industry is coming together to give millions of girls the chance to say \"I don't.\" In an incredible show of unity, sought-after brands like Crate and Barrel, The Knot, and Malia Mills are joining forces in an effort, called VOW , that enables couples and their loved ones to celebrate marriage in ways that also advance the empowerment of girls and their basic rights to health, education and equality.\n\nWhen planning their wedding, couples who choose VOW products or list them on their registries will see part of the proceeds go toward ending child marriage. Guests can also donate directly to VOW, making it possible for weddings based on choice to help support girls for whom marriage is anything but.\n\nPicture how a VOW centerpiece might put girls at the center of the conversation, by funding organizations that give them \"a seat at the table.\" Imagine how the gift of a couples' retreat could help give girls the tools they need to realize their potential as young women.\n\nThat's because all funds raised through VOW are directed to the Girls First Fund , which supports organizations working to end child marriage in Asia, Africa and Latin America by building women and girls' collective power so they can make their own decision about when, whom and if to marry. These community-based organizations -- including many led by women and girls who have escaped child marriages -- use their unique expertise and insight to connect with girls, families, faith leaders and policymakers to provide vital services, help transform laws, policies and harmful social norms, and develop solutions.\n\nConsider the traditional Malawi leaders I (van Oranje) have met, who work to convince men that child marriage keeps everyone in poverty, or the girls in Bangladesh who escaped violent marriages and today help teach parents about the benefits of educating their daughters. The Fund is grounded in the belief that girls have an essential role in designing and implementing the programs and policies that affect their lives.\n\nEven a small fraction of the current spending on weddings would be transformative for people and organizations on the ground. By harnessing the positive power of consensual marriages, companies and couples can make an enormous difference in the lives of young women and girls around the world.\n\nWe know there is more work to be done. To extend the impact of this partnership, we'll need more companies inside and outside the wedding industry, as well as more foundations and philanthropists, to participate.\n\nAnd this kind of partnership has enormous potential -- not just for addressing child marriage, but for disrupting global inequality. When companies, consumers, philanthropies, nonprofits and activists come together, we can unlock the vast resources necessary to confront our greatest global challenges.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nIndeed, ending child marriage will not only eliminate a human rights violation -- it will have significant ripple effects that improve gender equality, health, education, poverty alleviation and violence prevention everywhere.\n\nTogether, we can put an end to child marriage and ensure that every girl understands her rights, knows her worth and can be a force for freedom in her own life -- and in the lives of everyone she knows. We can make sure the marriages we celebrate build a world where all girls are celebrated and all marriages are by choice.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/how-to-bring-end-child-marriage-van-oranje-walker/index.html"},
"The tragic limo accident was preventable":{"title": "The tragic limo accident was preventable", "authors": ["Deborah Hersman"], "publish_date": "2018-10-8", "text": "Deborah A.P. Hersman is President and CEO of the National Safety Council and the former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. She also leads the Road to Zero Coalition, established in 2016, with the goal of eliminating all preventable roadway deaths by 2050. The views expressed in this commentary are solely her own. View more opinion on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Twenty people lost their lives in a tragic limousine crash in upstate New York on Saturday. As the nation pauses to remember the victims, we rightly start the conversation about what could have prevented this crash.\n\nHowever, we need to remember that on any given day, more than 100 people die on our roadways, and while these deaths do not make headline news, they are no less important. We accept them as the cost of mobility, but they are all preventable.\n\nTragically, the factors that may have contributed to this crash -- speed and lack of occupant restraint use -- are incredibly common . Compound these common factors with an improperly licensed driver who was operating a vehicle that failed an inspection just last month, as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo noted Monday, and we create a perfect storm\n\nThe National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will conduct a thorough investigation to identify each contributing factor, and the Board will make recommendations to improve the safety of limousine riders. Notably, we do not yet know all the facts surrounding the crash and the tragic deaths of the victims.\n\nWhen it comes to stretch limousine construction and oversight, there is an element of Frankenstein involved. Many of these vehicles are modified after original construction. States have different regulations, requirements and capabilities, and there is no one-stop shop for consumers to determine whether a limousine they are riding in is safe.\n\nJUST WATCHED Limo crash witness heard loud bang, screaming Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Limo crash witness heard loud bang, screaming 01:37\n\nWe need to close these gaps if we want to ensure the integrity of the vehicles, but equally important is consistency in qualifying drivers, who are tasked with chauffeuring people who, in many cases, opted for a limousine because they did not want to drive impaired.\n\nThe National Safety Council strongly encourages people to arrange alternative transportation like limousines if they know they will be celebrating. Alcohol-involved crashes continue to claim nearly 10,000 lives each year, and no amount of alcohol is safe to drink if you are planning to drive. That said, we cannot undercut a good safety choice with a poor one. Operators should provide occupant restraints for every seating position, and if you are in a limousine -- or a ride share vehicle of any kind -- it is imperative to buckle up, even in the back seat.\n\nJUST WATCHED Newlyweds were among deceased in limo crash Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Newlyweds were among deceased in limo crash 00:59\n\nSeat belts are the cheapest and most effective tool we have to save lives on the road, so no vehicle should operate without them. And it is the responsibility of passengers to use them. Passengers report a nearly 20 percent drop off in rear seat belt use when riding in a ride-share vehicle or taxi, according to a 2017 NSC public opinion survey.\n\nMeanwhile, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that the risk of serious injury goes up eight-fold for unrestrained passengers in the back, while over 40% of all occupant fatalities continue to be unbelted.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nWe cannot let tragedies like the one in Schoharie pass us by without doing something about it. Limousines can be a smart way for us to travel and a great choice for people who are celebrating. But there are risks we can and should address. Today many are outraged, but the key is turning that indignation into action tomorrow.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/limo-accident-preventable-deborah-hersman/index.html"},
"In Laquan McDonald case, justice was served":{"title": "In Laquan McDonald case, justice was served", "authors": ["Joey Jackson", "Cnn Legal Analyst"], "publish_date": "2018-10-6", "text": "Joey Jackson is a criminal defense attorney, partner at Watford Jackson, PLLC, and a legal analyst for CNN and HLN. The views expressed here are solely his. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Almost four years after taking the life of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald in a hail of 16 bullets, police Officer Jason Van Dyke was held accountable by a Chicago jury. Friday, he was convicted of murder in the second degree. What that means is that the jury concluded that he acted unreasonably and without any lawful justification.\n\nThe jury came to this conclusion after hearing testimony for more than two weeks, and after deliberating for more than seven hours.\n\nThe critical legal issue was whether Officer Van Dyke was justified in killing the African-American teen back on October 20, 2014. They concluded that he was not.\n\nOne could only wonder what Officer Van Dyke was thinking when he took McDonald's life.\n\nWhy did he jump out of his police cruiser and start firing his service weapon in the first place -- much less six seconds after arriving upon the scene? Other officers at the scene stayed in their cars. Why didn't he? No other officers discharged their firearms. Why did Van Dyke?\n\nWhat was his rush? Why didn't he make an effort to de-escalate the situation? Why not allow McDonald more of an opportunity to comply? Why did he feel he was in danger when McDonald was so far away from him? Why did he shoot to kill when McDonald was not advancing toward him?\n\nThese are just some of the many questions that apparently troubled the jury and led to Van Dyke's conviction.\n\nThe narrative spun by the defense was predicated upon a spirited attack on Laquan McDonald's character that painted the deceased as a villain. Officer Van Dyke himself had pointed to what he characterized as McDonald's bugged-out eyes that he never lost sight of, and that seemed to be \" staring right through me .\" Additionally, the defense highlighted the PCP that was found in McDonald's system, his troubled youth and his failure to obey police commands to drop the knife before being shot.\n\nIn doing so, the defense sought to put McDonald on trial, while arguing that Officer Van Dyke perceived him to represent a deadly and immediate threat. It was the standard police refrain: The officer feared for his life, and the victim was a really bad guy who failed to obey commands. That line of attack was about as commonplace as police shootings of African-American men -- in Chicago and across the country. And alas, it failed.\n\nSo too, did the defense fail to adequately explain why 16 bullets were necessary to end the supposed \"threat\" posed by the black youth. Notably, he was multiple feet away from Officer Van Dyke, with a knife, not a gun.\n\nThe jury also held Van Dyke accountable for this misconduct as well. He was found guilty of 16 counts of aggravated battery -- one for each shot.\n\nOfficer Van Dyke did not do himself much good with his own testimony. His version of events includes the teen attempting to rise from the ground while still pointing the knife at the officers on the scene after being shot. Importantly, the dashcam video seems to tell entirely another story.\n\nRecognizing this, the defense attempted to shift the focus to Officer Van Dyke's perceptions, and away from the facts. It even presented expert testimony to explain his level of anxiety, why his perceptions might differ from reality and how any inconsistent statements he made to authorities after the shooting were understandable and excusable. Van Dyke tried to explain this inaccuracy by saying he was \"in shock.\" Hmmm.\n\nAnd as to the knife, Van Dyke specified that McDonald raised it across his chest . The video, however, seems to show McDonald with both hands at his side. Van Dyke goes on to say that McDonald was still pointing the knife at him while on the ground. The video, however, shows McDonald lying motionless. That same video contradicts Van Dyke's core contention that McDonald was approaching him at the time he was shot. To the contrary, the video shows him moving in a different direction.\n\nOfficer Van Dyke made still more assertions in his testimony that just didn't seem to square with the facts. For starters, he claimed that he and McDonald never lost eye contact . Yet, the encounter happened in the dead of night and McDonald was multiple feet away. Strange how he was able to see McDonald's eyes so well, especially given his vivid description of what McDonald was doing with the knife. Common sense would suggest that's what Van Dyke was focusing upon.\n\nThe prosecution, for its part, pressed its theory that there was no immediate threat, and that the force used was grossly disproportionate to what the situation demanded. Nothing made that point more convincingly than the fact that there were about 10 other officers on the scene, and Van Dyke was the only one who used his weapon. Other officers provided testimony noting that they did not share Van Dyke's fear nor safety concern. And that was damning.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nThe jury spoke volumes with its verdict. This time, the magic argument that an officer feared for his life and just had to shoot did not work. On these facts, it was hard to see how it would. Justice was served. Moving forward, may justice continue to be served whenever an officer dishonors their badge by failing to protect and serve.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/opinions/van-dyke-trial-verdict-jackson/index.html"},
"Want to learn about consent? Ask a porn star":{"title": "Want to learn about consent? Ask a porn star", "authors": ["Carol Costello"], "publish_date": "2018-10-5", "text": "Carol Costello is the host of \"Across America With Carol Costello\" on HLN. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\nI never thought I would say that, but after reading Reign's opinion piece in The Daily Beast I am convinced I'm onto something.\n\nReign is not your stereotypical porn star. She has a degree in Women's Studies from UCLA, and she will soon earn her master's degree at USC. But, her most important credential is that of teacher. She visits college campuses across the country to teach fraternity boys what sexual consent actually means.\n\nIt sounds so animal house, but it's not. There is no hanky-panky. It's just Reign and a group of young men, who happen to be in a fraternity, talking frankly about sex. She says they trust her because \"they see me in a sexual light because they see the videos that I make... So, maybe they just feel like, 'Oh, OK. She gets it. She gets me. I can ask her questions.'\"\n\nAnd they do ask her questions in a way they can't ask their parents.\n\n\"Many young men don't get enough sexual education in high school or beforehand to really fully understand how serious sex is,\" Reign told me on HLN. \"Unfortunately, I think they learn sex from adult videos, and that is not why I make movies. It is for adults that are media literate viewers, people that are looking for entertainment. And so, I just see that there's this disparity.\"\n\nReign told me young men don't understand porn is fantasy -- not reality. This begs the question of whether some men realize the sex they see depicted in adult films - especially rape porn -- is not what young, inexperienced women crave.\n\nThis month, Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath that two drunken boys pinned her down, covered her mouth, and tried to take off her clothes. In the world of fantasy porn, that is what a young man might see, but it is not consent in the real world.\n\nYet, there are grown men who say it's no big deal.\n\n\"If someone did not commit sexual assault in high school, then he is not a member of the male sex,\" Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor at Brooklyn College, wrote this on his blog . \"The Democrats have discovered that 15-year-olds play spin-the-bottle, and they have jumped on a series of supposed spin-the-bottle crimes during Kavanaugh's minority, which they characterize as rape, although no one complained or reported any crime for 40 years.\"\n\nLangbert later claimed his comments were satire, but neither his university nor his students got the joke.\n\nLest you think Professor Langbert's ignorance is just run-of-the-mill crazy, it's not.\n\nDan Turner, whose son, Brock, was convicted of raping a young woman, wrote a letter prior to Brock's sentencing to the judge asking whether \" 20 minutes of action \" should warrant a prison sentence.\n\nThe judge handed down a six-month jail sentence and probation, but that price was apparently still too steep. Turner blamed his actions on his inebriated state and appealed his sentence on the grounds his actions weren't rape, but \" outercourse .\"\n\nThis argument is outrageous, especially when you consider what Turner's victim wrote about her attack\n\n\"I was found unconscious, with my hair disheveled, long necklace wrapped around my neck, bra pulled out of my dress, dress pulled off over my shoulders and pulled up above my waist, that I was butt naked all the way down to my boots, legs spread apart, and had been penetrated by a foreign object by someone I did not recognize.\"\n\nReign is not surprised by any of this. The number one question she says she is asked is, \"How do we have consensual sex ... while we're drunk? While the woman is drunk?'\" she told me. \"The answer is, you can't have consensual sex when you're drunk and drinking beer. It doesn't work that way.\"\n\nI admit her answer surprised me because it is possible to have a few beers and consensual sex. \"Do they get it?\" I asked her. \" I think they get it after we talk about it,\" Reign said. \"Who knows how many people I reach on a quantitative level? But I think that this is something that changes a lot of people's perspectives. And I even get messages afterward from Instagram and Twitter that are like, 'oh my gosh, thank you so much for coming. I didn't know that information.\"\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nIf you don't like the idea of Reign teaching your son about consensual sex, she gets it. But she urges parents- especially fathers -- to drop the macho act and tell their sons it's okay to ask a young woman questions in the heat of the moment. \"Before each act, ask if it's okay,\" she told me. Put simply: Can I kiss you? Do you mind if I hug you? Do you feel comfortable going forward?\n\nTake it a from a porn star -- or not -- but, please have the conversation.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/opinions/porn-star-teaches-consent-opinion-costello/index.html"},
"Kavanaugh and Ronaldo allegations prove that institutional muscle memory always backs men":{"title": "Kavanaugh and Ronaldo allegations prove that institutional muscle memory always backs men", "authors": ["Caroline Criado Perez"], "publish_date": "2018-10-5", "text": "Caroline Criado Perez is a writer, broadcaster and award-winning feminist activist. The opinions in this article belong to the author.\n\n(CNN) The monstrous regiment of women with their blabbing #MeToo mouths has descended -- and men everywhere are scared. Very scared. Allegedly.\n\nIn America, Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been accused by Professor Christine Blasey Ford of sexually assaulting her in high school. She said during her testimony on Capitol Hill that she believed he was going to rape her.\n\nHe has also been accused by fellow Yale classmate, Deborah Ramirez , of exposing his penis to her while at college. Kavanaugh has angrily denied the accusations.\n\nCristiano Ronaldo -- one of the world's most famous and highest-paid sports stars -- has been accused of rape by teacher Kathryn Mayorga.\n\nRonaldo has also denied the accusations, calling rape \"an abominable crime that goes against everything that I am and believe in.\"\n\nAllegedly, both men's careers now hang in the balance. Judge Kavanaugh may lose the privilege of a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court, having instead to settle for the lifetime appointment he already holds to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.\n\nMeanwhile, Ronaldo, who has a few years left of being a top-flight footballer, will not play in Portugal's next four internationals.\n\nThese are heavy prices indeed for a little alleged sexual assault and rape, but luckily for both Kavanaugh and Ronaldo, it looks like the closing of ranks is already well in progress.\n\nAsked if Kavanaugh's nomination would be withdrawn, Politico reported that a White House lawyer said, \"No way, not even a hint of it. If anything, it's the opposite.\"\n\nMeanwhile, the President of the United States, who thinks that \"it's a very scary time for young men in America,\" said Ramirez \"admits that she was drunk.\" Admits.\n\nJUST WATCHED Cuomo: Kavanaugh is who he was in that hearing Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Cuomo: Kavanaugh is who he was in that hearing 05:29\n\nFollowing a hearing in which Kavanaugh, according to some of his former classmates , blatantly misrepresented his drinking and peddled in hyperpartisan conspiracy theories about the Clintons -- both of which should surely be a bar to a seat on the Supreme Court -- The Wall Street Journal saw fit to give him space for an op-ed headlined, without a hint of irony: \"I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge.\"\n\nNike and EA Sports, both of which have contracts with Ronaldo, have assured the public that they are \"closely monitor(ing) the situation,\" with Nike saying it's \"deeply concerned,\" which will be a great relief to rape victims everywhere.\n\nThe soccer club Juventus has thrown its support behind their man, tweeting on Thursday that he \"has shown in recent months his great professionalism and dedication, which is appreciated by everyone at Juventus,\" and that, \"The events allegedly dating back to almost 10 years ago do not change this opinion, which is shared by anyone who has come into contact with this great champion.\" For good measure, they followed up with a fawning video of the player scoring a goal in training , showing that he is getting on with things just fine at this difficult time.\n\nAs for Fernando Santos, the Portuguese national coach, he has cited Ronaldo's summer move from the Spanish to the Italian championships as a reason for leaving him out of the Portugal squad, saying that he \"always\" supports his players and that he believes Ronaldo, according to the Guardian.\n\n\"In the future, nothing prevents Cristiano from giving his contribution to the national team,\" he tweeted. At least he's honest.\n\nAnd let's be honest about this. For a brief moment, institutions may make sad faces about tough decisions and the abstract horrors of rape. But then institutional muscle memory will take over, and they will revert to type.\n\nKavanaugh will be confirmed despite his clear unfitness for the bench, irrespective of whether you believe Ford and Ramirez (and I do).\n\nRonaldo will carry on playing soccer and earning millions of euros flogging sportswear.\n\nThere is no reason for the men of America, or indeed anywhere, to be scared.\n\nAnd the women? Well, we'll just have to carry on talking about what these men have done to us in the face of disbelief, mockery and threats.\n\nAnd we'll just have to carry on hoping that one day, in the face of all the evidence, you'll start listening to us.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/opinions/kavanaugh-and-ronaldo-institutional-muscle-memory-opinion-intl/index.html"},
"Trump, Kavanaugh and the myth of self-made success":{"title": "Trump, Kavanaugh and the myth of self-made success", "authors": ["Chuck Collins"], "publish_date": "2018-10-4", "text": "Chuck Collins is author of \"Born on Third Base: A One Percenter Makes the Case for Tackling Inequality, Bringing Wealth Home and Committing to the Common Good.\" He directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies, where he co-edits Inequality.org. The views expressed here are solely his. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) Why do public figures who are clearly \"born on third base\" insist they hit their own triple?\n\nChuck Collins\n\nSupreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh claims he didn't get any help getting into Yale after graduating from Georgetown Prep. \"I have no connections there,\" he said last week in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. \"I got there by busting my tail.\" At Yale, however, Kavanaugh would be considered a legacy admission . His grandfather, Edward Everett Kavanaugh, attended.\n\nDonald Trump boasts that he is a self-made billionaire who received no family help except for a $1 million loan from his father that he paid back with interest. But a sweeping investigative report by The New York Times estimates that Trump received at least $413 million, in today's dollars, from his father's real estate business. Yet Trump holds tightly to his personal bootstrap story.\n\nNo doubt both Kavanaugh and Trump have personal characteristics that helped them to advance in life. They may have \"busted their tails,\" as many low-wage workers also do. Hard work, creativity, and entrepreneurship should be celebrated and rewarded. But to deny the transformative role of family wealth and connections in future success is to pretend that there is no such thing as advantage.\n\nI was born on third base. I attended a boy's private school like Georgetown Prep, where the encouraging school motto was \"Aim High.\" I received a debt-free college education, no small head start in today's economy, thanks to an education trust fund set up by my parents. And when I went to purchase a home in an expensive real estate market, I tapped into the \"parental down payment assistance\" program.\n\nRead More", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/opinions/trump-nyt-kavanaugh-yale-self-made-man-myth-collins/index.html"},
"Christine Blasey Ford inspired me to break my silence":{"title": "Christine Blasey Ford inspired me to break my silence", "authors": ["Naomi Seligman"], "publish_date": "2018-10-3", "text": "Naomi Seligman is a communications strategist and founder of Tower26 agency. She helped launch and lead Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and also was director of communications for Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) If Christine Blasey Ford's heart-wrenching decision to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee has taught us anything, it is that women who have spent their lives in the shadow of sexual assault can still find a path -- however uncertain, however terrifying -- to meaningful action.\n\nI know, because in my own way I've spent the past two weeks doing just that.\n\nLike so many, I've been on an emotional roller coaster as I've absorbed the headlines and relived my own experience of being attacked as a teenager. But I've also been inspired and spurred by Ford's example to figure out what I can do to seek redress decades after the fact.\n\nThe man who attacked me will never be nominated to the Supreme Court, and I haven't had to parse my words and defend my actions before an audience of millions. Still, I recognize many aspects of Ford's experience: her hesitation in coming forward, her fear of humiliation and the value she's found in seeking to protect others from harm.\n\nIt began, for me, with a single haunting detail: how Brett Kavanaugh, in Ford's description, covered her mouth so nobody would hear her scream.\n\nI wasn't sure at first why this bothered me so much. Then I realized it was because, when I was assaulted as a 17-year-old high school senior from suburban Massachusetts, I was unconscious -- passed out from drinking at my first college party -- so my attacker hadn't needed to take precautions to keep me quiet. My haunting details were the ones I absorbed after I came to: my disheveled clothing, the soreness, the missing bra that I found hanging from a tree outside.\n\nLike Ford, I didn't report the assault, out of embarrassment, shame and uncertainty about the process. And I continued to do nothing, even as I embarked on a successful career in political advocacy and pushed aggressively for public accountability in many fields, including government ethics and gender equity.\n\nThose who know me know it's not in my nature to let things go. I'm a fighter through and through. Yet, for 29 years, I let the single most painful experience of my life go unaddressed and unrepaired. It was always there, lurking, but I could not think about it.\n\nThere was a moment, when the #MeToo movement first gained ground, when I reached out to my attacker on Facebook, thinking I could somehow call him to account. But I had no clear plan, and when he responded, I realized that there was no conversation I wanted with him.\n\nIt wasn't until I read -- and reread -- Ford's account that I gained some sort of clarity. I felt in my bones that I had to take action. The big question was how.\n\nI knew a lot about my attacker. Not only did we talk at that party at a Boston-area college, but a week after the attack I went with him to a fraternity formal on his own campus in an attempt to normalize what had happened. Yes, I went on a date with my rapist. As soon as I walked in and the DJ played \"Seventeen,\" I knew I'd made a terrible mistake.\n\nA couple of years later, I was in college at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and I ran into him again. He was just visiting the campus, but he began ribbing me like an old friend, then followed me to a restaurant. I was petrified and angry. It turned out he was childhood friends with a resident assistant I knew and had boasted to her about taking away my virginity. He'd even described the blood.\n\nWhen I started thinking back on those days, I realized I couldn't remember who, other than the RA, I'd ever told. I called a close friend, and she didn't know anything. Neither did my family. Only my first boyfriend after the rape remembered. That alone helped me breathe again.\n\nI knew from my research before Ford's testimony that my attacker had a wife and children, and I thought about letting the matter drop. I wasn't out for revenge. Maybe -- you never know -- he'd changed and become a better person. But I also knew that my attacker was a professor at a community college, where I had to think he was in regular close contact with young women. Other people's lives and well-being were at stake, too.\n\nThe more I thought about that, the harder I found it to sleep. And so, one morning before dawn, the day after Ford's letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein broke, I wrote everything down in a letter to the college. I wanted the administration to know his history. I wanted to make sure that anyone who came forward with a complaint would be heard and believed. Most of all, I was determined that no other woman would have to wait 30 years, or anywhere close, to tell her story.\n\nThe Title IX coordinator, whose role includes oversight into complaints alleging sexual harassment and assault, called me within hours and was sympathetic and supportive. She also told me there had been no sexual assault complaints about him for as long as she'd been at the college, and perhaps that should have made me feel better.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nBut it didn't. Just because nobody had complained, I couldn't be sure he hadn't traumatized someone else the way he had traumatized me.\n\nOf course, my attacker will likely never be held accountable for what he did. I have to live with that. But I know, at least, I've given voice to my scared 17-year-old self -- and just maybe helped protect someone else. For me, Ford's bravery has been transformative already.\n\nWill I do more? I'm not ruling it out. I know that nothing about the long years after sexual assault are easy to work through. Telling our stories is often excruciating, with no guarantee that we will be believed. But it can also be crucial: Think of the two survivors who challenged Republican Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator and played a part in persuading him to consider a delay in the Kavanaugh confirmation. Our voices, in this moment, have become essential, and silence intolerable.\n\nCorrection: An earlier version of this article said Christine Blasey Ford's account was that Brett Kavanaugh turned up the music and covered her mouth. In last week's hearing, Ford testified that Kavanaugh or his friend Mark Judge turned up the music.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opinions/blasey-ford-inspired-me-to-speak-up-seligman/index.html"},
"To truly fight climate change, we need to set our sights higher":{"title": "To truly fight climate change, we need to set our sights higher", "authors": ["Frank Bainimarama", "Hilda C. Heine"], "publish_date": "2018-10-3", "text": "Frank Bainimarama is the Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji and the president of COP23, the 23rd annual Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Hilda C. Heine is the President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands which convenes the High Ambition Coalition of countries committed to progressive climate action and is also the chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), a global partnership of countries disproportionately affected by the consequences of global warming. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors. View more opinion articles on CNN.\n\n(CNN) The catastrophic recent weather events in the United States, Asia and elsewhere have once again shown that the world is in the midst of a climate crisis of our own making. While countries like ours are on the front lines of the worst impacts to come, these events remind us that no country is immune.\n\nSimply put, the commitments the world has made so far under the Paris Agreement to reduce the emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are woefully inadequate. And we are out of time. If we do not increase these commitments by 2020 as the agreement requires us to do, the potential impacts will be devastating, and they threaten the lives, homes and livelihoods of people in countries like ours.\n\nWe must act, and we must make the world understand its responsibility to act.\n\nThat is why, together, Fiji and the Marshall Islands, as members of the High Ambition Coalition, which came together in the Paris negotiations, are committed to continuing to lead the world by example. At this year's UN General Assembly, we were among the first to announce that we will deliver stronger new targets to reduce emissions, and have, or are in the process of developing, long-term decarbonization plans\n\nLast Monday, the Marshall Islands published one of the most ambitious plans to decarbonize an economy, pledging to reach net-zero emissions by midcentury, and to implement short-term plans consistent with that long-term vision. This makes sense for our economy and our environment, as well as for our people and our planet. We will do this by transforming our electricity, waste and transportation sectors, and putting a big new focus on adaptation, for which we will be heavily reliant on securing additional international public finance.\n\nSimilarly, Fiji is committing to delivering an enhanced emissions-reduction target by next year. To achieve this, we are engaging all sectors of the economy to prepare a comprehensive long-term 2050 decarbonization strategy to achieve net-zero emissions. This process will inform the preparation of our new national target. We are examining extra reductions from our transport, maritime, agriculture and forestry sectors. This is in addition to our existing commitment to produce 100% of our electricity from renewables by 2030.\n\nBut governments alone cannot combat climate change. The enormity of the challenge defies simple government solutions. It will take conscious effort at every level -- in every community, every business, every institution and every home. It will, indeed, require all of us, working toward one noble, and ultimately self-interested, objective to preserve the quality of life as we know it on planet Earth.\n\nJUST WATCHED This concrete can trap CO2 emissions Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH This concrete can trap CO2 emissions 06:09\n\nWe are pleased to see that many sub-national governments -- the world's cities, counties, states, and regions -- are taking up the mantle of leadership, and in some cases are ahead of their national governments in their efforts and their stated commitments. Climate action and leadership, wherever it arises, needs to be embraced. That is why we are encouraged that the vast majority of the private sector and civil society is energetically embracing the need to reduce carbon emissions and waste of all kinds. This kind of commitment should serve to strengthen the resolve and the ability of governments to raise their own targets.\n\nThere is a robust process in place to do so -- through the UN Convention on Climate Change. This year's meeting in Poland in December will be marked by the Talanoa Dialogue , based on the concept of an open, honest and respectful process of dialogue used in the Pacific. The idea of Talanoa is to bring the best ideas for how to tackle this threat to the surface and share them.\n\nJUST WATCHED Undeniable climate change facts Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Undeniable climate change facts 02:24\n\nWe need this process of collective effort now more than ever. The nations of the world will need to bring solutions -- in the form of strengthened targets and long-term decarbonization plans by 2020. That is the deadline agreed to in Paris to increase our short-term actions in order to keep temperatures within the safe limits established by that very agreement.\n\nTo achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, we need to chart a clear path forward. This path goes from the groundswell of climate action we witnessed at California Gov. Jerry Brown's Global Climate Action Summit last month, through Climate Week and the One Planet Summit in New York last week, through to the Virtual Summit of the Climate Vulnerable Forum in November, to the Talanoa Dialogue at COP24, and from there into 2019 and the UN Secretary-General's Climate Summit. This is the path forward, and if we all walk it together, we can reach our destination.\n\nFiji and the Marshall Islands are leading by example . We are moving forward and we call on all other countries to follow our lead. We believe that if two developing countries can develop robust emissions-reduction targets that truly drive us toward the goals we agreed to in Paris, then other nations can, too -- including the almost 30 countries that signed a Declaration for Ambition in June, and which we call on other countries to now join.\n\nFollow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook\n\nWhen we talk about combating climate change, we always talk about the need to raise ambition. That is what we have done. Every country must now join us.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opinions/climate-change-marshall-islands-fiji-bainimarama-heine/index.html"},
"My husband, Rand Paul, and our family have suffered intimidation and threats":{"title": "My husband, Rand Paul, and our family have suffered intimidation and threats", "authors": ["Kelley Paul"], "publish_date": "2018-10-3", "text": "Kelley Paul is the wife of Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers.\n\n(CNN) An open letter to Senator Cory Booker:\n\nKelley Paul and Senator Rand Paul.\n\nIt's nine o'clock at night, and as I watch out the window, a sheriff's car slowly drives past my home. I am grateful that they have offered to do extra patrols, as someone just posted our home address, and Rand's cell number, on the internet -- all part of a broader effort to intimidate and threaten Republican members of Congress and their families. I now keep a loaded gun by my bed. Our security systems have had to be expanded. I have never felt this way in my life.\n\nIn the last 18 months, our family has experienced violence and threats of violence at a horrifying level. I will never forget the morning of the shooting at the congressional baseball practice, the pure relief and gratitude that flooded me when I realized that Rand was okay.\n\nHe was not okay last November, when a violent and unstable man attacked him from behind while he was working in our yard, breaking six ribs and leaving him with lung damage and multiple bouts of pneumonia. Kentucky's secretary of state, Alison Lundergan Grimes, recently joked about it in a speech. MSNBC commentator Kasie Hunt laughingly said on air that Rand's assault was one of her \"favorite stories.\" Cher, Bette Midler , and others have lauded his attacker on Twitter. I hope that these women never have to watch someone they love struggle to move or even breathe for months on end.\n\nEarlier this week, Rand was besieged in the airport by activists \"getting up in his face,\" as you, Senator Booker, encouraged them to do a few months ago. Preventing someone from moving forward, thrusting your middle finger in their face, screaming vitriol -- is this the way to express concern or enact change? Or does it only incite unstable people to violence, making them feel that assaulting a person is somehow politically justifiable?\n\nRead More", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opinions/rand-paul-suffer-intimidation-and-threats-kelley-paul/index.html"},
"It's time for women and girls to speak about their periods":{"title": "It's time for women and girls to speak about their periods", "authors": ["Amina J. Mohammed For Cnn Illustration Jordan Andrew Carter", "Amina J. Mohammed For Cnn"], "publish_date": "2018-10-3", "text": "CNN is committed to covering gender inequality wherever it occurs in the world. This story is part of As Equals , a year-long series.\n\nAmina J. Mohammed is the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and Nigeria's former Minister of Environment. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers.\n\nIf we are to achieve true gender equality, we need to tackle everything that contributes to the discrimination and marginalization of women -- including menstruation.\n\nWhile menstruation is the most natural thing in the world, it often keeps girls out of school and the workplace, with devastating consequences that can last generations.\n\nMenstruation is, was or will be a reality for half of the world's population. Yet, it remains a taboo subject with an enormous impact on the life chances of women and girls everywhere.\n\nWomen and girls menstruate every month for approximately 35 years -- a total number of days that adds up to around seven years.\n\nFor many, that means seven years of anxiety and discomfort because of social stigma. Physical problems are also a major issue -- and a barrier to some women achieving their true potential.\n\nIn many countries, girls are kept at home for one week every month because they lack the means to look after themselves during their menstruation.\n\nIf we are to achieve true gender equality, we need to tackle everything that contributes to the discrimination and marginalization of women \u2014 including menstruation.\n\nThis puts a brake on their educational achievement, with severe knock-on effects on their ability to contribute to their families and communities and to society as a whole. When menstrual hygiene is properly managed, it contributes to social and economic empowerment and growth, across the board.\n\nFirst, it helps girls to go to school and opens up all kinds of opportunities from sporting activities to work placements. Second, it contributes to achieving gender equality by enabling girls and women to participate in social, educational and economic activities at the same level as boys and men. Third, managing menstrual hygiene means investing in water infrastructure, which reduces all kinds of health risks.\n\nIn developed countries, we take access to affordable menstrual products, accurate information on our menstrual cycles and clean water for granted.\n\nBut elsewhere, the absence of these basic necessities means many girls drop out of school during adolescence. This puts them at higher risk of poverty, exploitation and early pregnancy, with all the health risks that involves.\n\nThese practical problems are made worse by the stigma that surrounds menstruation. In many parts of the world, menstruation is completely taboo and girls have no idea what is happening to them as their first period begins. For many, this is a terrifying experience.\n\nThey may then hear that menstruation is dirty and shameful. They may even be socially stigmatized until their period is over. They may be told to avoid certain foods or certain activities. Not surprisingly, all this contributes to feelings of isolation, low confidence and depression, creating further barriers to girls' well-being.\n\nRoughly half the female population -- around 26 per cent of the global population -- is of reproductive age. Menstruation is the best-kept open secret in the world. For centuries, women and girls have quietly managed their menstruation as best they can, often while fulfilling demanding roles in their families and communities.\n\nIn developed countries, we take access to affordable menstrual products, accurate information on our menstrual cycles and clean water for granted.\n\nIt is time women and girls spoke out about their daily struggles. It is time to claim our rights and those of our daughters and granddaughters, to dignity, health, and education.\n\nIt is time for the world to step up. Thankfully, we are now beginning to see change.\n\nEducating both girls and boys about menstruation as a normal biological process is the first step. Explaining how their body works builds a girl's confidence and encourages healthy habits. Making sure menstruating girls have access to clean water and sanitation services makes their lives far easier.\n\nBasic public health services can provide support and information on some of the issues associated with menstruation, including premenstrual syndrome, dysmenorrhea and endometriosis. Affordable and environmentally friendly sanitary products can benefit girls and women as well as their communities.\n\nLooking forward, there is room for improvement in both developing and developed countries. Workplace policies can help women manage menstruation in a dignified way; sanitary products may be free or subsidized for those who cannot afford them; new designs are helping to expand choices and decrease environmental pollution.\n\nWe must also tackle cultural barriers, and enable menstruating women and girls to participate in all activities of normal life -- from the classroom to the gym class to the workplace to the kitchen or place of worship.\n\nEducating boys while their attitudes and beliefs towards girls and women are evolving is critical. We need to spread the word: menstruation is natural and manageable -- while it may also be painful, uncomfortable, or plain inconvenient.\n\nWe must also tackle cultural barriers, and enable menstruating women and girls to participate in all activities of normal life \u2014 from the classroom to the gym class to the workplace to the kitchen or place of worship.\n\nFrom Indonesia to Belarus and Kenya, the United Nations is partnering with young people, local communities, schools, governments, influencers and thought leaders to tackle taboos around menstruation and produce innovative solutions.\n\nManaging healthy menstruation is a vital part of the United Nations' efforts to support countries in achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development -- our blueprint for peaceful, prosperous societies on a healthy planet. It is an essential step towards gender equality and will contribute to improved education and to water and sanitation services. All of these are important goals in the 2030 Agenda.\n\nToday, some 60 million 10-year-old girls around the world stand at the threshold of adolescence and menstruation. Let's do everything we can to invest in menstrual health and end stigma and discrimination. It is time to lift up the rights of girls and women everywhere.", "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opinions/amina-mohammed-menstruation-asequals-opinion-intl/index.html"}
}