Florida's GOP now has an opportunity to renew commitment to family values
The 2024 Republican Party platform, when outlining how it would empower American families, said, 'Republicans will promote a culture that values the sanctity of marriage, the blessings of childhood, the foundational role of families, and supports working parents.'
That's not new. But lately, this supposed commitment to family values has been harder to reconcile against the personal conduct of some Republican leaders.
There was the Cabinet member (Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth) who faced allegations of sexual assault, the attorney general nominee (Matt Gaetz) who withdrew his name from consideration amid accusations of sexual misconduct with a 17-year-old, and a Florida congressman (Rep. Cory Mills) who was criminally investigated but never charged after allegations he assaulted a woman. And, there's the president himself, found liable in 2023 for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll. That's not even counting the dozens of women who have accused now-President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct going back to the 1970s.
Allegations are not convictions, of course, but party politics isn't the same as a courtroom. The fact that the Republican Party has in some cases allowed people with a history of alleged sexual abuse to continue to serve is problematic. The GOP's moral compass may need to be recalibrated.
Over the weekend, Fort Pierce City Commissioner James Taylor was arrested, following a months-long multi-state investigation, on 24 felony counts involving allegations that he sent sexually explicit images to a 12-year-old. Last August, a mom in Illinois reported that Taylor had been using Snapchat to sext her daughter.
While Taylor, who was serving in a non-partisan seat, had already submitted his resignation effective on Aug. 2, Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended him from the city commission. In the executive order, DeSantis said Taylor's suspension was 'in the best interests' of city residents and the state. The governor has the legal authority to suspend an elected official charged with a crime.
In recent years, character has taken a backseat to cult personalities and culture wars. There was a time when the Republican Party held its members to a high moral standard. But now, the party increasingly seems comfortable with turning a blind eye as long as a candidate can draw a crowd or delivers a win.
That's how the GOP ended up nominating Trump three times as their presidential candidate and electing him twice to the White House.
In addition to being found liable for sexual abuse, Trump has been convicted of 34 felony charges and had a well-documented relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Yet, these things haven't cost him support of the Republican Party.
The party that once raised questions about former President Bill Clinton's moral fitness to serve in office after having a sexual relationship with a White House intern has now fully embraced a man whose personal conduct is vastly worse than Clinton's.
When the current GOP fails to hold its own leaders accountable, it weakens the party. Character cannot be situational.
At this point, it feels like a lost cause to try to hold Trump accountable, even if the Epstein case won't go away. But it's important to call this behavior out.
Moral corruption in leadership isn't confined to Washington, D.C. It bleeds into institutions and society. Republicans shouldn't be defending leaders whose behavior they'd never tolerate from their spouse, teachers or their child's Little League coach. When allowed to go unchecked, sexual misconduct from our leaders becomes normalized.
It's not surprising that so many principled conservatives feel politically homeless. They are watching in real-time as their party brushes aside morally questionable behavior.
The governor got it right by suspending Taylor, and in doing so, he reminded Republicans that they can still be the party of principle, not just power. Being the party of family values requires holding leaders — at every level — to a consistent moral standard.
Not just when it's easy, but especially when it's hard.
Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: mmancuso@miamiherald.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
American Eagle stock rises after Trump praises Sydney Sweeney ad amid backlash
Clothing brand American Eagle may be entrenched in controversy over its latest ad campaign, but company shares were only rising on Monday, Aug. 4. The retailer's stock rose more than 23% after President Donald Trump defended its ad starring Sydney Sweeney. Critics have argued that the campaign, which launched on July 23, as well as its slogan "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans," was a double entendre endorsing eugenics, the pseudoscience that promotes the belief that some genetic features are better than others. After a reporter informed Trump that Sweeney was allegedly registered as a Republican in Florida, the president applauded the "Euphoria" star's campaign. BuzzFeed first reported Sweeney's party affiliation on Aug. 2, though USA TODAY was unable to verify whether a person in public voting records named Sydney B. Sweeney is the Emmy-nominated actor, whose middle name is Bernice. "Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the 'HOTTEST' ad out there. It's for American Eagle, and the jeans are 'flying off the shelves.' Go get 'em Sydney!" Trump wrote on an Aug. 4 Truth Social post. "Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Despite an initial 16% boost upon the ad's release, American Eagle shares were down over the past week as backlash escalated, according to reporting from Reuters and CNBC. However, following Trump's praise, the stock saw a 23.53% increase at the market's close on Aug. 4. What have JD Vance, Americans Eagle and Sweeney said? Vice President JD Vance addressed the ad during a Friday, Aug. 1 episode of the conservative "Ruthless" podcast, where he poked fun at outrage toward the ad, quipping, "I actually thought that one of the lessons (Democrats) might take is 'we're going to be less crazy.'" "And the lesson they have apparently taken is 'we're going to attack people as Nazis for thinking Sydney Sweeney is beautiful,'" he said on the podcast. "My political advice to the Democrats is continue to (call) everybody who thinks Sydney Sweeney is attractive is a Nazi." Some critics have argued that the ad promotes the idea of a conventionally attractive, blonde, white woman with blue eyes being the archetype of "good genes." While Sweeney has not publicly addressed the backlash against the ad, American Eagle issued a statement on Instagram on Aug. 1. "'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way," the statement read. "Great jeans look good on everyone." Contributing: Anna Kaufman and Jay Stahl, USA TODAY
New York Post
21 minutes ago
- New York Post
Acting NASA chief Sean Duffy to announce plans for building nuclear reactor on the moon
It's a power move. The Trump administration aims to accelerate the construction of a nuclear reactor on the moon, Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy wrote in a memo distributed internally on Monday. The space agency has previously explored the possibility of installing an electricity-generating nuclear reactor on the lunar surface capable of powering a sustained human presence, but Duffy intends to fast-track the project and more than double the reactor's power output, according to documents obtained by The Post. 3 Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy announced plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon. AP Photo/George Walker IV Advertisement 'To properly advance this critical technology to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,' Duffy wrote in the memo. 'It is about winning the second space race,' a NASA senior official told Politico, which first reported on Duffy's plans. Duffy's directive will instruct NASA to seek out proposals for a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor that would be ready for launch by 2030. Advertisement In 2022, NASA's 'Fission Surface Power Project' awarded design contracts for a 40-kilowatt nuclear reactor, which the agency said is capable of powering 33 households. If another country, such as China or Russia, were to build a reactor on the moon first, it could 'declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States,' Duffy's order noted. The directive calls for NASA to appoint a leader for the reactor project and to get private industry input within 60 days. 3 The planned reactor would be complete by 2030. IndustryAndTravel – Advertisement NASA will look for private spaceflight companies able to get the reactor to the moon by 2030, when China intends to launch a manned moon mission. President Trump named Duffy, 53, the acting head of NASA last month after he withdrew the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman, an ally of ex-DOGE chief Elon Musk. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The surprise move came in response to a 'review' of Isaacman's history, Trump said at the time. Advertisement Isaacman has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates and causes as recently as October 2024, when he gave more than $41,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Federal Election Commission records show. 3 A NASA senior official reportedly said the plan is about 'winning the second space race.' Alberto Ghizzi Panizza/ Duffy outlined NASA's ambitious objectives — to circle the moon, land and eventually build a base on the surface — last month in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. 'We're going to go back to the moon during Donald Trump's presidency,' he told Hannity. 'Next year … start of the year, we are going to go back to the moon. We're not going to land. We're going to go around the moon. And then about a year later, we're going to land back on the moon,' Duffy explained. 'And then after that, we're going to set up a base camp. 'We're going to stay on the moon, and what we learn on the moon is what's going to take us to Mars.' A spokesperson for NASA did not respond to The Post's request for comment.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump says he doesn't trust the jobs data, but Wall Street and economists do
WASHINGTON (AP) — The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were 'RIGGED' to make him and other Republicans 'look bad.' Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large — the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. 'The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable,' Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. 'We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing,' Boushey said. 'Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market.' Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to 'liven it up', but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says 'it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid.' The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers — when they are good. These are the figures Trump is attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' Vice President Kamala Harris's 'chances of Victory,' yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations — including multiple locations for the same business — covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest — outside recessions — since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday and said, 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers.' Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: 'When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed.' Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. 'We are at an inflection point,' the report said. 'To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment … In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future.
