presidential

Presidential office respects parliament on Unification Church probe

Democratic Party of Korea leader Chung Cheong-rae and floor leader Kim Byeong-gi confer during a Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly in Seoul on Dec 22. Photo by Asia Today

Dec. 22 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s presidential office said Monday it “respects the National Assembly’s decision” after the ruling Democratic Party backed the opposition’s call for a special prosecutor to investigate matters linked to the Unification Church.

A senior presidential official said the office has consistently supported a thorough investigation regardless of party or religion and described the move as consistent with that stance.

“The presidential office has consistently advocated for a strict investigation regardless of party or religion, so a special prosecutor aligning with that stance is only natural,” the official said, adding that the party’s shift should be seen as reflecting the presidential office’s position.

Democratic Party floor leader Kim Byung-ki said during a Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly that he supports a special probe that would include politicians from both the ruling and opposition parties.

He said the People Power Party appears to believe the Democratic Party is avoiding a special investigation and urged proceeding with a special prosecutor focused on the Unification Church.

Democratic Party leader Chung Cheong-rae also said there was no reason not to accept the proposal and called for a full accounting that includes any People Power Party figures involved.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Source link

Turning Point USA’s Erika Kirk backs Vice President JD Vance’s potential 2028 presidential bid

Erika Kirk, widow of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk and the organization’s new leader, endorsed a potential presidential bid by Vice President JD Vance on the opening night of the conservative youth group’s annual conference.

After telling the cheering crowd that Turning Point would help keep Congress in Republican hands next year, she said, “We are going to get my husband’s friend JD Vance elected for 48 in the most resounding way possible.”

Vance would be the 48th president if he takes office after President Trump.

Kirk’s statement on Thursday is the most explicit backing of Vance’s possible candidacy by a woman who has been positioned as a steward to her late husband’s legacy. Charlie Kirk had become a powerbroker and bridge builder within the conservative movement before he was assassinated in September.

Vance was close with Charlie Kirk, whose backing helped enable his rapid political rise. After the assassination, Vance and his wife joined Erika Kirk in Utah to fly her husband’s remains home to Arizona aboard Air Force Two.

Vance is set to speak to Turning Point on Sunday, the conference’s last day. The convention has featured the usual spectacle and energy that have characterized the organization’s events, but the proceedings have also been marred by intense infighting among conservative commentators and estranged allies who have turned on each other in the wake of Kirk’s death.

As Trump’s vice president, Vance is well-positioned to inherit the movement that remade the Republican Party and twice sent Trump to the White House. But it would be no small task for him to hold together the Trump coalition, which is built around personal loyalty to him more than shared political goals.

Various wings of the conservative movement already are positioning to steer the party after Trump’s presidency, a skirmish that’s becoming increasingly public and pointed.

Turning Point, with its thousands of young volunteers, would provide a major boost for Vance in a fractious primary. Now 41, Vance would be the first Millennial president if elected, a natural fit for the organization built around mobilizing youth.

Trump has repeatedly mused about running for a third term despite a constitutional prohibition. However, he’s also speculated about a 2028 ticket featuring Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Although Rubio previously ran for president in 2016, he has said he would support Vance as Trump’s successor.

Brown and Cooper write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from Washington.

Source link

Sleepy. Divisive. A fan of young Trump: A look at the new plaques on the Presidential Walk of Fame

President Trump has affixed partisan plaques to the portraits of all U.S. commanders in chief, himself included, on his Presidential Walk of Fame at the White House, describing Joe Biden as “sleepy,” Barack Obama as “divisive” and Ronald Reagan as a fan of a young Trump.

The additions, first seen publicly Wednesday, mark Trump’s latest effort to remake the White House in his own image, while flouting the protocols of how presidents treat their predecessors and doubling down on his determination to reshape how U.S. history is told.

“The plaques are eloquently written descriptions of each President and the legacy they left behind,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement describing the installation in the colonnade that runs from the West Wing to the residence. “As a student of history, many were written directly by the President himself.”

Indeed, the Trumpian flourishes include the president’s typical bombastic language and haphazard capitalization. They also highlight Trump’s fraught relationships with his more recent predecessors.

An introductory plaque tells passersby that the exhibit was “conceived, built, and dedicated by President Donald J. Trump as a tribute to past Presidents, good, bad, and somewhere in the middle.”

Besides the Walk of Fame and its new plaques, Trump has adorned the Oval Office in gold and razed the East Wing in preparation for a massive ballroom. Separately, his administration has pushed for an examination of how Smithsonian exhibits present the nation’s history, and he is playing a strong hand in how the federal government will recognize the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026.

Here’s a look at how Trump’s colonnade exhibit tells the presidential story.

Joe Biden

Joe Biden is still the only president in the display not to be recognized with a gilded portrait. Instead, Trump chose an autopen, reflecting his mockery of Biden’s age and assertions that Biden was not up to the job.

Biden, who defeated Trump in the 2020 election and dropped out of the 2024 election before their pending rematch, is introduced as “Sleepy Joe” and “by far, the worst President in American History” who “brought our Nation to the brink of destruction.”

Two plaques blast Biden for inflation and his energy and immigration policy, among other things. The text also blames Biden for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and asserts falsely that Biden was elected fraudulently.

Biden’s post-White House office had no comment on his plaque.

Barack Obama

The 44th president is described as “a community organizer, one term Senator from Illinois, and one of the most divisive political figures in American History.”

The plaque calls Obama’s signature domestic achievement “the highly ineffective ‘Unaffordable Care Act.”

And it notes that Trump nixed other major Obama achievements: “the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal … and ”the one-side Paris Climate Accords.”

An aide to Obama also declined comment.

George W. Bush

George W. Bush, who notably did not speak to Trump when they were last together at former President Jimmy Carter’s funeral, appears to win approval for creating the Department of Homeland Security and leading the nation after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the plaque decries that Bush “started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which should not have happened.”

An aide to Bush didn’t return a message seeking comment.

Bill Clinton

The 42nd president, once a friend of Trump’s, gets faint praise for major crime legislation, an overhaul of the social safety net and balanced budgets.

But his plaque notes Clinton secured those achievements with a Republican Congress, the help of the 1990s “tech boom” and “despite the scandals that plagued his Presidency.”

Clinton’s recognition describes the North American Free Trade Agreement, another of his major achievements, as “bad for the United States” and something Trump would “terminate” during his first presidency. (Trump actually renegotiated some terms with Mexico and Canada but did not scrap the fundamental deal.)

His plaque ends with the line: “In 2016, President Clinton’s wife, Hillary, lost the Presidency to President Donald J. Trump!”

An aide to Clinton did not return a message seeking comment.

Other notable plaques

The broadsides dissipate the further back into history the plaques go.

Republican George H.W. Bush, who died during Trump’s first term, is recognized for his lengthy resume before becoming president, along with legislation including the Clean Air Act and Americans With Disabilities Act — despite Trump’s administration relaxing enforcement of both. The elder Bush’s plaque does not note that he, not Clinton, first pushed the major trade law that became NAFTA.

Lyndon Johnson’s plaque credits the Texas Democrat for securing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (seminal laws that Trump’s administration interprets differently than previous administrations). It correctly notes that discontent over Vietnam led to LBJ not seeking reelection in 1968.

Democrat John F. Kennedy, the uncle of Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is credited as a World War II “war hero” who later used “stirring rhetoric” as president in opposition to communism.

Republican Richard Nixon’s plaque states plainly that the Watergate scandal led to his resignation.

While Trump spared most deceased presidents of harsh criticism, he jabbed at one of his regular targets, the media — this time across multiple centuries: Andrew Jackson’s plaque says the seventh president was “unjustifiably treated unfairly by the Press, but not as viciously and unfairly as President Abraham Lincoln and President Donald J. Trump would, in the future, be.”

Donald Trump

With two presidencies, Trump gets two displays. Each is full of praise and superlatives — “the Greatest Economy in the History of the World.” He calls his 2016 Electoral College margin of 304-227 a “landslide.”

Trump’s second-term plaque notes his popular vote victory — something he did not achieve in 2016 — and concludes with “THE BEST IS YET TO COME.”

Meanwhile, the introductory plaque presumes Trump’s addition will be a White House fixture once he is no longer president: “The Presidential Walk of Fame will long live as a testament and tribute to the Greatness of America.”

Brown and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

Source link

Geraldine Ferraro dies at 75; shattered political barrier for women as vice presidential nominee in 1984

Geraldine A. Ferraro, the savvy New York Democrat who was embraced as a symbol of women’s equality in 1984 when she became the first woman nominated for vice president by a major party, died Saturday at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She was 75.

The cause was complications from multiple myeloma, her family said.

Ferraro was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an incurable form of blood cancer, in 1998. She did not disclose her illness publicly until 2001, when she went on NBC’s “Today” show and said she had beaten the cancer into remission with thalidomide, the once-banned drug that had proven effective with some end-stage cancers. The cancer recurred, but she again went into remission after therapy with a new drug.

Initially told that she had three to five years to live, she survived for more than 12 years, long enough to witness the historic candidacies of two other women in 2008: Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former first lady and current secretary of State who ran against Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate.

Ferraro was “a pioneer in our country for justice and a more open society,” former Vice President Walter Mondale told the Associated Press of his former running mate. “She broke a lot of molds, and it’s a better country for what she did.”

Palin also praised Ferraro, writing in a Facebook message that she “broke one huge barrier and then went on to break many more.”

Ferraro’s 1984 candidacy was seen as a potentially powerful weapon to turn the emerging “gender gap” of the 1980s to the advantage of the Democratic Party, which sought to regain the White House after Ronald Reagan’s first term.

But her four-month campaign almost immediately hit rough waters. She was bashed by critics who questioned the finances of her husband, John Zaccaro, a Manhattan real estate developer. A devout Roman Catholic, she was repeatedly assailed by New York’s archbishop, the late John J. O’Connor, for her views supporting abortion rights. She also endured insinuations of mob connections as the first Italian American on a national ticket.

“I was constantly being asked, ‘Was it worth it?’ Of course it was worth it!” she wrote in “Framing a Life, A Family Memoir,” published in 1998. “My candidacy was a benchmark moment for women. No matter what anyone thought of me personally, or of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, my candidacy had flung open the last door barring equality — and that door led straight to the Oval Office.”

Her nomination astonished some of the most stalwart feminists. Among them was Ms. magazine founder Gloria Steinem, who had predicted that 1984 would be the year that politicians talked seriously about putting a woman on the national ticket, not “the year they actually did it.”

Over the next two decades, other women achieved milestones in national politics. Janet Reno became U.S. attorney general, Madeleine Albright was named secretary of State, and Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House.

Their path was eased by Ferraro, who believed that a childhood tragedy set up her moment in history.

“I’ve often said that if my father hadn’t died, I might not have done anything,” Ferraro once told Steinem in an interview. “I saw my mother left suddenly with kids and no money…. I wanted to be able to take care of myself and not miss a beat.”

Born Aug. 26, 1935, in Newburgh, N.Y., she was the pampered daughter of Antonetta and Dominick Ferraro, Italian immigrants who had lost a son, Gerard, in a car crash and were so overjoyed at her birth a few years later that they named her Geraldine, in memory of him.

Dominick Ferraro ran a successful restaurant in Newburgh. When business fell on hard times, he turned to running a numbers game and was arrested. On the morning he was to appear in court, he died of an apparent heart attack. Ferraro was 8.

She became seriously anemic — doctors told her she had internalized her grief — and was unable to attend school for months. Strapped for money, her mother moved the family to a cramped Bronx apartment and took a job as a crochet beader. By scrimping on meat and other luxuries, she managed to send Ferraro to Marymount, an exclusive parochial school in Tarrytown, N.Y., and later to Marymount Manhattan College.

Ferraro graduated and became an elementary school teacher in Queens. At night she put herself through Fordham Law School, one of two women in a class of 179 whose professors resented her for “taking a man’s rightful place.”

Years later, when she was raising three children of her own and finally had begun to practice law, Ferraro split her legal fees with her mother and kept her maiden name in tribute.

She took the bar exam two days before her wedding in 1961 and passed, but Zaccaro did not want his wife to work, so she spent the next 13 years as a homemaker in upper-middle-class Forest Hills, N.Y. Their first child, Donna, was born in 1961, followed by John Jr. in 1964 and Laura in 1966.

She balanced her domestic responsibilities with pro bono work for women in family court and became the first woman on the board of the Forest Hills Gardens Corp. She also was elected president of a women’s bar association.

In 1974, when her youngest child was in second grade, she went to see her cousin, Queens Dist. Atty. Nicholas Ferraro, who hired her as a prosecutor. Within three years she was promoted to chief of the special victims bureau, in charge of sex crimes, child abuse, rape and domestic violence cases. It was emotionally draining work, but she won six jury trials, aided, according to a review by American Lawyer magazine, by her “straightforward eloquent approach” and “meticulous courtroom preparation.”

Her years as a prosecutor transformed her from a “small-c conservative to a liberal,” she later said. And it would lead her to adopt a supportive view of abortion that would put her in conflict with her church.

“You can force a person to have a child, but you can’t make the person love that child,” Ferraro wrote, reflecting on the child abuse cases she prosecuted. “I don’t know what pain a fetus experiences, but I can well imagine the suffering of a four-year-old girl being dipped in boiling water until her skin came off and then lying in bed unattended for two days until she died. And that was only one of the cases seared in my memory.”

In 1978, Ferraro formally entered politics. Running for Congress on the slogan “Finally, a tough Democrat,” she won by a 10% margin despite being snubbed by local party leaders.

She was reelected twice by even larger margins — 58% in 1980 and 73% in 1982.

She studiously strove to avoid the pitfalls of being a rookie and one of the few women in Congress. After overhearing a male colleague’s putdown of a new female member who “couldn’t find her way to the ladies’ room,” Ferraro mentally mapped out her exact route whenever she headed out the door. “Silly, right? And totally inconsequential,” she said. “But nothing is worse than looking as if you don’t know where you’re going.”

A quick learner, she soon caught the attention of House Speaker Tip O’Neill, who called her “a regular since the day she arrived.” She was in many ways an old-fashioned politician who could schmooze and glad-hand with the most wizened colleagues. O’Neill rewarded her with seats on the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and the House Budget Committee, as well as the position of secretary to the House Democratic Caucus. Male colleagues found her effective but, as then-Rep. Leon E. Panetta described her, “not a Bella Abzug type,” a reference to the late New York congresswoman and feminist leader known for her confrontational style.

Ferraro supported a nuclear freeze, opposed Reagan’s tax-cut proposal, upheld support for social programs for the poor, elderly and children, and was a strong supporter of Israel. She was passionate about abortion rights and championed the Equal Rights Amendment. She also voted against mandatory busing for integration and for tuition tax credits for parochial schools, positions that won favor in her conservative, largely blue-collar district. Her record earned a description in Time as “a New Deal Democrat with a good seasoning of traditional family values,” an appealing balance that eventually would help her leap onto the national stage.

While she was building her career in Washington, interest in the gender gap began to intensify. Proportionally more men than women had voted Reagan into office in 1980. Many partisans began to take note of the fact that he had won by 8.4 million votes, a margin that they hoped could be overturned the next time by some 30 million unregistered women of voting age.

In late 1983, the drumbeat for a female vice president began at a conference of the National Organization for Women, the nation’s largest feminist group. Polls began to ask whether a woman on the ticket would make a difference, and the answer was coming back as yes.

In Washington, a group of politically connected Democratic women began a stealth campaign. Calling themselves Team A, they prodded prominent Democrats to publicly endorse the concept of a female vice president. Eventually, Mondale, Gary Hart and Edward M. Kennedy spoke favorably of the idea. The ad-hoc group floated names of potential candidates, including women then in Congress such as Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Pat Schroeder of Colorado, and then-San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. They encouraged women in the national media to write about putting a woman on the ticket.

Early in 1984, after vetting the possibilities, the group decided that the woman with the most voter appeal was Ferraro. Over a Chinese takeout dinner, Team A broached the subject with her. Would she “stay open to the idea of becoming the actual nominee” if the concept caught on? Ferraro recalled her reaction: “I was flabbergasted and flattered.” The possibility of her nomination struck her as extremely remote, but she agreed to become the focus of the team’s efforts.

To raise her national profile, she went after a prominent role in the upcoming Democratic National Convention and became the first woman to be platform chair. She earned high marks for averting a potential convention revolt by delegates pledged to Hart and Jesse Jackson, who ultimately were satisfied that the platform reflected their views.

While she labored over the platform, prominent figures, including House Speaker O’Neill, began to drop her name as a contender for the No. 2 spot on the ticket.

By early July, she was regularly mentioned as a finalist on Mondale’s list, along with San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode, Kentucky Gov. Martha Layne Collins, Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, and Feinstein. The party front-runner summoned her to Minnesota for an interview, but she nearly pulled herself out of contention after leaks from a high-ranking Mondale staffer resulted in stories deriding her prospects.

The waiting ended July 11 when Mondale popped the question: Would she be his running mate?

“I didn’t pause for a minute,” Ferraro wrote in “Ferraro: My Story,” published in 1985.

At a news conference that day, an unusually effervescent Mondale said — twice — “This is an exciting choice.”

Among the pundits who agreed was New Yorker political analyst Elizabeth Drew. Ferraro’s selection, she wrote, was “a lightning bolt across the political landscape.” It not only would help Mondale energize female voters, Hart supporters and independents, but would bolster the staid image of the Minnesota Democrat who, in a stroke, had “reduced ? the assumption that he is incapable of bold action.” Dragging by double digits in the polls, Mondale had grasped his “best, and perhaps only, hope” for victory in November.

On July 19, Ferraro strode onto the stage at San Francisco’s Moscone Center to accept her party’s nomination. She was greeted by roars of “Gerr-reee! Gerr-reee!” from what looked like a sea of jubilant women, many of them non-delegates who had finagled floor passes to witness this stirring moment in the nation’s history.

“My name is Geraldine Ferraro,” the then-48-year-old declared, for once slowing her usual staccato style of speech. “I stand before you to proclaim tonight, America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us.”

The mood “was so electric that just being female felt terrific,” Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times.

But none of Ferraro’s years in Congress prepared her for the hurricane that was coming.

The media clamored for interviews, amassing in such numbers that Capitol Hill police roped off her office to keep them at bay. More than 50,000 letters and gifts — ranging from books to a boxing glove — poured in by election day.

Within two weeks of her nomination, the flak began to hit.

Critics blasted her for taking the statutory exemption to withhold information about her husband’s finances on disclosure statements required of members of Congress. And John Zaccaro was attacked for improperly borrowing money from the estate of an 84-year-old widow. He later was removed as conservator. In subsequent weeks the public would learn that Ferraro had improperly loaned money to her first House campaign in 1978, and that Zaccaro and Ferraro had underpaid their taxes that year.

In the blur of campaigning, Ferraro approved a news release that mistakenly said she would release her husband’s tax returns. When she subsequently refused to release the returns, the candidate with a dangerous tendency toward flippancy told a reporter: “You people who are married to Italian men, you know what it’s like.”

Immediately she knew she had made a terrible gaffe. She had meant that Italian men tended to be private about their personal affairs, but her remark was interpreted as an ethnic slur. It also fueled debate about Ferraro’s toughness, with critics contending if she wasn’t strong enough to oppose her husband, she couldn’t stand up to the Soviets.

Media scrutiny of her husband was so intense that reporters even began to investigate allegations that his father had once rented space to a member of the Gambino crime family.

(Washington Post editor Benjamin Bradlee later observed that the charges, which never amounted to much, would not have been made if she had been “somebody named Jenkins. You’d have to be from another planet not to think that,” he told The Times in a post-election analysis.)

In late August, she released a detailed financial disclosure statement and faced the national media. She earned favorable reviews for her responses to 90 minutes of often hostile questioning (“Ferraro passes a vital test,” went a cover line in Time) but her candidacy never recovered.

In September, Ferraro began fending off attacks on a new front. New York’s Archbishop O’Connor lashed out at her stand on abortion rights and said she had misrepresented church teachings on abortion. He even held open the possibility of excommunication. Anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups clashed at her rallies.

The Italian American community did not rise to her defense, even when other critics attempted to smear her with allegations of underworld dealings. Some commentators decried the sexism they said was fueling the attacks. Noting the silence of the Italian American community, syndicated columnist Richard Reeves observed: “The stoning of Geraldine Ferraro in the public square goes on and on, and no one steps forward to help or protest — not even one of her kind?. The sons of Italy and fathers of the Roman Catholic Church are silent or are too busy reaching for bigger rocks?. Heresy! Mafia! Men are putting women in their place.”

Ferraro did well when she faced then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in debate. He ignored her request that she be addressed as “Congresswoman,” however, and called her “Mrs. Ferraro” instead. Shortly before the debate, she was insulted by Barbara Bush who called her “that four-million-dollar — I can’t say it, but it rhymes with ‘rich.’ ” (Ferraro and Zaccaro’s net worth had been reported at $3.8 million.)

She was discouraged by news coverage that she felt rarely reflected the enthusiasm and massive crowds she encountered on the campaign trail. “They were far less interested in what I had to say about the life-and-death issues facing the nation than they were about what I was wearing, how I looked that day, whether or not I cried, and what was happening in my marriage,” she recalled in her memoir.

Reagan, one of the most popular presidents in history, wound up with an 18-point victory, aided in part by women, who supported him in greater numbers than they had the Mondale-Ferraro ticket. Post-election analyses found that Ferraro had neither greatly helped nor hindered the Democrats’ chances.

What later became clear to Ferraro was how ambivalent the electorate — particularly women — had been about her candidacy.

Those attitudes led Ferraro to make a controversial appearance in a 1991 commercial for Pepsi-Cola, in which she endorsed being a mother over being in politics. Feminists shouted betrayal.

The commercial apparently did little to bolster her chances the following year when she ran for the Democratic nomination for Senate. She lost the 1992 Democratic primary and again in the 1998 primary, her last bid for elected office.

Fatigued after the primary, she went for a medical checkup and was diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

She was determined to remain active despite the ups and down of her health. At President Clinton’s request, she served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. She found a forum for her views on television as the liberal co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire” and as a Fox political analyst. In 2004, she helped found grannyvoter.org with other female activists in their 60s to encourage grandparents to become politically involved. She also worked for a number of lobbying firms.

Later, Ferraro was a feisty advocate for Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, garnering criticism for remarking during the heated 2008 primary season that Obama had an advantage because he is black. The remark was perceived as racist, and in the ensuing controversy, Ferraro resigned from her voluntary position on Clinton’s campaign finance committee, but she did not back away from her view of how race and gender were playing out in the campaign.

“Sexism is a bigger problem” than racism in the United States, Ferraro told the Daily Breeze in the March 2008 story that made her a liability for the Clinton campaign. “It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.”

She harbored no regrets at having tried to become the first female vice president, despite how grueling the struggle was. What women needed to remember, she told an interviewer in 2004, was a simple fact of politics: “If you don’t run, you can’t win.”

In addition to her husband and three children, Ferraro, who lived in New York City, is survived by eight grandchildren. Funeral arrangements are pending.

elaine.woo@latimes.com

Source link

Far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast wins Chile’s presidential election | Elections News

Far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast has won a run-off election to become Chile’s 38th president, ousting the centre-left government currently in power.

On Sunday, with nearly all the ballots counted, Kast prevailed with nearly 58 percent of the vote, defeating former Labour Minister Jeannette Jara, a Communist Party politician who represented the governing centre-left coalition.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Jara and her coalition, Unity for Chile, conceded defeat shortly after the polls closed in the South American country.

“Democracy has spoken loud and clear. I have just spoken with President-elect [Kast] to wish him success for the good of Chile,” Jara wrote on social media.

“To those who supported us and were inspired by our candidacy, rest assured that we will continue working to build a better life in our country. Together and standing strong, as we always have.”

The result marks the latest victory for the far right in Latin America, which has seen a streak of right-wing leaders once considered political outsiders rise to power in countries like Argentina and Ecuador.

The tally also marks a significant comeback for Kast himself, the 59-year-old leader of the Republican Party. The 2025 election marks his third attempt to win the presidency — and his first successful bid.

During the last election, in 2021, he was trounced by outgoing President Gabriel Boric, who won by nearly a 10-point margin.

But Boric, a former student leader who became Chile’s youngest president, had seen his popularity slump to about 30 percent by the end of his four-year term. He was also ineligible to run for a second term under Chilean law.

In public opinion polls, voters also expressed frustration with recent spikes in crime and immigration, as well as a softening of Chile’s economy.

Kast, meanwhile, campaigned on the promise of change. He said he would address voter concerns by carrying out crackdowns on crime and immigration, including through a campaign of mass deportation, similar to what United States President Donald Trump has done in North America.

His security platform — dubbed the “Implacable Plan” — also proposes stiffer mandatory minimum sentencing, incarcerating more criminals in maximum security facilities, and putting cartel leaders in “total isolation” to cut them off from any communication with the outside world.

“Today, while criminals and drug traffickers walk freely through the streets, committing crimes and intimidating people, honest Chileans are locked in their homes, paralyzed by fear,” Kast writes in his security plan.

Kast has also taken a hard right stance towards social and health issues, including abortion, which he opposes even in cases of rape.

But those hardline policies earned Kast criticism on the campaign trail. Critics have also seized upon his own sympathetic comments about Chile’s former dictator, military leader Augusto Pinochet.

In 1973, Pinochet oversaw a right-wing military coup that ousted the democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende. He proceeded to rule the country until 1990. His government became known for its widespread human rights abuses and brutal oppression of political dissent, with thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured.

While Kast has rejected the label “far right”, he has repeatedly defended Pinochet’s government. Of Pinochet, Kast famously quipped, “If he were alive, he would vote for me.”

Opponents also sought to draw attention to Kast’s family ties: His father, Michael Martin Kast, was born in Germany and had been a member of the Nazi Party. The elder Kast immigrated to Chile in 1950.

Reporting from a polling site in the capital of Santiago, Al Jazeera correspondent Lucia Newman noted that Sunday’s victory was a historic one for Chile’s far right. But, she noted, Kast has sought to moderate his platform to better appeal to voters in the current election cycle.

“This is the first time since 1990 — since the military dictatorship before 1990, when Chile returned to democracy — that such a conservative government will be in power,” Newman explained.

“It’s really not certain just how conservative it will be. Jose Antonio Kast was a supporter of former dictator General Augusto Pinochet. He has shirked away from that in recent years, and certainly in this campaign.”

In the wake of Kast’s election victory, right-wing leaders from across the Americas offered their congratulations in statements on social media.

“Congratulations to Chilean President-Elect [Jose Antonio Kast] on his victory,” Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote. “The United States looks forward to partnering with his administration to strengthen regional security and revitalize our trade relationship.”

Argentina’s libertarian leader Javier Milei likewise chimed in, hailing it as a major win for his conservative political movement.

“FREEDOM IS ADVANCING,” Milei wrote, echoing his own campaign rallying cry.

“Enormous joy at the overwhelming victory of my friend [Jose Antonio Kast] in the Chilean presidential elections! One more step for our region in defense of life, liberty, and private property. I am sure that we will work together so that America embraces the ideas of freedom and we can free ourselves from the oppressive yoke of 21st-century socialism…!!!”

Ecuador’s right-wing President Daniel Noboa, meanwhile, said that “a new era is beginning for Chile and for the region”.

This year’s presidential race was the first time since 2012 that voting had been compulsory in the country. There are approximately 15.7 million eligible voters in the South American country.

Kast originally came in second place during the first round of voting on November 16. He scored about 23.9 percent of the vote, compared with Jara’s 26.8 percent.

But polls had widely favoured him to win in the run-off. While Chile’s left wing held a primary in June and coalesced around its victor, Jara, right-wing parties did not hold a primary to choose a coalition nominee.

The result was a fractured right in the first round of voting. But in the final contest, Kast was able to sweep up votes that had previously gone to his right-leaning adversaries, earning him a comfortable win.

Still, Kast faces a divided National Congress, which is expected to blunt some of his more hardline proposals. Kast will be sworn in on March 11.

Source link

Far right candidate leads in Chilean presidential election polls

The presidential candidate of the Chilean Republican Party presidential candidate Jose Antonio Kast, pictured at an election event in 2021, was leading in polls as Chile conducted its presidential election on Sunday. Photo by Elvis Gonzalez/EPA-EFE

Dec. 14 (UPI) — Chileans head to the polls Sunday in a presidential runoff election in which the son of a Nazi party member, who has pledged to build a border wall to keep migrants out of the country, is the leading candidate.

Far right former congressman Jose Antonio Kast, 59, built his campaign on a promise to remove tens of thousands of undocumented migrants from the country. He faces Jeannette Jara, 51, a former labor minister in the administration of center-left president Gabriel Boric.

Jara, the leading candidate of the left-wing coalition, finished the first round of polling with 27%, but right-wing candidates, including Kast, secured more than half of the votes.

Kast is a known admirer of Chilean military strongman Augusto Pinochet, and a staunch opponent of abortion rights and same sex marriage.

The campaign has featured a bitter fight between Jara and Kast, with each attacking the other’s ability to address crime, migration problems and a lagging economy.

Jara has pledged to attract more investment in the country and to secure the border while also addressing health care needs. Kast has campaigned on corporate tax cuts, deregulation and departing undocumented migrants.

Both are using the approval rating of the outgoing Boric’s approval rating, hovering at 30%, as a platform for their campaigns, pledging to improve on the job he has done.

Chile has seen a sharp upturn in murder and other violent crime in recent years as international criminal groups have stepped into a country that has long been considered relatively docile.

The feat has spread to other Latin American countries, including Costa Rica and Ecuador.

Boric is considered to have failed to fulfill most of his stated agenda to strengthen public services. He also failed to address problems brought on by organized crime, election watchers have said.

Voters have called for more migration reform, tighter security and for the country to distance itself from Boric’s failed policies.

Source link

A ‘fearful’ country? Crime concerns grip Chile ahead of presidential race | Elections News

Domino effect

Chile has nearly 15.8 million registered voters, and this year, for the first time since 2012, all of them are required by law to vote in the presidential race.

Kast is believed to have the upper hand in Sunday’s run-off.

Though he came in second place during the first round of voting in November, he is expected to sweep up additional support from conservative candidates who did not make the cut-off for the second vote.

But some voters expressed scepticism about the emphasis on crime in this year’s race.

Daniela Ocaranza, a mother who lives in a low-income neighbourhood in Santiago, considers the heightened focus on crime to be a ploy.

She volunteers at an organisation that fights for affordable housing, and she thinks politicians are leveraging the uptick in crime to convince the voters to put more resources into security.

“Crime has increased,” Ocaranza acknowledged. “But this happens in all countries.”

She said the media is partly to blame in raising fears. It shows “you the same crime 30 times a day — morning, noon and night — so the perception is that there is more”.

“But there are many other things that are more important,” Ocaranza stressed, pointing to issues like education, healthcare and pensions. They are areas that she sees best addressed by Jara, whom she will be voting for on Sunday.

For his part, Johnson said politicians draw up hardline policies to appease residents who want urgent action taken.

But he noted that research has shown punitive measures don’t typically produce results. In the meantime, he warned that the outsized fears about crime can have real-world ramifications.

“Today, there are fewer people consuming art, going out to see theatre, going out to restaurants. So it doesn’t just limit someone’s quality of life but also economic development,” Johnson said.

“Fear is extremely harmful. It might even be more hurtful than the actual crime.”

Source link