debate

PHILADELPHIA — In the first one-on-one debate of the 1988 Democratic presidential campaign, front-runner Michael S. Dukakis and his sole remaining adversary, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, both contended Friday night that it was too soon to discuss whether Dukakis should ask Jackson to be his running mate.

But the fact that the subject came up several times during the hourlong televised encounter, in advance of Tuesday’s presidential primary here in the Keystone State, reflected the degree to which Gov. Dukakis’ victory in the contest is widely considered all but assured. At the same time, the questions about Jackson’s becoming the first black to run on the national ticket of a major party were a measure of the impact the civil rights leader has had on the Democratic campaign.

‘Are You Interested?’

For their own differing reasons–Jackson because he is unwilling to have his presidential candidacy written off and Dukakis because he is leery of overconfidence–both men sought to dismiss the idea. Nevertheless, Dukakis twice during the debate leaned over to Jackson when the subject of the vice presidency was raised and asked: “Are you interested?”

While his comments brought laughter, as they were intended to, they also will inevitably fan speculation about what is certain to become the preoccupation of the two candidates and other Democratic leaders until the Atlanta convention in July is concluded.

When he was asked if he would accept an offer from Dukakis, Jackson said: “It’s a bit premature to be giving out coronation roses for the governor and taps for me.”

Jackson asserted that he and Dukakis were really in a “neck-and-neck contest,” contending that he trailed the governor by only about 170,000 votes after weeks of campaigning and made plain that he was not prepared to call it quits.

Pride of Accomplishment

“We’re sitting here side by side,” Jackson said of himself and Dukakis at one point, signaling not only his pride at what he had accomplished but his determination to press on. “But we’re not equal because I’ve come from furthest back to get here.”

And when Dukakis was asked about his ability to run well in the South, as a Northeastern governor, Jackson interjected: “With Mike Dukakis on my ticket we will win the South.”

Dukakis, when asked if he would choose Jackson to be his running mate, said: “My job right now is to work hard to win this nomination, and it is by no means won.”

In their first encounter since last Tuesday’s New York primary effectively eliminated Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. from the race and significantly fattened Dukakis’ lead in the race for delegates, both candidates aimed most of their shots past each other at the Reagan Administration and at the presumptive Republican standard-bearer, Vice President George Bush.

Thus when he was questioned about his plans to expand industry in Pennsylvania and other states that are in worse economic shape than his own Massachusetts, Dukakis criticized Reagan for threatening to veto the trade bill passed Thursday by the House because of its provision requiring a 60-day advance notice of plant shutdowns or layoffs.

Hits Reagan on Terrorism

And he also used a question on terrorism to condemn the Reagan Administration for trying to trade arms to Iran in the hope of gaining the release of U.S. hostages as “the worst possible thing we could have done.”

And Jackson attacked the Reagan Administration for its dealings with Panamanian strongman Manuel A. Noriega, whom he denounced as a drug dealer, and for what he charged was its general ineffectiveness in combatting drugs.

In one of the rare occasions that either of the two Democrats challenged each other, Jackson pressed Dukakis on whether the governor would apply his terrorist policy to South Africa after Dukakis said he would never negotiate with terrorists, even to save the lives of hostages and also said that if necessary he would order military strikes against terrorist base camps and support bases in other countries.

“If we are serious about international terrorism,” Dukakis said, the United States might have to launch such strikes. “I think a President who is serious about this,” Dukakis said, “can work with our allies and the international community to mount a very serious effort against terrorism.”

Questioned on South Africa

Jackson then contended that South Africa had committed aggression against several of the “front-line” African states on its borders and, declaring that such tactics amounted to “state terrorism,” asked Dukakis what his response would be.

Dukakis said he would be “very tough” on South Africa and would impose economic sanctions against that country but refused to say whether he would take military action.

Jackson also subtly needled Dukakis after the governor took credit for the prosperity in Massachusetts, which he referred to as “an economic miracle.”

Jackson noted that Dukakis and Massachusetts had the advantage of substantial federal investment and said that Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, who was in attendance at the debate sponsored by the state Democratic Party, “could have a boom too” under similar conditions.

In this episode of The Envelope video podcast, Teyana Taylor describes the “slingshot” of success that’s come with “One Battle After Another” and shares her insights as to why fictional revolutionary Perfidia Beverly Hills does what she does in the film.

Kelvin Washington: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to The Envelope. Kelvin Washington, Yvonne Villarreal, we have Mark Olsen as well. Hopefully you all have been great since the last time I saw you. Everybody been good?

Mark Olsen: Of course.

Washington: Well, I tell you what, there’s a list of folks who’ve been very good because they’ve been nominated for an Oscar. And obviously, you kind of get the usual suspects, if you will. And then you get some surprises out there. Some folks you go, “Whoa!” So I want to start with you. Either of you can jump in on this. Is there someone that maybe surprised you, a film or something that you were just excited about or maybe someone said, “Them again?” or “That film again?”

Olsen: I think it was very exciting that “Sinners” got the most nominations of any film ever with 16 nominations. It was nominated in every category that it was eligible for. To see a movie that has had commercial success and felt like a cultural moment now being recognized somewhere like the Academy Awards, it’s just exciting to see that all coming together and rolling along for that film, regardless of how it turns out at the show.

Villarreal: I was very excited to see Rose Byrne get acknowledged for “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You.” Because I was worried about that movie losing steam after all the raves it got at Sundance [in 2025] and it’s a smaller movie. I wasn’t sure, “Are people going to remember it?” But I just think she’s so great in that film.

I was sort of surprised that Chase Infiniti didn’t get nominated.

Olsen: Because of the nature of the movie, the whole lead/supporting business was tough, and also it being her first movie, it’s a little harder to get that nomination — especially in lead actress, faced with, say, Kate Hudson, someone who’s been in the business for a long time, is much beloved in the industry, has obviously family historical ties to Hollywood. It’s interesting to see even in the nominations this sort of alchemy of like, “a little of this, a little bit of that” as far as who the academy was choosing to recognize.

Washington: You know, I go back to something you said, Mark, when you go to “Sinners.” You mentioned the blockbuster feel of it, getting people’s butts to the theaters, spending money. And also kind of original. We’ve had vampire movies before, but, you know, you get the “Transformer 12’s” and “Expendable 32’s.” I think a lot of folks were excited to see something original that also had commercial success as well.

Another film that had a bunch of success is “One Battle After Another.” You had a chance to speak with a star from that film, who’s been a star in her own right musically, but now into the film world, with Teyana Taylor.

Olsen: That’s right. It’s so exciting. She’s nominated for best supporting actress. This is a long movie, it’s over two and a half hours long. She more or less exits the picture about 30 minutes in. So I think it says something about the strength of her performance that her character kind of hovers over the rest of that movie. You feel her in the movie, even though she’s actually not onscreen. So at the Oscar nominees luncheon recently, we had a chance to sit down with Teyana and she was just so vibrant, so full of energy, really has a great attitude about this moment for herself. I mean, she just recently won a Golden Globe, she hosted “Saturday Night Live.” So much is like happening for her, seemingly right now and she’s just got this real like, taking it all in, very open to it [attitude]. It was really an exciting conversation.

Washington: A culmination of all her hard work. Here is Mark’s conversation with Teyana Taylor.

Teyana Taylor.

(Ian Spanier / For The Times)

Mark Olsen: You were just at the Super Bowl. About a week before that, you were a nominee at the Grammys. About a week before that you hosted “Saturday Night Live.” About a week before that you won a Golden Globe. And you’re here today as an Academy Award nominee. I’m sure I’m leaving some things out. I would say what’s the last year been like for you, but I feel like, what’s the last month or two been like for you? It feels like the rocket ship has really taken off.

Teyana Taylor: Yeah, it’s really taken off. I’m so blessed and I’m so honored and I’m filled with so much gratitude to just see so many prayers get answered all at once, where I’m also OK with one at a time. But it’s all happening, you know? And I’m just beyond blessed. And like we were talking about earlier, just how much fun I’m having with it. I’m really having a good time and I’m taking it all in because life is short and life is so fragile. So I just try and take time to enjoy life and enjoy my blessings and enjoy just being alive and well.

Olsen: Has there been a moment that felt the most surreal, like a “What is happening to me right now” moment?

Taylor: Honestly, all of it, because it reminds me of a slingshot, you know what I’m saying? It’s just like, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the work, here’s the prayers, here’s the tears, just here, here, here, here, here. And then whoosh — whatever the ball hit, it knocked down everything at once. And that’s what this feels like. It feels really good because literally everything is happening at the same time. So it’s not like only one moment or only two moments that’s making me feel this way. It’s everything. The small wins, the big wins, the medium wins. Every single win and every single blessing is a big deal to me. You know what I’m saying? Even my Ls. I’m not gonna win everything and I’m not gonna get everything, and some things are not even meant for me. But even those are blessings. It’s preparation for something that is in store for me and something that is meant for me, because all of this is already written. What’s for you is for you and will be for you, because that’s just what’s written. So I have that mindset.

Olsen: You’ve been doing this since you were a teenager, at first as a choreographer and a dancer, a singer, an actor, you’re going to direct your first feature soon. What keeps you moving through all of this, through these different disciplines and pursuits?

Taylor: My babies. My support system. My village. My community. I love to make my people proud. I love to make my peers proud, my family. I just love to make everybody proud and that’s what keeps me going. Even right now, I’m also in culinary school. So it’s just juggling that, but taking out the little moments to just be quiet and cook and feed my people. So it’s a push. It’s understanding it’s a marathon and that it’s not a sprint. It’s a part of the faith walk. And I think that’s what keeps me going, to wake up and feel so blessed, how could I ever complain? How could I ever be like, “Oh, this is too much”? It is everything I’ve ever asked for. I’m never going to complain about answered prayers. What pushes me is just the reassurance from my support system, the reassurance from Father God himself, the reassurance for my babies. They keep me going. That’s who I do it for. I want to create generational wealth. So them babies are my reason. They are my why.

Olsen: To start asking you about “One Battle After Another,” your character, Perfidia Beverly Hills, she’s inspired a lot of conversation and some controversy. For you, was there something about that character that you felt you hadn’t seen on screen before?

Taylor: Yes. Perfidia is complex and she is also misunderstood. This is a woman who has been in survival mode, who has been fetishized, who has been ignored, not seen. We’re seeing this woman deal with that, where in movies we’re used to seeing us women have to be in capes all day and you see this woman rip this cape away and it’s just unapologetically herself — even in her weakness. And even like you said, with the controversy of her sexuality, I think her sexuality is her armor. It is also her power. She’ll give somebody what they want to get what she wants. And literally in the movie, she’s made selfish decisions. But if you think about her spirit and mentally and emotionally as a woman, it felt good to see a woman actually be selfish and put her[self] first, which we never really get to do because we have to be super this, super this, super this. Super mom, super wife, super woman, super chef; everything is always with a super in front of it. And you see this woman not really caring about what people think. Nobody can quiet her. And in this space of, “OK, you’re too loud, quiet down; you stand too tall, have a seat,” Perfidia is all of the things that they can’t make her do. She’s like, “I’m gonna stand tall, I’m gonna use my voice, I’m gonna use whatever I need to use to get what I want.” And she makes decisions that we don’t agree with, but I think one thing we all can agree on is that she’s a badass. And I can always respect anybody that’s unapologetically themselves.

Another thing that I feel like the controversy is proof of is how much of a nonfactor postpartum depression is. Half of the mistakes we see Perfidia make is her dealing with postpartum depression. You see the moment where they say, “Perfida, she’s a runner. She comes from a long line of revolutionaries.” That in itself is a pressure on her to feel like she gotta keep that going. The revolution is instilled in her. It’s a part of her identity. So imagine getting pregnant and you’re feeling like, “Oh, my God, does this slow down the revolution? Am I gonna play house with a person that’s ignoring me?” Nobody is really taking the time to think about what’s happening in her mind. We can’t control how a person handles postpartum depression. We hear her, through the door, cry, and then we see Bob put his ear to the door — and instead of him walking in, he walked away. And then what was the result of that? Her walking away. Even if it had to be walking away from Baby Willa, it’s something that she felt like she needed to do, and that’s what postpartum make you do sometime. And every mother handles postpartrum depression differently. But I think that’s what I love about her character, because you get to see a harsh reality that I know is hard to take in. But when you watch it a few times you understand exactly what’s happening. … I think that’s what makes the letter at the end so important. Because you hear the pain, you hear the hurt, you hear the regret, you hear the accountability, “Do you have love? Are you happy? Will you try and change the world like we did? We failed, but maybe you will not.”

And that’s another thing. This is a story that Paul Thomas Anderson wanted to tell. It was Perfidia’s job to go and anchor this boat and stay there and create the path for Willa to take on these battles, because her past haunted Willa and Bob. That’s a part of Perfidia being supporting — supporting the next steps of what is for Willa. It’s for Willa to go on and to rise. So you see Perfidia in the beginning of the movie, you see her drive this boat, you see her get to the middle of the sea and you see her anchor herself. And from there, we have to continue the story. So I’m happy that the controversy around her can create dialogue like this, can create healthy dialogue or even uncomfortable dialogue. As long as it’s dialogue and we’re conversing and we are speaking and people are speaking from their point of views, I can absolutely respect that.

Olsen: Is that a conversation you expected to have? When you were making the film, were you and Paul, or you and your co-stars talking about the depiction of Black women in the movie? Or have you been surprised that’s been such a talking point now that the movie’s out in the world?

Taylor: Honestly, I’m not surprised of any of the talking. I think one thing that I said before the movie even dropped and we were doing our press junkets, I was always very boisterous about the fact that this movie, period, not just the character, would definitely shake the table, and it would definitely spark, whether it was great debates or — I love conversation and I like when we can converse. Get it off your chest, tell me how you feel. And I’m open to receive that. So I knew that it would shake the table. I also knew that it needed to be done. Postpartum depression is a big thing for me that I feel like it needs more light. It needs light around it. We need more solutions for it. And like I said, you see this person, this woman in survival mode. You see this woman be ignored. You see this woman be fetishized. And is that not the truth? Is that not what happens, especially in this place of a Black woman feeling the least protected? So I’m really happy that Paul put wings on that to be able to spread and fly with that. And like I said, I know it’s probably tough to take in, but that’s what we got to see because everybody is not wearing capes. Everybody is not handling things the way you may handle things, I may handle the things, the way that person or this person may handle things. So we all just got to give grace and take in the film. It’s a story that’s being told.

Olsen: To me, one of the biggest surprises about the movie is considering how cohesive and complete it feels, to learn how improvisatory and collaborative the process of making the movie was. Were you surprised by that? What was it like for you entering into the process of making this movie with Paul?

Taylor: I was shocked at how collaborative it was. And I loved every bit of it because one thing about it is, again, when you are telling a story that someone wrote — he’s been working on this project for 20 years. This is something that I consider to be his baby. And when you’re trusting me to take on a job like this, I don’t ever wanna walk into any set and feel like I’m doing what I want to do. I just want to be of good support. If you tell me, “Hey, let’s find this together,” I’m gonna find it together. If you say, “This is my vision of what that is and this is how I want it to be,” it’s my job to give you that vision of what you want it be, and then add my little sauce on top of it. But to be fully collaborative, I thought it was really dope. We found Perfidia’s layers and we color-coordinated those layers. And I’m really happy that he let me be a part of that.

Olsen: What do you feel you brought to Perfidia or you were able to add to the character?

Taylor: I was able to add a lot. Paul was very, very collaborative. And again, we found her layers, which was the most important, especially with such a complex character. And you know, I just came from “A Thousand and One.” So I came from being another complex character, but this one was complex to a whole other level, where we almost didn’t understand why we never see Perfidia cry. But you see these little moments, like little details, in her face that’s just like, it’s this strength, but the strength — because I also don’t really love the term “strong Black woman” — it’s this strength that you feel like she has to have because the strength is really survival mode. And again, like I said, you hear her crack down and you hear her vulnerable, and nobody stepped through that door. So when you see a strong Black woman, there is no grace, it’s, “Oh, she’s OK, she fine, she got it all figured out.” And then you hear her vulnerable and you still feel like even at her most vulnerable, she got this, she’s strong. And it’s just like, “Step through the door. Step in early. Step in the first time. Hear me the first time, see me [this] time, wipe the first tear away. Would she have walked out that door on Baby Willa and Bob, had he walked through that door when he heard her cry?

Olsen: I’ve heard you a number of times when you’re talking about Paul, you always call him Paul “Let Him Cook” Thomas Anderson. What does that mean?

Taylor: Let him cook! Listen, because he to me is a master chef. And honestly, I’m very, very big on leadership. I respect the person that is a leader. What makes it so dope is because, with being in culinary school, I originally signed up for culinary school, of course, to learn the art of culinary, but to just cook, I love to cook and I wanted to learn the art of that. With being enrolled in culinary school, it’s a lot of writing work and a lot of discussion forums and a lot of quizzes and stuff like that. So you’re not only learning to cook, but you’re learning how to run a business. You’re learning how to navigate your staff, front of house, back of house, in the kitchen. You have to understand it’s a whole system in how you handle people in general. In the kitchen they call it like a “servant leader,” where your leader is in the kitchen with you, they’re cooking with you. They’re your mentor, they are your guidance, but they’re cooking with you. They’re not just pointing, “Do this, do that, boom, boom, boom.” And it’s just, like, his gentle servant leadership is something that I respect so much and something that inspires me as an upcoming movie director on how to handle and navigate my staff.

So it’s like the best of both worlds because I have PTA and then I have culinary school who’s teaching me how to be the best leader. Even in how we handle people, it’s bigger than just the people that work for us or with us. It’s also the people that come into this restaurant. It’s your customers. It’s just the hospitality of it all and the hospitality that he gives, it’s really amazing to see. I’m also a big sports girl. So even in regards to him being our quarterback, you know, he’s not on the side, pointing at what to do. He’s on the field with you. But he has an even bigger job because now he’s trusting that he’s going to throw this ball to you and you’re going to receive that ball. So we’re his receivers, we’re his wide receivers to take it to the touchdown. It’s all about being present. And that’s what I learned in culinary, it’s what I learned in sports, it’s just everything about being a leader as I prepare to lead my village and lead my community. That’s just so important to me. So I always respect people that are in the field with you. I become a warrior for you. You see Paul, you’re running in the battlefield, you look to your left, he’s with you. He’s not on a horse, he’s not on his high horse. He’s in the field with you. Let’s go, we got this! And it just makes you want to you want to go so hard for him. And that’s how I look at it. So I am a student. I am a teammate. I am a soldier. I am a warrior. That’s what I am with people that are great leaders.

Olsen: When you won the Golden Globe, your speech was so moving and you specifically spoke to your “brown sisters and little brown girls” and said that their light does not need permission to shine. Can you talk more about that? What was it that made you want to say that in that moment, specifically talking about this movie?

Taylor: I thought it was a very important moment on a very important stage. I wanted to use my voice and I wanted to use my platform. And in that moment, I had the voice and the platform to say just that. It’s nothing less than that. There’s nothing beyond that. Exactly what I said. We deserve space. What that night showed was that here’s the space. And I appreciated that. I was filled with so much gratitude. That moment hit hard for me because I was that little girl that sat on the floor on a TV watching the other queens onstage accept their awards. Like, “You can do it too, you can do it too.” And I knew that one day when it was my turn, I would tell my little queens, “You can do it too — all the little queens that look like me, you can do it too, you deserve space.” To know that also my daughters were watching as well, it’s everything to me. It’s everything for me to know that they embrace that as well. It’s so important. I’ve gotten so many women come up to me like, “Wow, that speech was just everything.” And that’s what it’s all about. That’s what is all about: to inspire, uplift and remind us that there is space.

Olsen: Before I let you go, you just bring it on red carpets time and time again. And the one thing I like is that you wear these really bold outfits, and it never looks like the clothes are wearing you. Do you have tips for people? What do you do for confident personal style?

Taylor: Honestly, follow your heart. Follow your heart. If you see it and you like it, put it together. You might put it together and be like, “That didn’t work the way I [intended].” Practice. Play in clothes. I love to play in clothes — but also will walk in the store and redress a whole mannequin. I’ll also be like, “I like that tie, I think it should be a little bit tighter.” I dream about certain outfits. I dream of certain moments where I’m like, “Oooh. I already know what I feel like I want my Oscar dress to look like. I already know what I want my Golden Globes dress to look like.” It’s always a vision. Or sometimes you might have a base. You might see something and be like, “I like this, but I feel it could use this.” Add it. If you feel like something can use something, add it. Because before you know it, now you done created your own thing. So don’t hesitate. When I was younger, I used to hesitate and be like, “This looked pretty cool, but now I’m not gonna do it.” And then later on, I see somebody try it, and I’m like, “Oh, I should have just…” Always follow your gut and always follow you heart.

Nina J. Easton does us a disservice by attempting to relate so closely the ‘60s violence of the Left and the ‘90s violence of the Right (“America, the Enemy,” June 18).

In terms of tragedy, the Oklahoma bombing stands alone, its carnage having exceeded by plenty any other terrorist act in U.S. history. It was designed to kill and maim as many people as possible. The Far Left simply hasn’t operated in that coldblooded a manner. For example, the explosives planted in 1970 in a Wisconsin ROTC building by the ultra-left Weathermen were timed to go off at 4 a.m., when few would be present.

The right-wing militias address no social ills; they tend only to their paranoid fantasies. By contrast, in an earlier day, the Black Panthers swaggered menacingly with weapons bared but also established breakfast programs to feed inner-city children.

The violent Left has taken hostages, blown up buildings, incited riots and, like their right-wing counterparts, imagined a world where government agents were hidden behind every door. But societal benefits like Social Security, equal voting rights and child-labor laws were initially espoused only by the Left, which worked tirelessly to bring these simple manifestations of fairness into mainstream political dialogue.

Conversely, right-wing militias exist only to prepare for, and eventually wage, war. They arm themselves against phantoms, against enemies so ill-defined that they could be pointing a gun at you or me–or anyone at all.

Searching through the rambling, angry diatribe that the militias spew over the airwaves and web sites, one cannot find even a hint of goodwill for humankind, or any sort of notion for a better world, however cocky or deranged. No, the right-wing militias discuss only war: how to plan, train for and eventually execute assaults on people who are different than they are, people whose skin color is different, whose political beliefs differ from those of the militia.

The Left in this country has given us a legacy–a mixed one, to be sure, but a rich history that includes organizing laborers and bread lines as well as violent cell groups. For every rock thrown, there have been hundreds of jobs saved and social benefits secured as a result of left-wing agitation in America. Right-wing militias are simply a powder keg waiting to blow.

Unfortunately, Easton has offered the raucous Right a fig leaf, behind which they can continue their frightening march to battle.

Winston Steward

Los Angeles

*

Easton fails to comprehend that political and moral consciousness undergoes changes during times of massive paradigm shifts. Her article compares and equates very different sets of people and differing sets of paradigms. It reads like one of those “high-concept” duds that the film industry makes because the marketing departments likes the pitch.

“America the Enemy” relies on the repetition of the premise “If ‘A’ existed in the 1960s Left, then ‘B’ exists in the 1990s Right.” It’s as if the force of a grammatical structure conveys meaning, even when the data doesn’t wash. Despite occasional accuracies that either A or B did in fact exist, the common or even causal relationship implied in the “if . . . then” structure usually does not exist.

Someone who experienced either period, or who did the necessary homework on either era, or who could handle Tom Hayden and Richard Flacks as resources rather than as sources of cognitive dissonance would certainly have qualms about getting this piece into print.

Seeing patterns that don’t exist, and linking unconnected things, are signals of the paranoid style in American politics described by historian Richard Hofstadter. Perhaps bad mental processes really are viral. However, a paranoid style in American journalism will not do.

Arthur M. Eisenson

Los Angeles

*

“America The Enemy” was a typical oversimplification of a complex issue. It will probably come as an unpleasant surprise to Easton and many others that the NRA has more than a few members, black and white, who are more truly liberal than those who favor the disarming of ordinary citizens. The NRA is one of the few subjects on which it is possible for Left and Right to agree.

Art Volkman

Inglewood

*

The story comparing the bombers of the ‘60s and ‘90s was terrible.

The cover matched photographs of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion with Oklahoma City, but in the Greenwich Village case, the only people blown up were the bomb-makers themselves. Inside the magazine, a photograph of Tom Hayden in 1969 was matched with one of Timothy McVeigh–completely outrageous.

Hayden never blew up anybody. What is going on at The Times?

Jon Wiener

Los Angeles

*

Comparing ‘90s militias with ‘60s Marxist radicals was a masterpiece of liberal disinformation.

To accurately frame today’s political reality, one must start with the premise that the ‘60s radicals–in the form of state Sen. Tom Hayden, our hapless boy President Bill Clinton and their ilk–have taken over the government and are aggressively moving to destroy the Constitution, as Clinton’s budgetary, crime and anti-terrorism legislation proves beyond a doubt. Add in 30 years of irresponsible deficit spending by liberals in both major parties and it becomes obvious that the government will very soon be intentionally bankrupt. A general economic collapse and a depression will inevitably follow–all according to plan.

The militias are only reacting to these not-so-veiled attacks on the Constitution and preparing for civil warfare, the only logical upshot to this kind of treachery.

Loyal Americans who form legal militias in support of a limited democratic republic are our future, if this country and the Constitution are to survive into the the millennium.

You aren’t going to be able to hide that fact much longer.

Michael A. Pacer

Glendora

“I think what has kind of misled children is the belief that if you are not a typical girl, if you like playing with trucks, or boys who like dressing up or that you have same-sex attraction that means that you’re trans and actually it’s not like that but those are all normal variations,” she said.

The debate comes as Jeri, who is not running for re-election, faces allegations of bribery and influence-peddling.

The head of Peru’s Congress, Fernando Rospigliosi, has announced a special plenary session to weigh the removal of the country’s right-wing president, Jose Jeri.

The session will take place on the morning of February 17, according to a statement Peru’s Congress posted on social media.

The debate comes as Jeri’s short tenure grows mired in scandal, just four months after he took office as interim president.

In October, Jeri — the leader of Congress at the time — took over as president following the unanimous impeachment of his predecessor, Dina Boluarte, on the grounds of “permanent moral incapacity”.

Boluarte herself assumed the presidency after her predecessor, Pedro Castillo, was impeached for attempting a self-coup.

Next week’s debate about Jeri’s future is the latest chapter in the ongoing instability facing Peru’s government. The country has seen eight presidents within the last decade, with several of them impeached or resigning before their term expired.

In recent months, Jeri has become increasingly embroiled in scandal, including one colloquially known as “chifagate”, named for the Peruvian-Chinese fusion cuisine known as “chifa”.

The scandal started when local media outlets obtained video of Jeri arriving late at night at a restaurant to meet with a Chinese businessman, Zhihua Yang, who previously received government approval to build a hydroelectric plant.

Their meeting was not listed in the official presidential agenda, as is required under Peruvian law. Critics have questioned whether Jeri’s outfit — which had a deep hood that rendered him nearly unrecognisable — was meant to be a disguise.

Additional footage placed Jeri at another one of Yang’s businesses days later. Jeri also allegedly met a second Chinese businessman, Jiwu Xiaodong, who was reportedly under house arrest for illegal activities.

Jeri has dismissed some of the off-the-books meetings as planning for an upcoming Chinese-Peruvian friendship event. Others, he said, were simply shopping trips for sweets and other food. He has denied wrongdoing but has acknowledged taking the meetings was a “mistake”.

“I have not lied to the country. I have not done anything illegal,” Jeri told the news outlet Canal N.

But critics have accused Jeri of using his position for influence-peddling at the unregistered interactions.

Similar accusations erupted earlier this month when Peruvian media highlighted the irregular hiring of several women in Jeri’s administration and contracts he awarded as possible evidence of bribery.

The debate over Jeri’s removal comes as Peru hurtles towards a general election on April 12, with the presidency up for grabs. Jeri will not be running to retain his seat.

I just read Bill Shaikin’s excellent column contrasting the Dodgers’ option to visit the White House with Jackie Robinson’s legendary civil rights stands throughout his life.

As a lifetime Dodger fan who has tried to stay as apolitical as possible, I would be absolutely ashamed of my Dodgers if they were to attend this photo op. I was ashamed last year, too. But nowhere near as much as this year.

Please don’t go.

Eric Monson
Temecula

Just to let Dave Roberts know, there is something bigger than baseball. On the wall in my den are my father’s medals: a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star from when the United States sent my father, Marcelo Villanueva, and others like him, to fight Adolf Hitler.

When our freedoms are being taken away, it’s not OK if you go to the White House and visit the man who is taking them away. Which means my father fought for nothing. You should be ashamed of yourself. You don’t deserve to wear the same uniform Jackie Robinson did.

Ed Villanueva
Chino Hills

I agree with Bill Shaikin that for the world champion Dodgers to visit the fascist friendly White House would be an implicit contradiction of Jackie Robinson’s legacy. Most of the players probably don’t care, but you wish a manager like Dave Roberts (in L.A.!) were as smart and sensible as Steve Kerr. Apparently he is not.

Sean Mitchell
Dallas

I couldn’t disagree more with Bill Shaikin and his stance that the Dodgers should decline the opportunity to visit the White House. In a world of increasing stresses and dangers, sports is, or should be, a reprieve from the news reported on the front pages. After 9/11, for example, we celebrated the return of baseball as a valued respite from the tragedies we were dealing with. Allow baseball to continue to be this respite, Bill, and stop trying to drag sports into the fray.

Steve Kaye
Oro Valley, Ariz.

Bad look, Dave. It doesn’t help to invoke Jackie Robinson, then in the next breath, “I am (just) a baseball manager.”

Can’t have it both ways. Shaikin is right. Decline.

Joel Soffer
Long Beach

If Roberts feels he needs to go, he should. But the rest of the team should not. Dodger management should support them. Roberts conveniently thinks that going is not a political statement. It is. Roberts’ going supports Trump. The man who raised him and served this country did not do so to see it under the thumb of a corrupt man who attacks all that it has stood for. Today we are all politically identified by the choices we make. There’s no avoiding it.

Eric Nelson
Encinitas

Bill Shaikin nailed it when he talked about and quoted Jackie Robinson and compared him to Dave Roberts’ spineless decision to take the Dodgers to the White House. It’s “only” sports? A team of this renown, in a city terrorized by ICE, in a state directly harmed by Trump? Thank you, Mr. Shaikin, for calling Roberts out.

Ellen Butler
Long Beach

Thank you, Dave Roberts, for making the decision to go to the White House and celebrate our Dodgers’ victory in the World Series. It’s a thing called respect for the office of the president no matter what political party is involved. I don’t care about the L.A. Times sports writers’ politics, so keep your political opinions out of the Sports pages.

Lance Oedekerk
Upland

SAN FRANCISCO — Gov. Gavin Newsom, barred from running for reelection, still took heat Tuesday during the first debate in California’s 2026 race for governor.

Six Democrats and one Republican on the stage in Newsom’s hometown of San Francisco took direct aim at the governor’s record on homelessness, efforts to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars and opposition to an anti-crime ballot measure that Californians overwhelmingly passed two years ago.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who unsuccessfully ran against Newsom for governor in 2018, pointed to state spending on homelessness as an example of ineptitude.

“We spent $24 billion at the state, along with billions more from the counties and the cities throughout the state, and homelessness went on,” he said. “We cannot be afraid to look in the mirror.”

The televised debate revealed the schism between the moderate and progressive Democrats hoping to replace Newsom, as well as efforts by Steve Hilton, the sole Republican who took part, to coalesce the conservative vote.

Hilton, a former Fox New commentator and British political strategist, called on his top GOP rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, to drop out of the race.

“My Republican colleague Chad Bianco is not here tonight to face these Democrats or his record in 2020, during the Black Lives Matter riots,” Hilton said at the event, which was co-sponsored by the nonprofit Black Action Alliance, which was founded to give Black voters a greater voice in the Bay Area.

Bianco “took a knee when told to by BLM, now he says he was praying,” Hilton said. “Chad Bianco has got more baggage than LAX.”

Bianco was invited to the debate but said he was unable to attend because of a scheduling conflict. His campaign did not respond to requests for comment about Hilton’s attacks.

The, at times, feisty debate came amid a gubernatorial race that thus far has lacked sizzle or a candidate on either side of the aisle who has excited Californians. Public opinion polls show that most voters remain undecided.

Seven of the dozen prominent candidates running to replace Newsom participated in the gathering at the Ruth Williams Opera House in front of a live audience of about 200 people. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) was scheduled to participate but canceled, citing the need to go back to Washington, D.C., for congressional votes. Former Rep. Katie Porter (D-Irvine) also did not attend the debate.

The two-hour clash, at times plagued by audio issues, was hosted by two local Fox News affiliates and moderated by KTVU political reporter Greg Lee and anchor André Senior, as well as KTTV’s Marla Tellez.

Five takeaways from the debate:

Making California affordable again

When grilled about how they planned to tackle the high cost of living in the state — gas prices, rent, utility bills and other day-to-day financial challenges — most of the candidates prefaced their answers by talking about growing up in struggling households, often with immigrant parents who worked blue-collar jobs.

Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said he would stabilize rents and freeze utility and home insurance costs “until we find out why they’re increasing.” California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said he would raise taxes on billionaires and create tax credits to help families afford the high cost of living.

Villaraigosa and Hilton said they would lower gas prices by cutting regulations on California’s oil refineries.

Hilton blamed the state’s high cost of living squarely on Democratic policies. “They’ve been in power for 16 years,” he said. “Who else is there to blame?”

Billionaire hedge fund founder turned climate activist Tom Steyer said he favors rent control. Steyer and former state Controller Betty Yee said they would prioritize zoning and permitting reform to build more housing, particularly near public transit. Both Steyer, a progressive, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate, spoke about using new technology such as pre-fabricated homes to build more affordable housing.

Protecting immigrants

In the wake of the Trump administration’s chaotic immigration raids that started in Los Angeles in June and have spread across the nation — recently resulting in the shooting deaths of two people by federal agents in Minneapolis — the Democrats on stage unanimously voiced support for immigrants who live in California. Some pledged that, if elected, they would use the governor’s office to aggressively push back on President Trump’s immigration policies.

“We’ve got to say no to ICE, and we’ve got to take on Trump wherever he raises his ugly head,” Villaraigosa said.

Steyer, whose hedge fund invested in a company that runs migrant detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border, and Thurmond both said they support abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Thurmond and Mahan said they support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Politicians politicking

Antonio Villaraigosa, left, talks to Betty Yee during the California gubernatorial candidate debate Tuesday in San Francisco.

(Laure Andrillon / Associated Press)

Amid the debate’s dodging, weaving, yammering and spicy back-and-forth, there were a few moments when the candidates rose above the din.

Villaraigosa, the former two-term mayor of Los Angeles and a former speaker of the California Assembly, insisted that the moderators call him “Antonio” instead of Mayor Villaraigosa.

“It’s my name, everybody. I’m just a regular guy,” he said, prompting a laugh.

Mahan, on the other hand, tried mightily to portray himself as being above the dirty business of politics.

“The truth is that our politics has been oversimplified,” he said. “It’s become this blood sport between populists on both sides, and you deserve real answers, not the easy answers.”

Yee, who has been running on her background as controller and a member of the California Board of Equalization, cast herself as the financial savior the state needs in trying economic times of budget deficits and federal cuts.

“We have not been accountable or transparent with our dollars for a long time,” she said. “Why are we right now and [in successive] years spending more than we’re bringing in? This is where we are. So accountability has to be a tone set from the top.”

The rich guy and the new guy

Steyer, who paints himself as a repentant billionaire devoted to giving away his riches to make California a better place for all, did not directly answer a question about his position on a controversial proposed ballot measure for a new tax on billionaires to fund healthcare. But he said he supported increasing taxes on the wealthy and boasted of having the political backing of bus drivers, nurses and cafeteria workers because he was the rich guy willing to “take on the billionaires for working families.”

Mahan, the latest major candidate to enter the race, wasn’t impressed.

“Tom, I’ve got about 3 billion reasons not to trust your answer on that,” he said, an apparent reference to Steyer’s net worth.

Although he supports closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, Mahan said he opposes the billionaire tax because “it will send good, high-paying jobs out of our state, and hard-working families, in the long run, will all pay more taxes for it.”

Money also spoke Tuesday

Although the battle over campaign fundraising didn’t overtly arise during Tuesday’s debate aside from Mahan’s comment about Steyer, it still was getting a lot of attention. Campaign fundraising disclosures became public Monday and Tuesday.

Unsurprisingly, Steyer led the pack with $28.9 million in contributions in 2025, nearly all of it donations that the billionaire spent on his campaign. Other top fundraisers were Porter, who raised $6.1 million; Hilton, who collected $5.7 million; Becerra, who banked $5.2 million; Bianco, who received $3.7 million in contributions; Swalwell’s $3.1 million since entering the race late last year; and Villaraigosa’s $3.2 million, according to documents filed with the California secretary of state’s office.

Mahan, who recently entered the race, wasn’t required to file a campaign fundraising disclosure, though he is expected to have notable support from wealthy Silicon Valley tech honchos. Former state Controller Betty Yee and state schools chief Tony Thurmond were among the candidates who raised the least, which spurs questions about their viability in a state of more than 23 million registered voters with some of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

Yee defended her candidacy by pointing to her experience.

“All the polls show that this race is wide open. You know, I think voters have had enough. I’ve been around the state. I’ve spoken to thousands of them,” she said. “Enough of the lies, the broken campaign promises, billionaires trying to run the world. You know, look, I’m the adult in the room. No gimmicks, no nonsense, straight shooter, the woman who gets things done. And we certainly can’t afford a leader who thinks grandstanding is actually governing.”

Mehta reported from Los Angeles and Nixon reported from San Francisco. Data and graphics journalists Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee and Hailey Wang contributed to this report.

Los Angeles unions enjoy a decided “brand advantage” over corporations among city voters, and the labor movement should use that popularity to advance “union-led solutions” to key public policy issues in 2007, a memo written by top labor strategists says.

The two-page memo, which was obtained by The Times, argues for broader, more straightforward engagement on policy issues than many unions have undertaken in the past. Some labor leaders prefer to focus on their own contract issues, and even those who are active in politics often soft-pedal the “union” label.

The document demonstrates labor’s confidence as it heads into a new year of big battles over politics, contracts and organizing.

Labor is preparing to fight a referendum, which was qualified by the business community, to block an expansion of the city’s living wage ordinance. Civilian city employees, grocery store workers, security officers and teachers are seeking new union contracts, and hotel workers near the airport and truck drivers near the port are engaged in organizing drives.

The memo relies heavily on public opinion research conducted by a Democratic pollster, David Binder, including a survey of 800 city voters last fall. The document was written by three veteran strategists, John Hein, Bob Cherry and Don Attore, all of whom have retired from the political operation of the California Teachers Assn. The three work closely with Working Californians, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.

“There is a significant opportunity for organized labor in Los Angeles,” the memo says. “In particular, we’d highlight these factors: unions’ fundamentally positive image and ‘brand advantage’ over business corporations; the overlap between union priorities and the key concerns of voters across the electorate in L.A., and the opportunity to expand public understanding of the connection between local government and the full range of quality-of-life issues.”

Gary Toebben, president and chief executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, said that unions, to the extent that they engage in policy issues, “are copying the Chamber of Commerce…. For other groups to want to be involved in efforts to build a better community, I say we welcome them to the cause that we have been championing.”

Toebben and other leaders of Los Angeles’ business community are focusing on a referendum to block a new law, which is heavily backed by labor, to expand the city’s living wage ordinance to cover workers at airport-area hotels. The success of the referendum, which probably will appear on the ballot in May, is crucial to persuading businesses to come to Los Angeles, expand and create jobs, he said.

Asked at a news conference last week about whether the referendum was wise given labor’s growing strength in the city, Toebben said it would be wrong to “just let the bulldozer run over you.”

Binder’s poll found that unions have more public support in Los Angeles than in other areas of the state and country. Among city voters surveyed, 55% agreed that “without unions, there would be no middle-class left in America.”

Reflecting the labor movement’s influence in city politics, the memo argues for talking up local government’s ability to deal with issues such as the economy, healthcare and the environment, which generally are considered federal and state matters.

The memo calls “for a public education campaign focused on union-led solutions to the quality-of-life issues that Los Angeles voters regard as most important.” The memo suggests that such a campaign be conducted before 2008, when state and national election campaigns will probably consume union energy.

“Los Angeles, against its own history, is a labor town now,” said Cherry, one of the strategists, who was a key figure in the successful effort to defeat Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s slate of ballot initiatives in 2005. “One of the things that comes through in the poll is that people really see the potential of unions to take up the cause of ordinary people on quality-of-life issues.”

Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian and UC Santa Barbara professor, said he had “a certain admiration” for unions involving themselves more in policy issues, though he wonders if the public may prove skeptical.

In the long term, “this is the way that unions will make a breakthrough — when people see that solutions to society-wide questions are part of a labor agenda,” he said.

Binder’s polling suggests that any attempts by business to challenge union priorities will not be easy. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement: “Big corporations are taking advantage of people like you.” Sixty-one percent of the Angelenos surveyed believe that oil companies are manipulating oil prices, including reducing prices during election times to keep supportive politicians in office.

Maria Elena Durazo, the leader of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, was briefed on the polling. She said in an interview that in 2007, she wanted to continue to organize workers while looking for opportunities to take on “the greediness of the corporations, which is pretty clear and pretty blatant.”

“Strategically, we just don’t take on everything that’s out there,” she said. “We’ve tried to put our resources in places where they make a difference.”

Dan Schnur, a Republican political consultant who teaches at USC, said that a public education campaign might be particularly effective this year, when no state or federal elections are scheduled.

“The best time to reach the voters with any type of argument is when their guard is down,” Schnur said. “The closer you get to an election, the more difficult it is to get through to people, but having this discussion in an off-year makes it much easier to get your message through.”

*

joe.mathews@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats reached a deal with the White House late Thursday to prevent a partial government shutdown by moving to temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks, providing more time to negotiate new restrictions for federal immigration agents carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

The deal follows widespread outrage over the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens — Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti — by federal agents in Minneapolis amid an aggressive immigration crackdown led by the Trump administration.

Under the agreement, funding for the Department of Homeland Security will be extended for two weeks, while the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation departments, will be funded through Sept. 30, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office confirmed to The Times.

While the Senate could approve the deal as early as Thursday night, it is unclear when the House will vote for the package. To avert a government shutdown, both chambers need to approve the deal by midnight EST Friday.

After the agreement was reached, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that he was “working hard with Congress to ensure that we are able to fully fund the Government without delay.”

“Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together to get the vast majority of the Government funded until September, while at the same time providing an extension to the Department of Homeland Security (including the very important Coast Guard, which we are expanding and rebuilding like never before),” Trump said.

He added: “Hopefully, both Republicans and Democrats will give a very much needed Bipartisan ‘YES’ Vote.”

The move to temporarily fund DHS is meant to give lawmakers more time to negotiate Democratic demands that include a requirement that federal immigration agents use body cameras, stop using masks during operations and a push to tighten rules around arrests and searches without judicial warrants.

The breakthrough comes after Senate Democrats — and seven Senate Republicans — blocked passage of a spending package that included additional funding for DHS through Sept. 30 but not enough guardrails to muster the 60 votes needed to pass the chamber.

“Republicans in Congress cannot allow this violent status quo to continue,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said after the vote. “We’re ready to fund 96% of the federal government today, but the DHS bill still needs a lot of work.”

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) condemned Democrats for jeopardizing funding for other agencies as they pushed for their demands.

“It would be disastrous to shut down FEMA in the middle of a major winter storm. It’s affecting half the country, and it appears that another storm is along the way,” he said. “A shutdown would mean no paychecks for our troops once again, no money for TSA agents or air traffic controllers.”

The standoff comes after federal ICE agents shot and killed Pretti, an American citizen and nurse who attempted to help a fallen woman during an ICE operation in Minneapolis. Pretti’s death was the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal agents in the city in less than two weeks, following the killing of Good earlier this month.

Democrats Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico differed more on style than substance in their first debate for U.S. Senate in heavily Republican Texas, though they distinguished themselves somewhat on the future of ICE and impeachment of President Trump.

Crockett, an outspoken second-term U.S. House member, and Talarico, a more soft-spoken four-term state representative, generally echoed each other on economic issues, healthcare and taxes.

Both called for a “fighter” in the role. Crockett, who is Black, said she was better positioned to attract disaffected Black voters, while Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian who often discusses his Christian faith, suggested he could net rural voters unhappy with Republicans.

The hourlong discussion, before hundreds of labor union members and their families at the Texas AFL-CIO political convention, served as an early preview for themes Democrats hoping to overtake the Republican majority in the Senate in November are likely to stress throughout the midterm campaign.

The nominee chosen in the March 3 primary will face the winner of a Republican contest between four-term Sen. John Cornyn, Rep. Wesley Hunt and state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton.

Impeachment of Trump

Crockett said she would support impeachment proceedings against Trump, beginning with investigating his use of tariffs. Crockett has supported impeachment measures in the House.

“I think that there is more than enough to impeach Donald Trump,” Crockett said. “Ultimately, do I think we should go through the formal process? Absolutely.”

Talarico stopped short of suggesting whether he would support impeachment proceedings, except to say, “I think the administration has certainly committed impeachable offenses.”

Instead, Talarico said he would, as a senator, weigh any evidence presented during an impeachment trial fairly, given that the Senate does not bring impeachment charges but votes to convict or acquit. “I’m not going to articulate articles of impeachment here at a political debate,” he said.

Both candidates address ICE funding

Both candidates condemned the shooting of a man in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers Saturday, and ICE’s heavy presence in the city, though Talarico was more adamant about cutting funding to the agency.

Both said they support bringing impeachment proceedings against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, under whom ICE serves. But Crockett was less specific about cutting their funding.

“We absolutely have to clean house,” she said. “Whatever that looks like, I’m willing to do it.”

Talarcio more specifically said of ICE funding, “We should take that money back and put it in our communities where it belongs.”

Differences of style

While both candidates said the position requires “a fighter,” Crockett cast herself as a high-profile adversarial figure while Talarico said he had been confronting Republicans in the Texas Statehouse.

“I am here to fight the system, the system that is holding so many of us down,” said Crockett, a 44-year-old Dallas civil rights lawyer and former public defender who has built her national profile with a candid style marked by viral moments.

“It is about tapping into the rawness of this moment,” Crockett said of what Democratic primary voters are seeking.

Talarico, a former public school teacher, cast himself as someone who had been actively opposing the Republican-controlled state legislature.

He pointed to his opposition to Texas’ Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s agenda in Austin, notably on tax credits for Texans who choose private schools for their children.

“We need a proven fighter for our schools, for our values, for our constituents in the halls of power,” he said. “I think we need a teacher in the United States Senate.”

Taxes, healthcare and economy

Crockett and Talarico generally aligned on domestic policy, including support for higher taxes.

Both candidates proposed ending tariffs as a way of lowering consumer prices.

“We have to roll back these tariffs,” Crockett said. “It’s hurting farmers and ranchers who are filing a record number of bankruptcies.”

Talarico was more direct about his support for higher taxes on the nation’s wealthiest earners.

“What I will not compromise on is making sure these billionaires pay for all that they have gotten from this country,” Talarico said, though he stopped short of suggesting how much he would seek to raise taxes.

Crockett voted last summer against the tax-cut and spending-reduction bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump. The bill extended tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first administration.

She also said she supported Medicare for all, a government-backed health insurance plan for all Americans.

“If we truly believe that everyone should have access to healthcare, we can make that a reality with bold leadership,” she said.

Talarico supports the concept, and spoke favorably about universal basic income, without suggesting he would specifically support it in the Senate.

“I’m very encouraged by some pilot programs of universal basic income,” he said.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.