politics

Anderson Cooper will exit ’60 Minutes’ to focus on family and CNN role

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper is walking away from his second job at “60 Minutes” in the latest sign of upheaval at the storied news magazine.

Cooper said in a statement Monday he is leaving the CBS News program because he wants to spend more time with his two young children. He joined the program in 2007 while maintaining his role as prime-time anchor at CNN.

“Being a correspondent at ’60 Minutes’ has been one of the great honors of my career,” Cooper said. “I got to tell amazing stories, and work with some of the best producers, editors and camera crews in the business. For nearly 20 years, I’ve been able to balance jobs at CNN and CBS, but I have little kids now and I want to spend as much time with them as possible, while they want to spend time with me.”

Cooper’s departure could be the first of a number of changes for “60 Minutes” as Bari Weiss, who joined CBS News as editor-in-chief last October, is expected to substantially overhaul the prestigious news magazine.

Cooper, 58, was courted for the anchor role at “CBS Evening News” last year before the network parted ways with the anchor duo of Maurice DuBois and John Dickerson. Cooper signed a new deal with CNN instead, and CBS News gave the anchor job to Tony Doukopil.

This is a developing story.

Source link

US Homeland Security Department’s funding negotiations stall | Politics News

Democrats have called for a ban on immigration agents wearing masks and are pushing for increased oversight of their operations.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ran out of funding over the weekend, leading to the third partial government shutdown of President Donald Trump’s second term, as negotiations between Republicans and Democrats remain stalled while Congress is in recess until February 23.

Democrats are calling for changes to the DHS’s immigration operations after two fatal shootings of US citizens in the city of Minneapolis last month. Alex Pretti and Renee Good were shot dead by federal officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol during such operations.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

On Monday, state officials in Minnesota said that the FBI has refused to share evidence with state law enforcement following Pretti’s killing on January 24.

“This lack of cooperation is concerning and unprecedented,” Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension superintendent, Drew Evans, said in a statement.

DHS entered a shutdown on Saturday, but will continue operations deemed essential. Cuts affect agencies under the DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – which runs Border Patrol – ICE, and the US coastguard.

At US airports, 2,933 of the TSA’s 64,130 employees have been furloughed for the duration of the shutdown. The remaining 95 percent of staff will remain on duty but will work without pay until the DHS is funded.

Earlier this month, Democrats sent Republicans a list of 10 demands to rein in immigration enforcement. In a letter, authored by House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the politicians called for increased oversight of the DHS.

The letter called for DHS officers not to enter private property without a judicial warrant and to require verification that someone is not a US citizen before placing them in immigration detention. It also called for DHS to mandate that its officers do not wear masks, have visible identification, and wear clear uniforms.

Democrats are also seeking to prohibit immigration enforcement actions near courts, medical facilities, houses of worship, schools, and polling places.

They further called for increased coordination with local and state agencies after the federal government blocked state and local law enforcement from participating in investigations related to the deaths in Minneapolis.

 

“Federal immigration agents cannot continue to cause chaos in our cities while using taxpayer money that should be used to make life more affordable for working families,” Jeffries said in the letter.

“The American people rightfully expect their elected representatives to take action to rein in ICE and ensure no more lives are lost. It is critical that we come together to impose common sense reforms and accountability measures that the American people are demanding.”

Tom Homan, Trump’s border chief, dismissed the calls from Democrats on CBS’s Face the Nation, referring to the requests as “unreasonable”.

Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, meanwhile, echoed Homan’s stance. On CNN’s current affairs programme, State of the Union, he claimed that Democrats are engaging in “political theatre”.

Source link

Another Challenge for Delcy: A Nationwide Screening to Honor July 28

After the students’ demonstration on February 12, Venezuela’s most important university will again test how open the Rodríguez regime really is by talking about what they don’t want to hear: that chavismo lost the 2024 vote on a landslide, with Delcy running the economy and Jorge managing the campaign, before Maduro to stole the election.

This Saturday, on February 21st, an international event that advocates for amnesty in Venezuela will screen in 20 cities around the world the documentary that tells the story of the civilian mobilization that defended the votes and documented the results, the fraud, the people’s revolt, and the unprecedented crackdown.

In late 2024, Hacha y Machete, an activism network and communications platform composed of a multidisciplinary team of Venezuelan migrants and residents, dedicated itself to preserving the memory of what happened on July 28th and the days and months that followed. Now, it promotes the International Day for Amnesty in Venezuela with the support of organizations such as the Committee for the Liberation of Political Prisoners (CLIPPVE), the Washington Office for Latin America (WOLA), Laboratorio de Paz and Laboratorio Ciudadano, with the message of justice, not impunity

The documentary De Macedonia con amor reconstructs the courage of citizens and the consequences of repression. You can watch it here, or you can join the events. In Washington DC there will be a conversation sponsored by George Washington University (GWU) and WOLA, with Betilde Muñoz, director of Access to Rights at the Organization of American States (OAS); Isabella Picón, activist and PhD candidate at GWU; and Laura Dib, Director of the Venezuela Program at WOLA, at 2:00 pm at the Lindner Family Commons, on the sixth floor of the Elliot School of International Affairs (1957 E St, NW).

In Caracas, the screening will take place at FACES, seventh floor, at the Sala de Usos Múltiples (11:00 am). Let’s what happens.

Here’s the other participant cities and the schedule: 

  • Mexico City: Cineclub Mar de Lava, Av. Francisco Sosa 298, Coyoacán. (01.00 pm)
  • Madrid: Bar Cotorrita, Calle Santa Engracia, 33. (05.00 pm) 
  • Barcelona (Spain): Ateneu El Poblet, Carrer de Nàpols, 268-270, Eixample. (6.00 pm)
  • Buenos Aires: Casa Sur, Av. Diaz Velez, 4736, CABA. (04.00 pm)
  • Bogotá: Diáspora Ideas Migrantes, Calle 58 #19-25 San Luis. (05.00 pm)
  • Montevideo: José E. Rodó 2182, Esq. Joaquín Requena. (04.00 pm)
  • Santiago de Chile: General Urriola, 624, Salón Gourmet. (06.00 pm)
  • Brescia: Oratorio La Pace, Via Della Pace, 10. (08.00 pm) 
  • Berlin: Die DeutSCHule, Karl-Marx-Straße 107. (08.00 pm)
  • Portland OR: Independent Publishing Resource Center, 318 SE Main St. (03.30 pm)
  • Bamberg: Kunigundenruhstr. 8 (Distel). (07.30 pm)
  • Valencia (Spain): Jerónima Gales 16. (03.00 pm)
  • Basel: La Tienda Latina, Klybeckstrasse 33. (3.00 pm)
  • Alicante: Calle Garbinet, 67. (06.00 pm)
  • Mar del Plata: San Luis 2745, Proyecto Bar. (04.00 pm)
  • Torino: Sala Polivalente, Via G. Giolitti 21. (03.00 pm)



Source link

Bangladesh’s interim leader Yunus steps down as new gov’t set to take over | Sheikh Hasina News

‘Let the practice of democracy continue,’ said Yunus, who has overseen the country’s post-uprising transition since 2024.

Bangladesh’s interim leader Muhammad Yunus has announced he is resigning to pave way for a new government elected several days ago.

Speaking in a farewell broadcast to the nation on Monday, Yunus said the interim government he oversees “is stepping down”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“But let the practice of democracy, freedom of speech, and fundamental rights that has begun not be halted,” he said.

An 85-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yunus returned from self-imposed exile in August 2024 to serve as Bangladesh’s chief adviser after a student-led uprising toppled the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Bangladesh held its first general elections since that uprising on February 12, and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Tarique Rahman, won a landslide victory.

Rahman, a scion of one of the country’s most powerful political dynasties, is set to serve as prime minister of the incoming government when it is sworn in on Tuesday, according to Bangladeshi media.

Yunus praised the recent elections, which European Union observers called “credible and competently managed” as a “benchmark for future elections”.

“The people, voters, political parties, and stakeholder institutions linked to the election have set a commendable example,” Yunus said.

‘We must remain united’

Rahman’s BNP-led alliance won at least 212 seats in the 300-seat parliament, giving it a strong mandate to lead. In second place was the Jamaat-e-Islami party, which won 77 seats, positioning it as the main opposition party. Hasina’s Awami League party was barred from participating.

Rahman appealed for unity in the wake of his party’s victory, saying “our paths and opinions may differ, but in the interest of the country, we must remain united”.

In addition to electing their new representatives, Bangladeshi voters also endorsed sweeping democratic reforms in a national referendum.

The lengthy document of reforms, known as the “July Charter” after the month when the uprising that toppled Hasina began, proposes term limits for prime ministers, the creation of an upper house of parliament, stronger presidential powers and greater judicial independence. It enshrines a key pillar of Yunus’s post-uprising transition agenda.

The referendum noted that approval would make the charter “binding on the parties that win” the election, obliging them to endorse it.

“Sweeping away the ruins, we rebuilt institutions and set the course for reforms,” said Yunus, praising the reforms.

However, several parties raised questions before the vote, and the reforms will still require ratification by the new parliament.

“The challenge now is to ensure good governance, law and order, and public safety, and to establish a rights-based state, which was at the heart of the aspirations of the 2024 mass uprising,” Rezaul Karim Rony, a Dhaka-based political analyst, told Al Jazeera.

Source link

Clinton Takes a Different Road to Reach Black Voters

Before a Mt. Rushmore-like painting of seven revered and deceased black heroes, a tuxedoed Bill Clinton stood in a darkened hall recently to describe himself to an audience of black Americans.

The 10-minute speech by the Democratic presidential nominee to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Dinner in Washington expressed a simple, direct and unspoken–though clearly understood–contrast to the last 12 years. Clinton did not have to spell out a course of action to win their support.

Rather, he swore to the 4,000 black diners that if they helped him fulfill his quest to win the presidency, he would provide “full participation, full partnership” in a Clinton White House.

“If I change my address, I will only be a tenant there,” he said. “You still own the place, and I want you to act like it.”

For Clinton, the moment was special only because it occurred in the harsh glare of a spotlighted public gathering. More typical of his efforts to court black support was the private, closed-door fundraiser held hours earlier and a few blocks away at a downtown Washington art museum. That reception, hosted by some 60 affluent black American business owners, produced $600,000 for the Arkansas governor.

“This was a historic event,” Rodney Slater, one of Clinton’s top black aides, said immediately after the fund-raiser. “This represents the fact that African-Americans want to be key players in the Clinton Administration. When they can raise that kind of money–that’s more than African-Americans have ever raised for anybody–you can bet the candidate will pay attention to them.”

Like all contemporary Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton is counting on overwhelming support from the nation’s black voters to propel him to victory. But to achieve that, he has taken a significantly different approach than the party’s previous nominees.

Clinton has avoided offering himself as a benefactor of black Americans through dramatic, highly publicized appeals to them or by proposing a host of social programs. Rather, the Arkansas governor has conducted an almost stealth-like campaign within black communities, quietly collecting chits from influential leaders and middle-class blacks while limiting efforts directed at poor, ghetto-dwelling African-Americans. And in targeting middle-class blacks, he has tried to blend their political and economic concerns into the same mix of issues aimed at attracting the highly coveted white suburban voting bloc.

He has done this in order to claim a larger share of the white vote–especially suburban white males, who polls have suggested viewed previous Democratic presidential candidates as too eager to genuflect to black demands. No Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 has won a majority of the white vote, a major reason the party has lost all but one presidential election since then.

With this strategy, Clinton sought to give his campaign an inclusive middle-class cast, effectively defusing race as an issue and avoiding the need to reassure white voters that he would not unduly bend toward poor and needy blacks.

Surprisingly, as Clinton has pursued this strategy, polls have shown he has garnered increasingly enthusiastic support from black voters. A recent survey of 850 blacks by the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies showed more than 80% giving Clinton highly favorable marks on questions of knowledge, fairness and leadership.

In fact, if there has been any genius–or luck–to Clinton’s handling of black voters, it has stemmed from amplifying the hard-edged pragmatism with which many black political leaders and their constituents approached the 1992 campaign. Minimizing conflict within their ranks, they have kept their eyes fixed on the prize: returning a Democrat to the White House. And Clinton appears to have been the beneficiary of this growing political maturity among black voters.

“We’re smart,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), one of Clinton’s earliest and most important black backers, said recently. “We know where our best interest lies. Even if it means that we campaign a little bit differently and not in the ways that we have before, we are out to win, and we can win with Bill Clinton.”

Overall, blacks make up about 1-in-6 of Clinton’s voters, according to recent polls. In the final Times national pre-election poll, released last week, he was favored by 78% of black voters, with President Bush and independent candidate Ross Perot each backed by 9%.

Many of these voters are the legacy of the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s unsuccessful 1984 and 1988 campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination, which excited political passions among blacks and swelled voter registration rolls within their communities.

Democratic nominees Walter F. Mondale in 1984 and Michael S. Dukakis in 1988 each publicly enlisted Jackson to their cause in hopes of gaining the allegiance of his followers. But while both Mondale and Dukakis harvested the vast majority of black votes cast in their respective races, neither was able to generate a huge turnout by African-Americans. That was especially apparent four years ago, when the failure of blacks to turn out in large numbers was seen as a major reason Dukakis lost close races to then-Vice President Bush in several states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Missouri.

Clinton, during most of his campaign, took the alternative approach of keeping Jackson at arm’s length while beckoning an aspiring breed of black leaders to supplant him as a link to black voters.

Among the first black officials to join the Clinton cause early in the primary season–at a time when Jackson’s disdain for the Arkansas governor was undistinguished–were Reps. John Lewis of Georgia, Mike Espy of Mississippi and William J. Jefferson of Louisiana.

These three, like others, are not especially well-known nationally. But for the Clinton camp, what counts is that each commands strong and favorable name identification among blacks in their home states. And while in large measure these politicians offered their early support based on their association with Clinton as a fellow Southerner, it also reflected the new pragmatism among them.

Waters, a national co-chairwoman of the Clinton campaign, most vividly illustrates this phenomenon, given her past close ties to Jackson. Echoing countless other black elected officials, she makes clear that winning the White House is what matters to her this year, not the strategy the candidate employs to get there.

“I don’t question it at this point,” she said. “I want George Bush out of the White House so bad, I’ll buy (Clinton’s) strategy.”

Like Waters, Rep. Craig Washington (D-Texas) is unconcerned about Clinton’s primary focus on white, middle-class, suburban voters.

“He needs to go where he can get votes that I can’t get for him,” Washington said. “The fact that he doesn’t come into black churches every Sunday and that he doesn’t campaign in black communities (to avoid) turning off Joe Willie Six-Pack doesn’t bother me. He doesn’t want to send them back to help the Republicans.”

Linda Faye Williams, associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, said statements like those from black elected leaders–most of whom were faithful Jackson supporters in the past–reveals the “12 years of pent-up leadership hopes” among black leaders.

She also said that “many black elected officials chafed during the last two (presidential) elections over their own roles as leaders because Jesse was always the one out front. Clinton has answered their prayers by giving them room to maneuver.”

Ironically, in the campaign’s final hours, Clinton finds himself more dependent on black votes in some key states than many of his advisers anticipated. As many polls have shown the race tightening, the Arkansas governor’s fate appears increasingly tied to a heavy turnout among traditional Democratic constituencies, including blacks.

That’s especially true in two key regions. It appears Clinton needs a high black turnout in the Midwestern battleground states of Michigan and Ohio–where blacks cast 8% and 12%, respectively, of the votes four years ago–and in such hotly contested Southern states as Georgia and Louisiana, where blacks constituted about a fifth of the vote in 1988.

These political realities have helped lead to a rapprochement between Clinton’s campaign and Jackson. The campaign is hoping Jackson can help spur a big turnout among blacks for the Democratic ticket. And the civil rights leader, for his part, is quietly cooperating in hopes of gaining clout.

Meanwhile, some blacks have remained lukewarm toward Clinton, worrying that his campaign strategy will serve only to get him elected without demonstrating a real commitment to helping poor blacks. These leaders were distressed that the well-publicized bus tours that helped define the Clinton campaign immediately after the summer’s Democratic National Convention focused on small towns and rural America, where the crowds were made up mostly of white faces.

“We’re going to have to put a lot of pressure on Brother Clinton once he gets in the White House,” said Cornell West, director of Afro-American studies at Princeton University. “I hope he wins, but I recognize he’s not a true warrior for our cause.”

After a flurry of complaints that the campaign was avoiding black voters and ignoring their issues, Clinton’s staff squeezed in time for him to campaign a few weeks ago with a delegation of black congressional leaders as they barnstormed several Southern states in a get-out-the-vote effort sponsored by the Democratic National Committee.

Still, the bus trip failed to quell all of the concerns. Even some of those who joined in the journey dubbed it “The Back of the Bus Tour.”

Source link

Political Road Map: California has long depended on an illegal-immigration program that Trump wants to kill

For all of the unprecedented elements of President Trump’s federal budget plans, there’s an item buried in the list of detailed spending cuts that has a familiar, contentious political legacy in California.

Trump has proposed canceling federal government subsidies to states that house prisoners and inmates who are in the U.S. illegally. He’s not the first president to try it, and undoubtedly will get an earful from states like California.

For sheer bravado, the award for defending that subsidy probably goes to former Gov. Pete Wilson. In a letter sent to federal officials in 1995, two days after Christmas, Wilson threatened to drop off one of the state’s undocumented prisoners — in shackles, no less — on the doorstep of a federal jail. (He never actually did it.)

“The intent of federal law is unequivocal,” Wilson wrote about the subsidy program. “The federal government must either reimburse the state at a fair rate for the incarceration of any undocumented inmate which it identifies or… take the burden of incarceration off the state’s hands.”

Wilson had won a second term the year before, with a blistering campaign attacking illegal immigration. His time in office was also marked by persistent state budget problems, and the money mattered. The state never got as much as it wanted, though, and years of squabbles followed over the fate of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, established as part of the sweeping immigration reforms of 1986.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did his fair share of complaining about skimpy SCAAP funding. In 2005, he and a bipartisan group of western U.S. governors demanded a boost in the program to a total of $850 million. That didn’t happen.

The past two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, offered their own proposals to cancel the program. Trump’s budget scores the possible savings at $210 million. His budget blueprint lampoons SCAAP as “poorly targeted,” and describes it as a program “in which two-thirds of the funding primarily reimburses four states” for housing felons who lack legal immigration status.

Want to take a guess which state gets the most? OK, that’s an easy one.

California’s state government received $44.1 million in the 2015 federal budget year, according to Justice Department data. Add to that another $12.8 million that was paid directly to California counties, with the largest local subsidy being the $3 million paid to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

More than one-third of the entire program went to California. No other state’s share was even close. A win on this issue for the president would be particularly bitter for the state, where political animosity toward Trump is widespread.

Political Road Map: There’s a $368 billion reason that California depends on Washington »

In Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget unveiled last month, he assumed $50.6 million in federal help for prison costs related to felons in the U.S. illegally. A budget spokesman for Brown said the governor will ask for help from the state’s congressional delegation in saving the program. Still, it’s safe to say the estimate is now in doubt.

Roll back the clock, though, and take a look at how this political debate has changed. Wilson’s legacy on illegal immigration cast a long shadow as candidate Trump promised to go after “bad hombres” who are illegally in the country. The president’s official plan, by most estimates, would go even further.

When President Obama tried to nix the subsidy, conservatives warned it would endanger public safety. So far, few are making the same case now that it’s coming from Trump — a curious development, given California’s most famous illegal immigration critic once insisted the program was essential.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

ALSO:

Los Angeles County sheriff opposes legislation to create a ‘sanctuary state’ in California

Gov. Jerry Brown projects a $1.6 billion deficit by the summer of 2018

Updates on California politics and state government



Source link

What binds Bush, Kerry – Los Angeles Times

In the last several months, Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” one of TV’s toughest interviewers, struck out with two of his biggest “gets”:

In August, he quizzed Sen. John F. Kerry, “You both were members of Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale. What does that tell us?”

Kerry: “Not much, because it’s a secret.”

In February, he asked President Bush, “You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society?”

Bush: “It’s so secret we can’t talk about it.”

Such coyness on the part of grown men! And yet, their recalcitrance does prove one thing: The guys can keep a secret.

But is that good? Secrecy, after all, leads to rumors. And the rumors about Skull and Bones — naked confessions of sexual conquests, grave robbing, free money and, of course, plans for world domination — don’t look good on the presidential resume. Those rumors received a boost when it became apparent that, for the first time in history, two Bonesmen will face off for the presidency in November.

“It’s certainly a coincidence that lends itself to attention,” said the historian Kevin Phillips, whose recent work, “American Dynasty,” explores how the Bushes have benefited from what he calls “crony capitalism.” “Is it nefarious? I guess it’s a little insidious.”

Journalist and author Ron Rosenbaum (Yale ‘68), who wrote the seminal article on Skull and Bones for Esquire in 1977, thinks the Bush-Kerry coincidence should be treated thoughtfully. “Obviously, it’s part of what shaped the character of the two presidential candidates, and yet there’s a lot of overblown conspiracy theory that has outweighed the seriousness.”

Indeed, a serious political discussion might examine the meaning of both presidential candidates maintaining an inherently undemocratic affiliation and refusing to address an important aspect of their university lives. Instead, discussions on the Internet, talk radio and cable TV, generally turn on suspicions that Skull and Bones has attempted to mastermind a “new world order” in which only a handful of wealthy, old-line families control the planet.

“Is this a satanic cult? No. Is this a group that operates as a shadow government? No. Is this a group that has an institutionalized superiority complex? Yes,” said Alexandra Robbins, a 27-year-old journalist and Yale alumna whose book “Secrets of the Tomb” explores the 172-year-old club based on interviews with 100 anonymous Bonesmen. Bones, she said, has “a power agenda” that “prioritizes its own elitism and its own members above other concerns.”

Rosenbaum disputes that there is a specific “power agenda” at work. “I would say the best way of describing it is by analogy to the old boys’ network in England, where graduates of Eton and Oxford and Cambridge form a network of influence and power and share a mind-set. They know each other, they trust each other and they bonded at an early age.”

If nothing else, Skull and Bones has produced some odd bedfellows. “I am a liberal Democratic criminal defense attorney who voted for George Bush, and I will vote for him again,” said Bush’s fellow Bonesman Donald Etra, an Orthodox Jew who lives in L.A. and was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. Etra, who called himself “a strong Zionist,” said one of his closest Bones friends is a Jordanian-born Muslim. “Most of us,” he said, “put friendship first and politics a far, far second.”

Next month, an eclectic group of 15 juniors will be tapped for Skull and Bones by this year’s seniors. There have never been specific criteria for membership, which in generations past might have included some standard campus types: the editor of the Yale Daily, an outstanding athlete, a son of a Bonesman etc. Women were admitted in 1991, after a rancorous 20-year battle.

Bones members spend each Thursday and Sunday of their senior year in the Tomb, the group’s clubhouse on High Street in the middle of the Yale campus. It is windowless, ersatz Greco-Egyptian temple, readily identified on Yale maps.

“It’s kind of foreboding looking,” said a 48-year-old Toronto writer who sneaked into the Tomb with her boyfriend during spring break 1975. “They made it into this big mystery thing. But it wasn’t. It’s just like a big clubhouse, but it’s not in a tree.” There was a large dining room with a long table, and she recalled a room full of license plates. “They were always ripping things off with ‘322’ on them.”

The number 322 is a variation on the year (1832) that the club was founded by William H. Russell, a Yale student who modeled it after one he’d encountered in Germany. At its inception, said Dr. Alan Cross, one of Kerry’s classmates and a third-generation Bonesman, the club was “basically a debating society, where members of the senior class would get together and discuss important topics of the day.” (Bonesmen have a special regard for Demosthenes, the famed Greek orator who died in 322 BC.)

In later generations, the conversations became not just confessional but confrontational in the manner of group therapy, according to some reports. There was always security, said Cross, a professor of social medicine and pediatrics at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in the knowledge that “what goes on inside, what people reveal about themselves … would stay inside the building.”

Not surprisingly, given Yale’s lofty status in the firmament of American universities, Bonesmen often have occupied positions of power and prestige as adults. Three have become president (both Bushes and William Howard Taft). A partial roster of the famous includes diplomat Averill Harriman, poet Archibald MacLeish, financier Dean Witter Jr., Time magazine founder Henry Luce, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, national security advisor McGeorge Bundy, writers William F. Buckley and Christopher Buckley, former Sen. David Boren and FedEx founder Frederick Smith.

Not every Bonesman has loved the club unconditionally. As an adult, William Sloane Coffin, the Yale chaplain known for his opposition to the Vietnam War, developed a distaste for it. “He thought it was inappropriate,” said Cross. “A snobby thing. We were discouraged from gathering in groups around campus because it would perpetuate the notion that this was an elitist group.”

But of course, it is an elite group. Members can’t apply for membership — they are secretly elected. They have lifelong access to Deer Island, a private 40-acre sanctuary in the St. Lawrence River, which is owned by Skull and Bones’ corporate parent, the Russell Trust Assn. And they are accorded other, less tangible benefits for life, not the least of which are their connections to the well-connected.

The Bush family has a long history with Skull and Bones. George W. Bush’s father tapped him in 1967, as a favor to the seniors who nominated him. The president’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, who was a U.S. senator, supposedly boasted in a journal that he stole the skull of Geronimo in 1918 for display among the many osseous relics in the Tomb, according to Robbins.

The current college generation of Bushes may represent a break in family tradition: Barbara Bush, a Yale senior, reportedly rejected an invitation to join the club.

Kerry, tapped in 1965, has no family history with Bones, although David Thorne, the twin of his first wife, Julia, is a member, as was his current wife’s first father-in-law, John Heinz.

Whether the president and his challenger are influenced by their Skull and Bones associations is, in a general sense, a matter of record. Both men have close friends and political contributors who are Bonesmen. Bush’s early forays into business were helped along by older Bonesmen. Bush has appointed several of his clubmates to government positions, including William H. Donaldson, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Tales from a ‘savage’

The general goings on in the Tomb — particularly of eras past — are not truly secret anymore. This is due, mostly, to the investigative efforts of the two Yalie journalists, Rosenbaum and Robbins.

Robbins was an editorial assistant in the Washington bureau of the New Yorker when she first wrote a story about Skull and Bones for the Atlantic in 2000, which she expanded into a book two years later. Her own membership in a Yale secret society, Scroll and Key, helped open doors. “I got a lot of hang-ups and a lot of gruff voices saying, ‘I’m not talking to you about that!’ ” But when she identified herself as a “savage” — Bones-speak for a member of another secret society — it worked as an entree. (Regular folks are “barbarians.”)

Robbins has revealed that all Bonesmen receive lifelong nicknames, some handed down. (The president’s father, she writes, was “Magog,” a name given to the most sexually experienced Bonesman. George W. never got around to choosing a nickname and was dubbed “Temporary.”)

Like Rosenbaum (who has participated in covert taping operations of Bones rituals with infrared equipment), Robbins has written about the Tomb’s initiation rites. Bonesmen dress up as a variety of characters — “right out of Harry Potter meets Dracula” — and conduct what she has described as “a cross between haunted-house antics and a human pinball game.”

“World domination aside,” she writes in “Secrets of the Tomb,” the most pervasive rumors about Bones are that initiates must masturbate in a coffin while recounting their sexual exploits and that their candor is ultimately rewarded with a no-strings gift of $15,000.”

No Bonesmen interviewed for this article would comment on the nature of the confessional conversations. But Cross and Etra laughed at the idea that there was a monetary gift. “There was no check,” said Cross. Another Bonesman who graduated from Yale in 1975 and lives in Los Angeles, agreed: “That’s ridiculous! I never got any money.”

‘Somewhat laughable’

Despite the fact that the presidential race has kindled interest in Skull and Bones, many believe the club has been in a long decline. Admitting women may have struck a blow for equality, but the Tomb just hasn’t generated much juicy buzz since then.

These days, wrote Franklin Foer in an April 2000 issue of the New Republic, Yale’s secret societies are “high temples of political correctness” where women outnumber men and “conservatives are scarce.”

While Kerry has said that he favored admitting women, the Bush position is not known. However, rumors have it that some older Bonesmen have forsaken the club now that it is coed.

“Once upon a time there was something called the Eastern Establishment, and Skull and Bones was a significant institution feeding into it,” said Jacob Weisberg, 39, editor of the online magazine Slate. “There is the residue of it, but it is not the same kind of network, not the same kind of career path.”

Weisberg should know.

In spring 1986, Weisberg, a Yale student interning at the New Republic, was invited to Kerry’s office. “I was writing about politics, so I thought maybe he was going to give me a scoop or something,” Weisberg said. But when Weisberg showed up, Kerry tapped him for Skull and Bones.

“I said, ‘Sen. Kerry, as a liberal, how do you justify supporting this club that doesn’t admit women?’ ”

Kerry was taken aback. According to Weisberg, Kerry said: “I’ve marched with battered women.”

Weisberg declined the tap and has no regrets.

“The institution is somewhat laughable at this point,” he said. “That we’re having a presidential race with two alumni of this club tells you something, but it tells you more about what’s changed, because it’s inconceivable that in 20 years we’ll have an election where two candidates are from Skull and Bones. This is the last time this could plausibly happen. I think it’s sort of the last gasp.”

Source link

The billionaire who wants to be California governor

Tom Steyer must solve this dilemma: How does he convince financially struggling Californians they can trust a billionaire to be their governor?

Because, after all, the former hedge fund titan doesn’t exactly share their daily ordeal of scraping up enough money to pay for rent, groceries and gas in the run-down car.

And he doesn’t have any record in public office to point to. He’s trying to start his elective career at the top.

So, what’s the solution? Well, you can be a global celebrity like super-rich actor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was elected in 2003. Or a Gold Rush tycoon like Leland Stanford back in 1861. Other than those two, there’s a long list of well-heeled rookie failures.

You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know in 2024. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.

They include Republican Meg Whitman, who blew $144 million of her fortune losing in 2010. And Al Checchi, who spent $40 million of his own money getting beaten in the 1994 Democratic primary.

“Look, they didn’t have anything to say,” Steyer told me while sipping tea at a popular hangout near the state Capitol, specifically mentioning Whitman and Checchi. “They’d never done anything. Not like I’ve done for 14 years.”

Steyer, 68, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, touts his record of funding and promoting progressive causes, including successful ballot campaigns that raised tobacco taxes, closed a major corporate tax loophole and beat back oil industry efforts to kill climate fighting laws.

“I could give you 10 things I’ve done about environmental sustainability and economic justice,” he said.

“Why trust me? Because I’ve gotten results. And I don’t owe anybody anything.”

The Democrat spent $12 million on TV ads last year pushing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50 that allowed the Legislature to gerrymander congressional districts aimed at gaining five more Democratic seats in California.

Being a billionaire allows Steyer to buy all the TV spots he wants. He already has popped for $27 million worth running for governor.

But astronomical wealth comes with a political price.

“California voters do not cotton to some rich guy who has never spent a day in office but looks in the mirror one morning and suddenly sees a governor of California,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry South.

So, in his campaign TV commercials, Steyer wears casual backyard barbecue garb trying to look like Mr. Average, but with a populist agenda.

“I’m the billionaire who’s going to take on the billionaires,” he says.

That sounds counterintuitive, and I’m skeptical about how well it sells.

Steyer knows he sorely needs labor support to seem credible among the working class. That’s why he recently joined rallies for striking teachers in San Francisco and healthcare workers in San Diego.

He has scored endorsements from the California School Employees Assn. — a union representing school staff — and the California Nurses Assn.

Nurses are backing Steyer largely because he has embraced their No. 1 goal: a single-payer, state-run health insurance system.

They’ve attempted to push that in Sacramento for years and failed. And for good reason.

Single-payer would cost the state barrels of money it doesn’t have. Moreover, it would replace not only private insurance, but popular federal Medicare and the state’s Medi-Cal program for the poor. The federal government would need to agree. Fat chance.

I asked Steyer whether he really believes the state bureaucracy is capable of handling such an ambitious undertaking.

“We’re going to have to get back to having a government that works,” he replied, in what sounded like a knock on Newsom and his predecessors.

How could he make a single-payer system work? “God is in the details,” he answered, a phrase he frequently uses. Translation: “I don’t know.”

“We’re going to work through it. That’ll take at least three years… But we’re going to have to do it…. Healthcare costs have been escalating for a very long time. And they’re eating up the [state] budget.”

After Steyer left hedge fund investing, he became an ardent crusader for clean energy and fighting climate change. It was his core issue running for president in 2020, when he spent $340 million before giving up.

But these days, he barely mentions climate. The better politics du jour is advocating for “affordability” — especially affordable housing.

Steyer said he doesn’t have a “silver bullet” for lowering housing costs. He has “silver buckshot” — a scattergun of solutions for boosting housing supply, plus rent control.

He’d shorten the time for issuing construction permits, require rezoning to develop vacant land, tax unoccupied housing left off the market and build higher — more like in New York’s Manhattan, where he was raised.

“What we’re doing is sprawl,” he said. “And what sprawl leads to is an awful lot of commuting, a lot of driving.”

That’s been a problem for generations, I noted. Suburban ranch-style housing is the California way. “People can change,” he said. “I think people want to.”

I asked him about the slow-poke bullet train project that’s costing four times original estimates.

“Of course, I’m in favor of high speed rail,” he said. “But good grief. We’ve been working on this for an incredibly long time and spent an incredible amount of money. As far as I can tell, we haven’t built anything. If we’re going to do high-speed rail, we have to build it at a reasonable price. And we haven’t been able to do that.”

Might he abandon the project? “I want to look at it,” he said.

The odds are against him ever getting the opportunity.

But the odds aren’t exciting for any candidate in this ho-hum contest.

Steyer is running in the middle of the pack, based on polls. He has hired the strategists who managed Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s victorious campaign for New York mayor.

There’s no front-runner for governor. But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) has some momentum. He recently was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff. And he’ll also soon be endorsed by influential former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I’m told.

Voters will do their all-important endorsing in the June 2 primary.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: In 50-year fight to protect California’s coast, they’re the real McCoys, still at it in their 80s
CA vs. Trump: Trump, California and the multi-front war over the next election
The L.A. Times Special: Who pays for Newsom’s travel? Hint: It’s not always taxpayers

Until next week,
George Skelton


Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Source link

Meg Whitman is all business, all the time

Meg Whitman strode to the podium, cloaked in righteous indignation. Her husband stood silently by her side.

Just one day earlier, her former housekeeper had revealed that Whitman — the Republican candidate for governor with the tough talk on immigration — had employed an illegal worker for nine years.

Although she said she fired Nicandra Diaz Santillan after she heard about her housekeeper’s status, Whitman was in a no-win situation. Conservatives wondered why Whitman hadn’t turned “Nicky” over to authorities. Liberals bristled that the candidate hadn’t helped this “member of our extended family” find an attorney.

After a 45-minute barrage of questions, the always-on-message candidate finally delivered her main talking points: “We have to secure the borders. We have to hold employers accountable. We’ve got to eliminate sanctuary cities. And we’ve got to get a temporary guestworker program so people like Nicky can work here legally.”

The dueling news conferences that week — Whitman vs. Diaz Santillan and her attorney, Gloria Allred —were remarkable for more than their political repercussions. Salted between housekeeper tears and candidate bluster were as many details as had ever been known about the closely guarded private life of the billionaire who aspires to be governor.

Whitman has spent a lifetime in business, shepherding, protecting and selling some of America’s most valuable brands: Ivory soap, Keds, Mr. Potato Head, EBay. For the last 19 months, she has burnished her own brand — using more than $141 million of her personal fortune in the process.

Her money has made Whitman a ubiquitous presence in California living rooms, her aristocratic tones wafting out of television sets in an unprecedented barrage of ads. It has allowed her to largely avoid the spontaneity that gets novice politicians into trouble. Campaign stops tend to be by invitation only, or photo ops, like her recent stint as NASCAR grand marshal: “Gentlemen, start your engines!”

The former EBay chief is running on resume, not biography, to an extent rarely seen in modern politics. At a time when candidates’ extended families gambol on stage, and cameras are invited to watch them ski, fish and barbecue, Whitman’s is still largely unknown.

The candidate is married to Dr. Griffith Rutherford Harsh IV; his silent cameo in Santa Monica was a rare appearance on his wife’s behalf. The Stanford University neurosurgeon has given just one interview in their 30-year marriage. Whitman’s sister and brother have neither spoken nor appeared for her. Ditto, her two grown sons. Despite repeated requests, the campaign did not make Whitman available for an interview.

As a result Californians have learned more about Whitman from campaign crises and court cases than they have from the candidate’s own telling: For most of her adult life, she did not vote. She has a temper that can flare under pressure. Her primary residence and household staff are modest by billionaires’ standards: 3,700 square feet in tony Atherton for the first, a part-time housekeeper, landscape and pool service for the second.

Whitman and her campaign staff “refuse to relinquish any kind of control over the candidate, her image and her message,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a USC political analyst. “They can afford to; they have all the money in the Western world.… When her people don’t have control, there is danger there.”

It’s not as if Margaret Cushing Whitman’s 54 years haven’t had their share of personal drama. But there are stories she tells on the campaign trail — and ones she doesn’t.

Whitman was raised in wealthy Lloyd Harbor, N.Y., the youngest of three children. Her 6-foot 8-inch father, Hendricks Hallett Whitman, was a World War II veteran who worked in the financial industry. But it was her stay-at-home mother, Margaret C. Whitman, whom the candidate describes as her inspiration, a woman blessed with a “bias for action.”

Whitman actually talks as much about her mother’s personal life as her own.

In the depths of World War II, Whitman’s Boston-born mother wanted to do her share. She ended up in New Guinea with the Red Cross fixing airplane and jeep engines — though she had never popped a hood in her life.

“What that story really told me as a little girl was the price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake,” Whitman said at a recent campaign event. “That you have to try things that you’re not sure you can do.”

Buried deep in Whitman’s recent book, past 200 pages of corporate bromides (Be frugal. Be authentic. Results matter.) are two tales that do not make the campaign-trail cut: the story of her own birth defect and of her sister Anne’s struggle with mental illness.

Tall, patrician and athletic today, Whitman was born with dysplasia; her left hip lacked a socket. Doctors discovered the condition shortly after she was born, and she spent her toddler years strapped in a metal brace that helped mold a socket.

The treatment worked, and Whitman gravitated toward sports. She was captain of the swim team at Cold Harbor High School, where she graduated a year early. At Princeton University, where she was in only the fourth class to admit women, she played lacrosse and squash.

Stories of overcoming hardship are staples for most candidates, but Whitman eschews the emotional in favor of pragmatic connections to her audiences. Her campaign pays particular attention to women voters, and the candidate regularly reminds audiences that she would be the first woman governor. But she spends little time talking about the difficulties of balancing home and family and whether she shared those problems.

At a campaign event last month, a member of the audience asked Whitman: “Does being a woman and a mother give you a different perspective on running this state, and if so, how?” Her answer? Maybe, but it doesn’t really matter.

“In the end, as all the women in this audience know and all the men, you have to deliver the results, don’t you?” she responded. “And that’s what I did in my business career, and that is what I will do as governor.”

Whitman argues that her corporate experience makes her uniquely qualified to run a place as complex as California. And she offers up her decade at online auction giant EBay as exhibit A for why voters should choose her over Brown.

But between consulting firm Bain & Co, one of her first jobs out of business school, where she said she learned to be a corporate “all-around athlete,” and EBay, which she boasts grew from 30 to 15,000 employees during her tenure, there was FTD. In her book she describes her two years there in the mid-1990s as “probably the most frustrating and, ultimately, least satisfying executive experience in my career.”

When Whitman arrived, the member-owned association of florists had just been bought by an investor group and turned into a for-profit company. To service the debt, the company had to be immediately profitable, but many of the association’s florists had decamped to the competition.

“I finally quit that job,” she wrote, telling the arbitrageur who bought FTD: “ ‘This company is not fixable, at least by me.’ ”

Whitman wasn’t the only one who rued her time at the Southfield, Mich., headquarters.

Peggy Thompson, her assistant, recalled that FTD administration had been segregated in an isolated executive wing. Whitman shut that down and “moved us in with everyone else. We thought, ‘That’s really awesome. She wants us to be one team.’ But she didn’t have anything to do with us. She didn’t like us…. She was the worst boss I’ve ever had, and I’ve had some winners.”

Nearly a year into her stint at FTD, Whitman was sued for age discrimination by a 55-year-old technology executive named David M. Carlson, whom she fired and replaced with a 39-year-old, a man her age.

At a strategy session shortly before Carlson was let go, Whitman said the company needed “about fifteen killer young executives,” according to court documents. When FTD’s head of government affairs suggested that she not use the word “young” and probably didn’t mean it, she replied: “Actually, I do.”

The suit ended in a confidential settlement. Carlson could not be reached for comment.

It was EBay, of course, that Whitman helped make a household name, and the quirky online auction company returned the favor with wealth and opportunity. In the course of a decade, two brands were born.

No campaign appearance or debate is complete without at least a taste of her EBay experience. As she noted during the final debate: “I ended up running one of the great Internet success stories…. I was a job creator.”

Her tenure earned her accolades. Harvard Business Review named her one of the top performing CEOs of the past decade; Fortune magazine put her on its list of the Top Five most powerful women.

Maynard Webb, whom she wooed to the company to rebuild its faulty computer system after a 22-hour outage, calls her “the best boss and leader that I ever had.”

He saw her push the company to expand outside of North America, and “today international is over 50% of EBay’s revenues.” And he remembers the day in 2001 when the system again broke down. First the primary system failed, then the backups.

The site was down for hours, leaving buyers and sellers paralyzed. Even after the outage ended, time-consuming technical cleanup followed.

“Meg stayed with the team, made sure it was all OK,” Webb recounted. “She left at 2 a.m. This was the kind of leader she was.”

But her tenure was not without controversy. She pushed the company into a string of acquisitions. Some, like PayPal, were successes. Others, like Skype and Butterfield & Butterfield, were widely panned. Her last three years at the company coincided with slowing growth and a faltering stock price.

In 2007, while being prepped for an interview with Reuters, Whitman became angry with a communications aide, uttered an expletive and shoved the young woman.

The incident led to a confidential settlement in which Young Mi Kim reportedly received $200,000. At first the campaign sought to portray the matter as a “verbal dispute,” but Whitman later acknowledged that she had laid hands on Kim.

“Sometimes,” she said, “these things happen.”

Whitman never planned to go into business or politics. Her ambition to become a medical doctor was derailed by a collision with organic chemistry; she opted for business after selling ads for a student magazine called Business Today.

Her shift to politics came at the request of Mitt Romney, who had been her mentor at Bain. Romney asked her to help him run for president; she raised millions for him. When he dropped out of the 2008 race, she shifted her support to John McCain. Forever the marketer, she also came up with his slogan: “Country first.”

Her own venture into politics left many to wonder why the deeply private Whitman would open herself up to the scrutiny of campaigning. Introducing her to his employees at Cisco Systems recently, Chief Executive John Chambers asked her if a particular event pushed her to run because, “as a friend, I worry.”

An hour or so later, Whitman would make her first remarks about her housekeeper. But she made no mention of that in responding to Chambers. Characteristically impersonal, Whitman recalled a meeting at EBay, where the company’s executive team rued how hard it was for businesses to function here. Today, she told Chambers, she wants to change that.

“I remember my executive team sitting in a conference room,” she recounted. “And I said, ‘If we were going to start EBay again, would we start it in California?’ And you know, I’m not sure the answer to that is ‘Yes.’ ”

maria.laganga@latimes.com

Source link

Redlands students stage ICE walkouts. Officially, they’re truant

After some 150 students walked out of Redlands schools early this month in support of immigrants they were dealt an unexpected consequence: a temporary suspension of school privileges as administrators enforced rules that forbid them from leaving a classroom without permission.

The punishment — the loss of access to sports, dances, performances and other school events — in a school system with a conservative-majority governing board stands in sharp contrast to the positive reception that student activism has received in some other California school systems, including Los Angeles Unified School District.

The disparate actions show how school officials throughout various states and school systems — in blue and red regions — have been dealing with a wave of student walkouts that began in late January as part of national protests over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown.

Redlands school officials said the suspension of privileges will remain in place until a student satisfies certain conditions, such as attending a session of Saturday school or performing four hours of community service.

“The superintendent’s message is consistent: We care deeply about our students, and we recognize that many young people are dealing and engaging with issues they see in the news and in their community,” said district Public Information Officer Christine Stephens. “Students have the right to express themselves peacefully. At the same time, the district must uphold its responsibility to maintain a safe, supervised learning environment during the school day.”

Districts that expressed support for students’ free-speech rights included those in San Francisco and Sacramento. In Palo Alto, district officials worked with schools to make sure students could carry out their announced walkout safely.

L.A. Unified officials have not set districtwide penalties for walkouts — and its leaders align with the students’ anti-ICE critique. Supt. Alberto Carvalho, an immigrant himself, has pledged to do all in the district’s power to maintain schools as sanctuaries for children of immigrant families — and activists patrol outside schools to help ensure safe passage to campus for parents and students.

At the same time, LAUSD educators have encouraged students to stay on campus for safety reasons. In L.A. there were reports of physical confrontations between officers and protesters after students walked out on Feb. 5 and on Feb. 13, when three federal agents were injured after some in the crowd threw objects at them.

State and education leaders in Texas and Florida outlined significant consequences for students and educators related to student walkouts. In Texas, state leaders have talked about possible suspension and expulsion for students, dismissal for educators and state takeovers for school districts.

The ACLU of Georgia sent a letter Jan. 29 expressing concerns to the Cobb County School District after it threatened out-of-school suspension, loss of parking and extracurricular privileges and warned of college admissions consequences for participation in walkouts.

The ACLU warned that the school system would be acting illegally if walkout participants were singled out for especially harsh treatment based on their viewpoints.

The young activists

Student high school activists — in Redlands and elsewhere — said they are willing to face consequences, if necessary, to stand up for what they believe by protesting the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“As organizers, it’s expected for us to take the first wave of retaliation,” said Redlands High School senior Jax Hardy. “So while we would be very disappointed in the district for doing such a thing, for us, it’s important to exercise our free speech rights to oppose a government that is encroaching on our human rights.”

Student leaders see their protests as a civics lesson in action.

“It’s necessary to act, because, if we don’t, who knows how things will escalate further,” said Redlands High junior Aya F, who goes by her last initial rather than her full legal name. “So that’s why we feel it’s important for us to stage this walkout.”

Redlands is about 60 miles east of downtown L.A. and enrolls about 20,000 students. In November 2024 a conservative majority was elected to the five-person Redlands Board of Education, aligning the board with key policies of the Trump administration. Redlands joined a handful of ideologically similar California boards in approving policies that would allow parents to challenge library books with sexual content and prohibit display of the rainbow pride flag, which is associated with the LGBTQ+ community.

But the district stated that its actions on the walkouts have no ideology attached.

“The district’s response is not based on the viewpoint, theme or content of a student’s expression,” Stephens said.

Students walk out despite punishment

Some Redlands students organized another walkout Friday and organizers said they expected representation from students at seven middle and high schools. Many showed up from Redlands High School. They carried “Stop ICE” signs and Mexican flags and blew whistles as they made a 15-minute trek to a downtown intersection that some refer to as “Peace Corner.”

“I haven’t seen this many people in Redlands do anything ever,” said sophomore James Bojado, who also said that, for days, administrators had attempted to dissuade students with threats of discipline.

Several Redlands police vehicles patrolled the rally area, slowly rolling by.

A man in a sun hat shouted: “Why don’t you fly the American flag? Are you ashamed of America?”

“Leave us alone!” a chorus responded.

“My mom and my dad are immigrants,” said sophomore Carmen Robles. “Why deport families that care about America back to where they came from?”

At the rally, student demands included an ironclad district commitment that ICE will never be allowed on campus. Students also called for the abolition of ICE and spoke of wanting the school board to rescind what they regard as anti-LGBTQ+ policies. These include the flag ban and the book restriction policy.

During the Friday Redlands rally, there were a few tense minutes when a student in a MAGA hat was pelted by water bottles. The student spoke to police but also said he wasn’t hurt.

A person wearing a MAGA hat stands in a truck.

A person wearing a MAGA hat gets water and pizza thrown at him during a student walkout and protest in Redlands.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Adult volunteers were on hand with the goal of keeping things safe and positive. Parent Toni Belcher said that students have a right to be heard.

“I’m happy to see all these kids trying to get their voice to matter,” Belcher said. “If it doesn’t now, it will. … They’re starting early.”

What the law says

The right of students to express themselves begins with the U.S. Constitution.

“You do not lose your right to free speech just by walking into school,” according to guidance from the American Civil Liberties Union. “You have the right to speak out, hand out flyers and petitions and wear expressive clothing in school — as long as you don’t disrupt the functioning of the school or violate the school’s content-neutral policies.”

A walkout, however, could be treated as a disruption. But greater punishment cannot be applied based on the nature of the views expressed.

Redlands Unified believes it is complying with that legal standard.

California law offers some additional protection for student protests, but it’s not unlimited.

A California law, which took effect in 2023, allows a middle or high school student to miss one day of school per year as an excused absence for a “civic or political event.” This includes, but is not limited to, “voting, poll-working, strikes, public-commenting, candidate speeches, political or civic forums and town halls.”

The bill’s author, then-state Sen. Connie Leyva, said at the time that the law “emphasizes the importance of getting students more involved in government and their community by prioritizing student opportunities for civic learning and engagement both within and outside their education.”

One caveat is that the law requires that “the pupil notifies the school ahead of the absence.”

Students exercising this right must be allowed to make up missed schoolwork without penalty. There are potential gray areas — such as whether a large-scale school walkout — which organizers intend to be dramatic — would fall outside this protection because students don’t formally check out, for example.

One Redlands parent said he notified the school that his son had permission to take part in an earlier walkout after the walkout. But his son was still penalized because, the parent said, he was not allowed to grant permission for his son retroactively.

State law does require advance notice, but it does not say parental permission is required for that one protected civic activity day per year. The law also stipulates that schools, at their discretion, can allow additional excused absences for civic participation.

The parent, who did not want to be named out of concern for retaliation, said his son was placed on a “No-Go List” for extracurricular activities and events.

Source link

Voter trust in U.S. elections drops amid Trump critiques, redistricting, fear of ICE

President Trump and his allies are questioning ballot security. Democrats are warning of unconstitutional federal intervention. Experts and others are raising concerns about partisan redistricting and federal immigration agents intimidating people at the polls.

Voter trust in the upcoming midterm elections, meanwhile, has dropped off sharply, and across party lines, according to new research by the UC San Diego Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections.

Out of 11,406 eligible voters surveyed between mid-December and mid-January, just 60% said they were confident that midterm votes will be counted fairly — down from 77% who held such confidence in vote counting shortly after the 2024 presidential election.

Shifts in voter confidence are common after elections, with voters in winning parties generally expressing more confidence and voters in losing parties expressing less, said Thad Kousser, one of the center’s co-directors. However, the new survey found double-digit, across-the-board declines in confidence in the last year, he said.

According to voting experts, such drops in confidence and fears about voter intimidation are alarming — and raise serious questions about voter turnout in a pivotal midterm election that could radically reshape American politics.

While 82% of Republicans expressed at least some confidence in vote counting after Trump’s 2024 win, just 65% said they felt that way in the latest survey. Among Democrats, confidence dropped from 77% to 64%, and among independents from 73% to 57%, the survey found.

“Everyone — Democrats, Republicans, independents alike — have become less trusting of elections over the last year,” Kousser said, calling it a “parallel movement in this polarized era.”

Of course, what is causing those declines differs greatly by party, said Kousser’s co-director Lauren Prather, with distrust of mail ballots and noncitizens voting cited by half of Republicans, and concerns about eligible voters being unable to cast ballots because of fear or intimidation cited by nearly a quarter of Democrats.

Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly alleged that mail ballots contribute to widespread fraud and that noncitizen voting is a major problem in U.S. elections, despite neither claim being supported by evidence.

Dean Logan, in glasses and business suit, smiles in front of an "I Voted" sign.

Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, oversees the registering of voters, maintaining voter files, administering federal, state, local and special elections and verifying initiatives, referenda and recall petitions.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Many Democratic leaders and voting experts have raised concerns about disenfranchisement and intimidation of eligible voters, in part based on Republican efforts to enforce stricter voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements, and Trump suggesting his party should “take over” elections nationwide.

Others in Trump’s orbit have suggested Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will be deployed to polling stations, and the FBI recently raided and seized ballots from Fulton County, Ga., long a target of Trump’s baseless claims of 2020 election fraud.

Prather said that research has long showed that “elite cues” — or messaging from political leaders — matter in shaping public perception of election security and integrity, so it is no surprise that the concerns being raised by Trump and other party elites are being echoed by voters.

But the survey also identified more bipartisan concerns, she said.

Voters of all backgrounds — including 51% of Democrats, 48% of independents and 34% of Republicans — said they do not trust that congressional districts are drawn to fairly reflect what voters want. They primarily blamed the opposing party for the problem, but nearly a quarter of both Democrats and Republicans also expressed dissatisfaction with their own party leaders, the survey found.

Various states have engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to win more congressional seats for their party, with Republicans seizing advantage in states such as Texas and Democrats seizing it in states such as California.

Voters of all backgrounds — including 44% of Democrats, 34% of independents and 30% of Republicans — also said they believe it is likely that ICE agents will be present at voting locations in their area, though they did not all agree on the implications.

Half of Democrats said such a presence would make them feel less confident that votes in their area would be counted accurately, compared with fewer than 14% who said it would make them more confident. Among Republicans, 48% said it would make them more confident, and about 8% less confident. Among independents, 19% said more confident, 32% less confident.

Perceptions of ICE at polling locations also varied by race, with 42% of Asian American voters, 38% of Hispanic voters, 29% of white voters and 28% of Black voters saying it would make them feel less confident, while 18% of Asian American voters, 24% of Hispanic voters, 27% of white voters and 21% of Black voters said it would make them feel more confident.

Among both Black and Hispanic voters, 46% said they expect to face intimidation while voting, compared with 35% of Asian American voters and just 10% of white voters. Meanwhile, 31% of Hispanic and Asian American voters, 21% of Black voters and 8% of white voters said they are specifically worried about being questioned by ICE agents at the polls.

A man waits in line near a sign that reads "Voting Area."

A man waits in line to vote at Compton College in November.

(Michael Blackshire / Los Angeles Times)

Kousser said voters’ lack of confidence this cycle reflects a remarkable moment in American politics, when political rhetoric has caused widespread distrust not just in the outcome of elections, but in the basic structure and fairness of how votes are collected and counted — despite those structures being tested and proven.

“We’re at this moment now where there are people on both sides who are questioning what the objective conditions will be of the election — whether people will be able to freely make it to the polls, what the vote counting mechanisms will be — and that’s true sort of left, right, and center in American politics today,” he said.

Prather said research in other countries has shown that distrust in elections over time can cause voters to stop voting, particularly if they think their vote won’t be fairly counted. She does not think the U.S. has reached that point, as high turnout in recent elections has shown, but it is a longer-term risk.

What could have a more immediate effect are ICE deployments, “especially among groups that have worries about what turning out could mean for them if they expect ICE or federal agents to be there,” Prather said.

Election experts said voters with concerns should take steps to ensure their vote counts, including by double-checking they are registered and making a plan to vote early, by mail or with family and friends if they are worried about intimidation.

What voters should not do if they are worried about election integrity is decide to not vote, they said.

“The No. 1 thing on my list is and always will be: Vote,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law. “That sounds maybe trite or simple, but the only way we hold on to our democracy is if people continue to participate and continue to trust it and put their faith in it.”

Registrar voter staff members process ballots

Registrar voter staff members process ballots at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana in November.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

“Now is the time to buckle down and figure out how to fortify our protections for fair elections, and not to give into the chaos and believe it’s somehow overwhelming,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law.

“I don’t want people to feel like nothing is working, it’s all overwhelming and they are just being paralyzed by all the news of these attacks, these threats,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU. “There are a huge range of folks who are working to ensure that these elections go as smoothly as possible, and that if anything comes up, we are ready to respond.”

Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant in California, said the erosion of confidence in U.S. elections was “a deliberate strategy” pushed by Trump for years to explain away legitimate election losses that embarrassed him, and facilitated by Republicans in Congress unwilling to check Trump’s lies to defend U.S. election integrity.

However, Democrats have added to the problem and become “the monster they are fighting” by gerrymandering blue states through redistricting measures such as California’s Proposition 50, which have further eroded American trust in elections, Madrid said.

Madrid said that he nonetheless expects high turnout in the midterms, because many voters have “the sense that the crisis is existential for the future, that literally everything is on the line,” but that the loss of trust is a serious issue.

“Without that trust, a form of government like democracy — at least the American form of democracy — doesn’t work,” he said.

Trump — who in a post Friday called Democrats “horrible, disingenuous CHEATERS” for opposing voter ID laws that most Americans support — has long called on his supporters to turn out and vote in massive numbers to give him the largest possible margin of victory, as a buffer against any election cheating against him. One of his 2024 campaign slogans was “Too Big to Rig.”

In recent days, some of Trump’s fiercest critics — including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — have made a similar pitch to Democrats.

In an interview with The Times, Schiff said that he is “deeply concerned” about the midterms given all of Trump’s threats, but that voters should understand that “the remedy here is to become more involved, not less.”

“The very best protection we’ll have is the most massive voter turnout we’ve ever had,” he said. “It’s going to be those with the most important title in our system — the voters — who end up saving this country.”

Source link

The greedy hordes of Black Friday are now plundering Thanksgiving

Admittedly, I am a guy who generally dreads the thought of plodding through a shopping mall on any day of the year, but to me the encroachment of Black Friday into Thanksgiving evening seems not only insane but also disturbingly unpatriotic.

It was bad enough when it became the norm for people to show up in the middle of the night in order to be near the front of the line when store doors swung open early on the morn after Thanksgiving. Every time I heard about the herd of shoppers being culled as someone got trampled or sent to the hospital after a fight over a Tickle Me Elmo, I felt justified in my smugness and disdain of this retail frenzy. If that is how the rabble wanted to spend their time and money, so be it. The manic rush to save a hundred bucks on a 50-inch flat-screen TV or finish Christmas shopping by 9 a.m. on Black Friday could go on without me.

Over the years, though, retailers have pushed the starting time for this mad dash earlier and earlier until now it is bumping up against the slicing of the pumpkin pie at the Thanksgiving dinner table. This does not seem right.

PHOTOS: Top of the Ticket cartoons

I pity the poor retail workers who have to leave home and hearth and turkey dinner on the most venerable national holiday of the year. Instead of giving thanks for the opportunity to be confronted by a greedy horde of bargain hunters, I suspect most of those workers are cursing the store owners who decided to ruin the day with their own lust for a dollar. I think it is safe to assume the guys who own Target or Best Buy or the other big retailers will not be manning the cash registers. No, they will be sharing a leisurely Thanksgiving repast with their heirs in the peace and safety of their gated communities.

In 2013, it will be exactly 150 years since Abraham Lincoln set aside the fourth Thursday in November as a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.” Obviously, traditions shift over time, but let us hope that by next year those who put making money and spending money above all other values will not have totally desecrated what was once an all-American day like no other.

For anyone who feels as disgusted as I am with the plundering of Thanksgiving, go to Change.org and sign the petition urging Target to stop being the Grinch who stole Thanksgiving from employees. Maybe if one retailer is shamed into doing business more thoughtfully, others can be, as well.

Source link

Marco Rubio wants to build a ‘new Western century’. Will Europe join? | Politics News

Speaking at the annual Munich Security Conference on Saturday, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged European countries to collaborate with the US to build a “new Western century”, describing US-Europe ties as “civilisational”.

“We are part of one civilisation – Western civilisation,” he said.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

His rallying speech comes after more than a year of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about mass immigration in Europe and his administration’s latest National Security Strategy, which warns of “civilisational erasure” in Europe.

Last year, US Vice President JD Vance also lambasted European “liberal values” in his first address at the security conference.

As European leaders grapple with the rise of far-right political parties, how will they respond to this new demand from the US, and what does it mean for the future of transatlantic relations?

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio, centre, arrives for the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany on February 13, 2026.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, centre, arrives for the Munich Security Conference in Germany, February 13, 2026 [Michael Probst/AP Photo]

What did Rubio say?

The top US diplomat focused on several key areas he views as imperative for Europe to address, which included ending “liberalist” policies the Trump administration views as responsible for Europe’s “post-war decline”, creating new supply chains to reduce reliance on countries such as China, and ending mass migration, which he said is leading to the erasure of Western “civilisation”.

“The work of this new alliance,” Rubio said, “should not be focused just on military cooperation and reclaiming the industries of the past. It should also be focused on, together, advancing our mutual interests and new frontiers, unshackling our ingenuity, our creativity, and the dynamic spirit to build a new Western century.”

Liberalism and mass migration

Rubio argued that the “euphoria” of the Western victory in the Cold War had led to a “dangerous delusion that we had entered ‘the end of history’”, where every nation would be a liberal democracy and “live in a world without borders, where everyone became a citizen of the world”.

He used this as a plank to lash out against opening “doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people”.

“Mass migration is not, was not, isn’t some fringe concern of little consequence. It was and continues to be a crisis which is transforming and destabilising societies all across the West,” he said.

Taking aim at liberalist policies, he added that, to “appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people”.

New supply chains

Rubio said the US and its allies should bring more industry and jobs back home, not just to build weapons but to lead in new, high‑tech fields.

He added that the West should control key minerals and supply chains, invest in space travel and artificial intelligence, and work together to win markets in the Global South.

In particular, he said, is the need for a “Western supply chain for critical minerals not vulnerable to extortion from other powers”.

Earlier this month, Trump hosted ministers from dozens of countries for a critical minerals conference in Washington. The meeting was the first of a new Critical Minerals Ministerial, a US initiative to build alliances aimed at countering China’s control over critical mineral supply chains around the world.

What does a ‘new Western century’ mean?

While the overarching message of Rubio’s speech was that the US still seeks a partnership with Europe, said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, his remarks revealed, “The US will entirely set the parameters of that partnership and that it will be based on ideas Europe long has abandoned: An embrace of empire and colonisation.”

Rubio’s remarks at the conference suggest that the US under Trump wants Europe to accept “a civilisational divide of the world in which the ‘West’ must restore its dominance over other civilisations”, Parsi told Al Jazeera.

“In essence, Rubio listed the criteria for how Europe can become well-behaved vassals of the United States,” he said.

How did European leaders react to Rubio’s speech?

European leaders appeared to welcome Rubio’s speech at the conference; it was followed by a standing ovation. However, while lauding his call for stronger ties with the US, they notably did not address his comments about migration and liberal values.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference: “We know that in the [Trump] administration, some have a harsher tone on these topics. But the secretary of state was very clear. He said, ‘We want [a] strong Europe in the alliance’, and this is what we are working for intensively in the European Union.”

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot responded to Rubio’s speech: “Referring to [our] common legacy can only be welcomed with applause in Europe.”

“We will deliver a strong and independent Europe,” he said. “Independent, of course, irrespective of the speeches that we hear at the Munich Security Conference, however right they may be.”

Calling Rubio a “true partner”, German Foreign Minister John Wadephul said: “[It was] a very clear message from Secretary Rubio that we have … to stay and stick to our international rules-based order, which is, of course, in [the] first line the United Nations. This is our Board of Peace. We have to make it more effective, as Rubio said this morning.”

Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said she was “very satisfied with the tone” and the content of Rubio’s speech.

What does this mean for Europe?

European leaders have been facing a dilemma – particularly over migration and defence – for some time, for a number of reasons. The mass migration crisis prompted by unrest in other parts of the world has already caused far-right parties to surge in popularity. Now, the Trump administration has voiced support for many of these parties and is also urging Europe to take stronger action on migration and defence.

Therefore, many European leaders have already started taking action in these areas.

For instance, most European countries are already working on boosting their defences and cracking down on migration.

Last year, the United Kingdom announced plans for a big boost in defence spending in advance of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s meeting with Trump early last year amid fears the US would withdraw support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. Notably, Rubio skipped a meeting about Ukraine with European leaders at the Munich conference.

Many countries have also tightened controls over immigration. Denmark has led the way in implementing increasingly restrictive policies in its immigration and asylum system, with top leaders aiming for “zero asylum seekers” arriving in the country. Recently, the UK said it was studying the Danish model as well.

Europe is also working to make its energy and technology supply chains more sovereign, reducing dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly in the face of Trump’s trade war, which has seen him impose reciprocal trade tariffs on many countries around the world.

Many European leaders have come under increasing pressure from the rise in popularity of far-right parties calling for greater restrictions on immigration, as well.

In recent years, far-right, anti-immigration sentiment has been increasing in countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France. In 2023, the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, won the election in the Netherlands. France’s National Rally (RN), led by Marine Le Pen, won the snap election in 2024. The same year, Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK party made significant inroads in the general elections and, last year, a YouGov poll placed Reform as the UK’s most popular political party.

Besides this, ideas which were once far-right fringe notions, such as remigration – the notion of forcibly expelling non-white European citizens – are gaining traction among far-right conservatives in Europe. The idea has been promoted by Herbert Kickl, the leader of Austria’s far-right anti-immigration Freedom Party (FPO) and Alice Weidel, the leader of the AfD in Germany.

While some European leaders have geared up to resist the rise of far-right politics – partly by appeasing them with new, more restrictive migration policies – Trump has, however, embraced it.

What does this mean for US-Europe relations?

All this ultimately means that “Europe has a choice to make”, said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “It can pursue strategic autonomy and seek to find a balance between the great powers, and within that seek a dignified partnership with America in which it is not subjugated into vassalage.”

“[Or] Europe can continue on its current path in which it subordinates itself slowly but surely fully to Washington’s interests, priorities, impulses, and ideas about civilisational empire,” he told Al Jazeera.

Parsi pointed to the standing ovation at the conference that followed Rubio’s speech, simply for offering to remain partners with Europe.

“Whether they disregarded Rubio’s parameters, did not understand them, or simply found it unimportant because Europe desires to be a junior partner to the United States regardless of the parameters, remains to be seen,” he said.

For their part, European leaders appeared to place the greatest importance on repairing US-Europe relations above all else at the Munich Security Conference.

During his address at the conference on Friday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called on the US and Europe to “repair and revive transatlantic trust together”. “Let me begin with the uncomfortable truth: A rift, a deep divide has opened between Europe and the United States,” he said.

“Vice President JD Vance said this a year ago here in Munich. He was right in his description,” Merz said, as he called for a “new transatlantic partnership”.

Source link

A California lawmaker wants to make it easier for taxis to compete with Uber. But is it too little, too late?

Uber and Lyft continue to expand their dominance in California, and taxi companies are looking to the state Legislature for some relief.

“If communities value taxicabs, then we’re going to have to have a regulatory environment that allows cab companies to thrive,” said William Rouse, general manager of Yellow Cab of Los Angeles. “Right now, that’s just not the case.”

Rouse and others in the taxi industry have turned to Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) for help. Low has introduced AB 1069, which aims to ease taxi regulations to make the companies more competitive with their ride-hailing rivals.

Under Low’s legislation, which overwhelmingly passed the Assembly last month, taxi regulation would occur regionally rather than city by city. This means, for instance, cabs could pick up passengers in Los Angeles, drop them off in Santa Monica and vice versa without needing multiple permits.

Taxis also could lower or raise their prices — similar to Uber and Lyft’s surge-pricing models — in response to demand, with a maximum price set by each region.

“If we don’t do anything now, they will completely be annihilated,” Low said.

In California, numbers show the extent of the taxi industry’s decline and the ride-hailing boom. Taxi trips dropped nearly 30% in Los Angeles from 2012, right before Uber and Lyft began operating, to 2015. New research from the Brookings Institution shows that the number of ride-hailing drivers doubled in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Jose in 2015.

Uber and Lyft’s business models rely on using public pressure and lobbying to shape and change laws and regulations, said Elizabeth Pollman, a professor at Loyola Law School who has written about how Uber and Lyft have challenged existing state and local rules.

“Their business model wasn’t just to replicate the world we had, but rather to create a new model,” Pollman said.

Uber and Lyft have succeeded at the state Capitol in getting regulations and laws passed to benefit their industry and shooting down those that don’t. Even if Low’s bill passes, major regulatory disparities between ride-hailing companies and taxis will remain.

Taxi drivers still will have to pass fingerprint-based background checks, while Uber and Lyft drivers face less onerous rules. After years of delays, the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates ride-hailing statewide, is scheduled in the fall to decide whether ride-hailing drivers will need to pass fingerprint checks as well. Neither Uber nor Lyft has taken a position on Low’s bill, but each company has been generally supportive of loosening taxi regulations.

Still, cab companies and transportation experts said the legislation could have clear benefits for the taxi industry. Currently, it costs more than $3,000 a year for taxi permits to operate in four cities — Torrance, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach — that stretch roughly six miles along the Los Angeles County coast. In Silicon Valley, similar annual city-by-city fees can run $13,000. Low’s bill aims to wipe away such charges and replace them with a single payment.

The measure would promote greater competition by allowing taxis to grow their own on-demand apps and other dispatch services with fewer restrictions, said Bruce Schaller, a New York-based consultant who monitors both industries.

Schaller said the taxi industry’s problems go beyond regulation, and cabs will need to dramatically improve their service and reduce their fares.

“Why do people use Uber and Lyft?” Schaller said. “It’s because they’re cheap and they show up. That’s it.”

Low’s bill faces many obstacles. Last year, he wrote legislation that would have turned over taxi regulation to the state, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it. The governor’s veto message said he didn’t believe such a major change was warranted. Low’s current bill shifts the burden from cities to counties, but counties don’t want the responsibility.

In a May letter opposing the bill, a representative of the California State Assn. of Counties wrote that counties were ill-equipped to handle taxi regulations without help from cities.

“AB 1069 confuses the relationship between counties and cities by arbitrarily placing the entire burden on the county for taxicab licensure,” the letter said.

Low said he’s open to another entity, such as regional agencies including the Southern California Assn. of Governments in the Los Angeles area, to regulate taxis instead of counties handling them. But he warned that local governments shouldn’t be shortsighted in maintaining strict regulations and high fees that could continue driving taxis out of business.

In that case, Low said, cities “won’t get any of their revenues whatsoever.”

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

ALSO

An overhaul of California’s taxi regulations passes the Legislature

With Uber battle raging, one state lawmaker wants to deregulate the taxi industry

Uber and Lyft are winning at the state Capitol — here’s why

Updates on California politics



Source link

Some in GOP Fear Effort May Alienate Voters

The extraordinary steps taken by congressional Republicans to save the life of Terri Schiavo have won plaudits from evangelical Christians and other conservative activists, but some Republicans worry about a potential backlash among others who view the intervention as an overbearing use of government power.

Just as Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation allowing federal courts to review whether Schiavo’s feeding tube should be withdrawn, a poll by ABC News found that 70% of those surveyed believed congressional intervention was inappropriate.

Though some GOP strategists have argued that the issue is a political winner for the party because it appeals to religious conservatives, other Republicans warn that the bold maneuver risks alienating swing voters as well as Republicans worried about government invasions of individual privacy.

“It goes beyond shameless politics,” said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. “It becomes a more crystallized proof point that we are no longer the party of smaller government. We have become a party of ‘It doesn’t matter what size government is as long as it is imposing our set of values.’ ”

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), before voting against the bill Bush later signed, asked: “How deep is this Congress going to reach into the personal lives of each and every one of us?”

Still, some Republican analysts say the immediate poll results — and the concerns raised by Shays and others — are not politically significant because the activists pushing to keep Schiavo alive care more passionately than those opposing that view.

“Intensity matters,” said Gary Bauer, a conservative leader who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000. “The people who know the most about this controversy are the most likely to believe” that Schiavo should be allowed to live.

The Schiavo controversy does not split lawmakers or the country strictly along ideological lines; many people are influenced as much by their personal experiences as they are by political leanings.

The decisive legislative action on the Schiavo controversy is widely viewed within the political community as a show of strength for social conservatives, who are preparing for even bigger congressional battles.

Many of the activists are urging GOP leaders to move more aggressively this spring to win confirmation of Bush’s judicial nominees.

They argue that the Schiavo case reinforces the importance of placing conservatives in the judiciary.

“This is just one more perfect portrait of why we need to have fair and just men on the bench,” said Lanier Swann, director of government relations for Concerned Women of America, a conservative group that has made the Schiavo case a priority.

Bauer said the Schiavo controversy was the beginning of a much larger debate that would shape U.S. politics for years to come.

“We’re on the cusp of a really gigantic national debate about life and advances in medicine,” Bauer said. The Schiavo controversy “touches in a very important way in the whole debate on the sanctity of life, and it will encourage voters to believe that it is something Republicans feel strongly about.”

The fight over whether to remove the feeding tube that has kept Schiavo alive since a heart malfunction caused severe neurological damage in 1990 has become a cause celebre for the Christian evangelicals and antiabortion activists who were crucial to Bush’s reelection.

The issue came to a head in an extraordinary weekend session of Congress, when lawmakers were recalled from spring recess to vote on a bill to allow Schiavo’s parents to bring the case to federal court.

The political advantages of pursuing the legislation were trumpeted in a GOP staff memo circulated in the Senate late last week, although Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he had no knowledge of the memo.

“This is a great political issue,” the memo said, because it puts Democrats in a difficult position and because “the pro-life base will be very excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.”

But the ABC poll, conducted by telephone Sunday as Congress was acting, found that 63% supported removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube and 28% opposed it.

The poll also found that among Republicans, Congress’ action did not win strong backing. According to the poll, 58% of Republicans believed the intervention in the case was inappropriate, and 61% supported removing Schiavo’s tube.

The survey’s margin of error for its entire sample of 501 adults was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Among the Republicans surveyed, the margin of error was plus or minus 8 points.

The legislation passed the Senate on Sunday under the chamber’s unanimous consent rules. Three senators were on the floor — Frist, Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.).

In the House, the bill passed at 12:45 a.m. EST Monday, 203 to 58, with 174 members not voting. Supporting it were 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats; opposing it were five Republicans and 53 Democrats.

Some of the conservative critics of Congress’ action say the issue goes to the core of what kind of party the GOP will become. They worry it will further erode the party’s commitment to limiting the role of the federal government.

“Conservatives who have criticized the idea that Washington should run everything ought to be sheepish” about getting involved in the Schiavo case, said David Boaz, an analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Source link

U.S. mulls banning Russian oil, easing sanctions on Venezuela

President Biden is considering a ban on imports of Russian oil while weighing actions that would boost energy production by autocracies in the hopes of mitigating the effects on American consumers and global energy markets, U.S. officials said.

“What the president is most focused on is ensuring we are continuing to take steps to deliver punishing economic consequences on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin while taking all action necessary to limit the impact to prices at the gas pump,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Monday.

Until now, the economic strangulation of Russia by the West over its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has avoided its robust energy sector, with administration officials suggesting that such a move could weaken the global economy.

But as Russia increases its unrelenting bombardment of Ukrainian cities, political pressure on the West has grown to do more to put pressure on Putin to stop the onslaught. U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering easing restrictions on imports of oil from Venezuela to alleviate the void left by Russian oil bans, a politically problematic step.

It has also sought to convince Saudi Arabia, which has been under fire from U.S. and European officials over its human rights record, to boost oil production.

Biden spoke Monday for more than an hour with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, although the official White House readout of the conversation did not explicitly state that they discussed a ban on Russian energy.

According to the White House, “the leaders affirmed their determination to continue raising the costs on Russia for its unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. They also underscored their commitment to continue providing security, economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.”

Psaki said administration officials were also discussing whether the U.S. would send military aircraft to Poland should its leaders provide Soviet-era bombers to support Ukraine, but noted that the White House was not “preventing or blocking or discouraging” officials in Warsaw. “They are a sovereign country. They make their own decisions, but it is not as easy as just moving planes around,” she said.

The U.S. has been reluctant to get ahead of European allies in responding to Putin’s aggression. And while an oil embargo from Washington would have some effect, doing so in concert with Europe would deliver a far greater impact. Europe imports 4 million barrels of Russian oil a day, compared with 700,000 barrels imported daily by the U.S.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said Sunday during an interview with CNN that the administration was indeed exploring the “prospect” of an energy ban “in a coordinated way” with allies, although he did not rule out the possibility that Washington could act on its own to bar Russian oil.

The administration may not have much of a choice. Members of both political parties have introduced bills in both houses of Congress to block such imports.

“We may have to pay more at the pump because of this attack and our bipartisan response, but it is worth it to ensure that Putin pays the price for his paranoid adventurism and his attack on a peaceful democracy,” Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), who has co-sponsored a bill to ban Russian oil, said in a statement.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), who supports the measure, said a Russian oil ban may only have limited success if the U.S. cannot persuade other countries to join the effort.

“I don’t believe Europe and some of the other countries are ready to say no to Russian energy, so that’s the challenge right now,” Correa said in an interview. “Not only does Russia have nukes, but also people have to buy their energy from the Russians.”

Congress is weighing an oil ban as it pushes to pass a measure to send Ukraine billions of dollars in emergency assistance. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday called for passage of a $12-billion aid package this week, saying it “will provide both humanitarian and military assistance for Ukraine: funding for refugees, medical supplies, emergency food supplies, as well as funding to support weapons transfers into Ukraine, and help for our eastern flank NATO allies.”

In a letter to House Democrats on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Congress intended to pass $10 billion in emergency aid for Ukraine as part of a larger government funding measure. The House is also exploring legislation that would “further isolate” Russia from the world economy, Pelosi said.

Banning Russian oil imports would probably lead to higher prices at the pump in the U.S. and globally. Gas is averaging $4 a gallon nationwide, up from $2.77 a year ago, according to AAA. The average price of gas in California during that same period has risen from $3.75 to $5.34.

In a clear signal of how seriously the Biden administration is considering a Russian oil ban, U.S. officials traveled over the weekend to Caracas, Venezuela, for talks about potentially easing sanctions imposed on the South American nation by the Trump administration in 2019. President Trump took that step after declaring President Nicolas Maduro’s election victory a sham and recognizing another politician, Juan Guaido, as the country’s rightful leader, a position Biden has affirmed.

Those measures built upon similar sanctions imposed by President Obama, signaling the long history of trouble Washington has had with Caracas and its socialist leaders.

The Venezuela economy is reeling, despite sitting on some of the world’s largest oil reserves, and Maduro is likely eager to be free of the sanctions. However, his economy and many of his government agencies are deeply intertwined with Russian assets and advisors. Any lenience by the White House toward Maduro, even if it’s driven by a desire to crack down on Putin, could undercut Biden’s messaging about the existential threat that autocracies present to democracies.

Psaki on Monday batted away questions about a potential rapprochement with Caracas, telling reporters that any easing of sanctions was “leaping several stages ahead” of where talks currently stand.

Complicating matters has been Venezuela’s decision to imprison six executives from the Citgo oil company for the last four years. Five are U.S. citizens and the sixth a U.S. permanent resident. They were convicted in show trials on trumped-up embezzlement charges and other crimes, according to their families and human rights activists.

Psaki said discussions about the release of the men and sanctions relief were taking place “in different channels,” and not tied together.

Republicans, who have seized on the potential energy crisis to call for stepping up domestic fossil fuel production, have already made clear that they will hit the White House hard should it look to offset any ban on Russian oil by looking to foreign suppliers.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio criticized Biden in a tweet Sunday, saying: “Rather than produce more American oil, he wants to replace the oil we buy from one murderous dictator with oil from another murderous dictator.”



Source link

Europe’s growing fight over Israeli goods: Boycott movements mushroom | Israel-Palestine conflict News

One afternoon late August in a quiet Irish seaside town, a supermarket worker decided he could no longer separate his job from what he was seeing on his phone.

Images from Gaza, with neighbourhoods flattened and families buried, had followed him to the checkout counter.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

At the time, Israel’s genocidal onslaught had killed more than 60,000 Palestinians.

His first act of protest was to quietly warn customers that some of the fruit and vegetables were sourced from Israel. Later, as people in Gaza starved, he refused to scan or sell Israeli-grown produce.

He could not, he said, “have that on my conscience”.

Within weeks, Tesco supermarket suspended him.

He requested anonymity following advice from his trade union.

In Newcastle, County Down, a town better known for its summer tourists than political protest, customers protested outside the store.

The local dispute became a test case: Can individual employees turn their moral outrage into workplace action?

Facing mounting backlash, Tesco reinstated him in January, moving him to a role where he no longer has to handle Israeli goods.

“I would encourage them to do it,” he said about other workers. “They have the backing of the unions and there’s a precedent set. They didn’t sack me; they shouldn’t be able to sack anyone else.

“And then, if we get enough people to do it, they can’t sell Israeli goods.”

“A genocide is still going on, they are slowly killing and starving people – we still need to be out, doing what we can.”

From shop floors to state policy

Across Europe, there is labour-led pressure to cease trade with Israel.

Unions in Ireland, the UK and Norway have passed motions stating that workers should not be compelled to handle Israeli goods.

Retail cooperatives, including Co-op UK and Italy’s Coop Alleanza 3.0, have removed some Israeli products in protest against the war in Gaza.

The campaigns raise questions about whether worker-led refusals can lead to state-level boycotts.

Activists say the strategy is rooted in history.

In 1984, workers at the Dunnes Stores retail chain in Ireland refused to handle goods from apartheid South Africa. The action lasted nearly three years and contributed to Ireland becoming the first country in Western Europe to ban trade with South Africa.

“The same can be done against the apartheid, genocidal state of Israel today,” said Damian Quinn, 33, of BDS Belfast.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a Palestinian-led campaign launched in 2005 that calls for economic and cultural boycotts of Israel until it complies with international law, including ending its occupation of Palestine.

“Where the state has failed in its obligation to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, citizens and workers across the world must refuse Israel and apply pressure on their governments to introduce legislation,” said Quinn.

That pressure, he said, takes the form of boycotting “complicit Israeli sporting, academic and cultural institutions”, as well as Israeli and international companies “engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights”.

The movement also seeks to “apply pressure on banks, local councils, universities, churches, pension funds and governments to do the same through divestment and sanctions”, he added.

Supporters argue that such pressure is beginning to shape state policy across Europe.

Spain and Slovenia have moved to restrict trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank following sustained public protests and mounting political pressure. In August 2025, Slovenia’s government banned imports of goods produced in Israeli-occupied territories, becoming one of the first European states to adopt such a measure.

Spain followed suit later that year, with a decree banning the import of products from illegal Israeli settlements. The measure was formally enforced at the start of 2026.

Both countries’ centre-left governments have been outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct during the war, helping create the political conditions for legislative action.

In the Netherlands, a wave of pro-Palestinian campus protests and public demonstrations in 2025 shifted political discourse. Student demands for academic and trade disengagement became part of broader calls for national policy change.

Later that year, members of the Dutch parliament urged the government to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements.

Meanwhile, Ireland is attempting to advance its Occupied Territories Bill, first introduced in 2018, which would prohibit trade in goods and services from illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank.

Progress, however, has stalled despite unanimous backing in the lower house of Ireland’s parliament, the Dail.

Paul Murphy, an Irish pro-Palestine member of parliament who, in June, attempted to cross into Gaza, told Al Jazeera the delay amounts to “indirect pressure from Israel routed through the US”. He accused the government of “kicking the can down the road” as it seeks further legal advice.

Pro-Israel organisations are working to oppose initiatives that aim to pressure Israel economically.

B’nai B’rith International, a US-based group that says it strengthens “global Jewish life”, combats anti-Semitism and stands “unequivocally with the State of Israel”, decries the BDS movement. In July 2025, it submitted an 18-page memorandum to Irish lawmakers, warning the bill could pose risks for US companies operating in Ireland.

The memorandum argued that, if enacted, the bill could create conflicts with US federal anti-boycott laws, which prohibit US companies from participating in certain foreign-led boycotts – particularly those targeting Israel.

B’nai B’rith International also “vehemently condemns” the United Kingdom’s recognition of Palestinian statehood and has donated 200 softshell jackets to Israeli military personnel.

Critics say interventions of this kind go beyond advocacy and reflect coordinated efforts to influence European policymaking on Israel and Palestine from abroad.

 

While lobby groups publicly press their case, leaked documents, based on material from whistleblower site Distributed Denial of Secrets, suggest the Israeli state has also been directly involved in countering BDS campaigns across Europe.

A covert programme, jointly funded by the Israeli Ministries of Justice and of Strategic Affairs, reportedly hired law firms for 130,000 euros ($154,200) on assignments aimed at monitoring boycott-related movements.

Former Sinn Fein MEP Martina Anderson, who supports the BDS movement, previously accused Israeli advocacy organisations of attempting to silence critics of Israel through legal and political pressure.

According to the leaked documents cited by The Ditch, an Irish outlet, Israel hired a law firm to “investigate the steps open to Israel against Martina Anderson”.

She told Al Jazeera she stood by her criticism.

“As the chair of the Palestinian delegation in the European Parliament, I did my work diligently, as people who know me would expect me to do.

“I am proud to have been a thorn in the side of the Israeli state and its extensive lobbying machine, which works relentlessly to undermine Palestinian voices and to justify a brutal and oppressive rogue state.”

Pushback across Europe

In 2019, Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, adopted a non-binding resolution condemning the BDS movement as anti-Semitic, calling for the withdrawal of public funding from groups that support it.

Observers say the vote has since been used to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

The European Leadership Network (ELNET), a prominent pro-Israel advocacy organisation active across the continent, welcomed the move and said its German branch had urged further legislative steps.

Meanwhile, in the UK, ELNET has funded trips to Israel for Labour politicians and their staff.

Bridget Phillipson, now secretary of state for education, declared a 3,000-pound ($4,087) visit funded by ELNET for a member of her team.

A coworker of Wes Streeting named Anna Wilson also accepted a trip funded by ELNET. Streeting himself has visited Israel on a mission organised by the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) group.

ELNET’s UK branch is directed by Joan Ryan, an ex-Labour MP and former LFI chair.

During the passage of a bill designed to prevent public bodies from pursuing their own boycotts, divestment or sanctions policies – the Labour Party imposed a three-line whip instructing MPs to vote against it. Phillipson and Streeting abstained.

The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill was widely seen as an attempt to block local councils and public institutions from adopting BDS-style measures.

A vocal supporter of the legislation was Luke Akehurst, then director of the pro-Israel advocacy group, We Believe in Israel. In a statement carried by ELNET, he said it was “absurd” that local councils could “undermine the excellent relationship between the UK and Israel” through boycotts or divestment.

“We need the law changed to close this loophole,” he said, arguing that BDS initiatives by local authorities risked “importing the conflict into communities in the UK”.

The legislation was ultimately shelved when a general election was called in 2024. It formed part of broader legislative efforts in parts of Europe to limit BDS-linked boycotts.

Akehurst has since been elected as Labour MP for North Durham, having previously served on the party’s National Executive Committee.

Source link

Schwarzenegger Pushes Plan on Local Coffers

After a collapse in state budget negotiations late last week over funding for cities and counties, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed to revive his plan Saturday to protect their revenues.

One of the last sticking points in reaching agreement on the $103-billion state budget, the local government provisions have rocked the Capitol for several days and sent city officials across California into a frenzy of last-minute opposition.

The governor is pressuring lawmakers to support a plan under which cities and counties would accept $2.6 billion in cuts over the next two years in exchange for an amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit such cuts in the future.

His latest push for that plan comes days after he walked away from a compromise with Democrats that would give the Legislature more flexibility in how it provides assistance to local government. The governor abandoned the compromise after local leaders rebelled against it, triggering a meltdown in the Legislature. Legislative leaders threw up their hands, and lawmakers headed home for the weekend.

“We are all here today calling on the legislators, and to tell them to go back to Sacramento and to vote for our local government agreement so that the people have their budget,” Schwarzenegger said at a rally before a few dozen police and firefighters Saturday at L.A. City Fire Station 88 in Sherman Oaks, where the governor also filmed scenes for his 2002 movie “Collateral Damage.”

“We were at the home stretch, we were very close to have a deal and a budget, but suddenly the legislators shut down and left Sacramento and went back home.”

The governor demanded an immediate floor vote on the deal he and local leaders had worked out.

Senate President John Burton (D-San Francisco) downplayed Schwarzenegger’s appearances, saying the governor hammering lawmakers at public rallies “doesn’t faze me.”

“Bring it on if you want,” Burton said. “We’ll just let the cards read for themselves. I believe the negotiations with the Legislature and the governor can be done pretty quickly.” He said he had been speaking with the governor and his chief of staff by telephone and believed a budget deal could be reached soon.

The deal the city and county leaders are pushing is simple. It begins with them accepting $1.3 billion in cuts for each of the next two years.

In return, the governor and lawmakers would support a constitutional amendment that would protect their share of the state budget from ever again being cut.

Democrats say that plan is full of problems: It would make it nearly impossible for lawmakers to borrow from cities and counties during a fiscal crisis; it would lock into the Constitution a system that forces local governments to become overly dependent on sales tax, leading too many to become overly reliant on “big box” retail stores, leading to sprawl; and it would give cities and counties priority in the state budget over education, social services and most every government program.

“It gives local government more protection than schools,” Burton said.

Burton called on the local leaders to return to the negotiating table.

He cautioned them not to take their chances on an initiative they have on the November ballot that would prohibit the state from taking any money away from cities and counties ever again.

“The polls show it is going in the dumpster,” Burton said. “If they want to come to the table, good. If they don’t, let them take their chances.”

Standing alongside the governor in Los Angeles on Saturday, however, several big-city mayors said they saw no reason to give in to any Democratic demands.

“We had a deal,” said Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn. “We want that deal to go through.”

Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown said local governments were not the Legislature’s “personal piggy bank.”

Source link

He’s Educated Media, Jackson Says

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Monday that the predominantly white news media were “bound by their own culture” in reporting and interpreting his historic presidential campaign but added that he has seen “an evolution in the media’s consciousness and its maturity.”

Jackson, questioned during a radio news conference about whether a media racial bias has crippled his campaign, said he could not estimate its impact.

However, he took credit for “educating many members of the media. Some have made better grades than others.”

“I’ve taken the media to the low places. I’ve taken them to the ghettos, the barrios, the reservations,” Jackson said. “The media people covering my campaign know more of America than their publishers do, than their editors do, and, therefore, their job will be to educate their bosses.”

He called on news organizations to be more aggressive in hiring and promoting women and minority members.

In particular, he said, they must be advanced into decision-making positions, where they are participating in “the meetings about what story is going to be covered, what the slants are. There must be a multicultural presence in that room to have a multicultural result.”

Source link

South Carolina snubbed Bernie Sanders in 2016. A lot has changed

This state was such a lost cause for Bernie Sanders the last time he ran for president that the candidate stopped coming here in the crucial stumping days before the 2016 primary election. He got crushed, losing by 47 percentage points.

So the Rev. Al Sharpton on Wednesday morning found himself doing a double take to be here, of all places, introducing the Vermont senator at his candidate breakfast as the nationwide Democratic front-runner.

“Many never thought ‘Bernie Sanders’ and ‘front-runner’ would be in the same sentence,” said Sharpton, the civil rights activist whose blessing is eagerly sought as Democratic candidates seek inroads with black voters.

At a time when Sanders’ rivals are in a full state of panic over his momentum and have shifted from ignoring the democratic socialist to putting all their energy into trying to stop him, they are particularly alarmed by the traction he has been getting in this state, where some 60% of Democratic primary voters are African American.

It reflects the depth and durability of the Sanders coalition, which has exploded in size with his success.

“The question black folks in the South were asking before was: ‘Who is Bernie Sanders?’” said Justin Bamberg, a South Carolina lawmaker and civil rights attorney supporting Sanders. “Now, it is not ‘Who is Bernie Sanders?’ It is ‘Why not Bernie Sanders?’”

Sanders may not win here in South Carolina; the latest polls continue to show Joe Biden winning and holding the largest share of African American voters. But there’s little question that Sanders has drawn substantially more support from black voters this time around than four years ago. His message hasn’t shifted at all. His appeal to nonwhite voters has.

“We have come a long, long way” in South Carolina, Sanders told a raucous crowd at a rally here Wednesday.

T Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in 2016

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate in January 2016 in Charleston, S.C. Sanders lost the state by 47 percentage points that year.

(Timothy A. Clary / AFP-Getty Images)

Only 53% of black voters nationwide had a favorable view of Sanders at this point in the last presidential race, according to Gallup, nearly 30 percentage points lower than for opponent Hillary Clinton. But a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found black voters this cycle just as inclined to vote for Sanders as for any other candidate — a turnabout from months ago, when the same poll had Sanders far behind.

In South Carolina, the Sanders campaign absorbed the lessons of the senator’s flop here in 2016. In the intervening years, Sanders and surrogates have returned to the state again and again, visiting its small towns and urban centers, knocking on doors, networking with local officials, just listening. In this state, politics is as much about who you know as what you know. And the Sanders operation got to know a lot of communities.

“He has learned from his mistakes,” said Antjuan Seawright, a South Carolina political consultant not aligned with any candidate in the primary. “He’s learned how to engage, how to prioritize certain communities, where to make investments. His team on the ground has figured out where votes are and who they can activate.”

The success Sanders has had in the few states that have voted already also plays big, but that momentum only goes so far. Sanders learned that in 2016, after his shellacking of Clinton in New Hampshire did nothing for him here and in other Southern states. And Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., is learning that lesson anew as he struggles to translate strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire into votes in the South.

The Sanders campaign and Our Revolution, the progressive organization launched by his backers, never stopped building infrastructure here after 2016. They doubled down on efforts to reach potential voters who weren’t politically engaged. The Sanders staff here is twice the size it was in 2016. At this point in that election cycle, Sanders had just five endorsements from state lawmakers here. Now he has racked up at least 36.

At his rally Wednesday, Sanders boasted that his campaign has knocked on 200,000 doors in South Carolina this cycle.

As rival campaigns pursue consultant-driven strategies centered on ads, news releases and press conferences designed to cast doubt on Sanders’ ability to go the distance, the senator’s grass-roots approach has been drawing in voters like Rebecca Bentley.

Bentley didn’t vote for Sanders in 2016; she didn’t vote for anyone. “I didn’t have any political views,” she said. “I was completely uninvolved.”

The 29-year-old who has been on Medicaid much of her life and has also lived in federally subsidized housing was inspired to register to vote by Sanders’ agenda on healthcare and other social programs.

“It really resonated with me that someone was actually listening,” said Bentley, who described herself as Hispanic and Native American.

It is a familiar story in this state, where the Republican leadership refused to participate in the expansion of Medicaid that was offered to states by the Affordable Care Act.

“The issues Sanders is talking about are resonating here,” said Bruce Ransom, a political science professor at Clemson University. “The Trump administration is talking about how well the economy is doing, and folks here are not doing that well. They are living in a state where the Medicaid expansion did not take place. Many of them would like to make $15 an hour,” as Sanders is proposing for the minimum wage.

As rivals focus intensely on branding Sanders as unelectable in November, many voters aligning with him for the first time are seeing just the opposite.

Among them is Dawn Pemberton, who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is now all in for Sanders.

“That moderate, middle box just doesn’t seem to be working for our country,” said Pemberton, 48, who recently left a job in real estate.

Gerry Elliot also supported Clinton in 2016. “My more pragmatic head took over,” he said. “I thought Hillary could win. I didn’t think Sanders could win.”

Now, the 51-year-old pastry chef is not so sure. He is wavering between Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “I’m looking for something different,” he said. “I just want change in the status quo.”

Biden’s poor showing in the states that have voted so far has some voters reconsidering their initial instinct to align with a pragmatist establishment candidate who had seemed best equipped to beat Trump.

“A former vice president, particularly one under Barack Obama, should not be getting crushed in any state,” Bamberg said. “You should not be getting blown out. People here have eyes and ears. They see it. They want someone they feel can win long term.”

So some voters in South Carolina are giving Sanders a fresh look.

The campaign officials and volunteers who in 2016 would encounter a voter already aligned with Hillary Clinton at nearly every door they knocked on tell a very different story now. Sanders is just as much a household name.

Actor Kendrick Sampson, an Angeleno and Texas native who was here campaigning for Sanders in 2016, said he understood the skepticism voters had at the time.

“You don’t come into Texas talking about nothing — I don’t care how much I agree — if we don’t know or trust you,” he said. “Especially if you are not from Texas. People [in South Carolina] just didn’t know who he was.”

Sampson is back again talking to voters at their houses, at barbershops, in restaurants, and the reception is different. “Now they know who he is, and they know his brand,” Sampson said. “And now they trust him.”

Source link

Trump seems to soften his threat to halt emergency funding for California fire victims

A month after tweeting that he might order FEMA to cut federal disaster funding to California fire victims, President Trump declined to renew that threat and indicated that talks with state officials were going well.

Speaking to The Times and several regional newspapers in the Oval Office, Trump said Wednesday that he and Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke by phone about two weeks ago, after his Jan. 9 tweet that he had ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency not to send more disaster funding to state officials “unless they get their act together, which is unlikely.”

Asked Wednesday if he still thinks the federal government shouldn’t give California any more money until the state changes its forest management practices, Trump refrained from directly repeating the threat, but said something has to be done to keep California from burning year after year.

“I told my people, I said we cannot continue to spend billions of dollars, billions and billions of dollars,” Trump said. “Forest fires are totally preventable. They shouldn’t happen.”

Trump said he was encouraged by his talk with Newsom.

“He was very respectful as to my point of view,” Trump said. “I think he agrees with me. I respect the fact that he called. The forests are, because of whatever reason, … extraordinarily flammable, to put it mildly.”

Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Click said the governor and president had a “respectful conversation about the critical federal-state partnership necessary for emergency preparedness and disaster relief.”

“The governor will continue doing everything in his power to help the survivors of wildfires and make sure the state is prepared for future disasters,” Click said.

Environmental experts say the primary cause of increased fires in California is climate change and drought. The Trump administration has blamed poor forest management, though critics say such claims are misleading and in many cases false.

Thousands of Californians are still recovering from two massive fires this past fall that together killed nearly 90 people and burned thousands of structures.

Trump’s tweeted threat alarmed state and local officials. For weeks the White House and FEMA have provided no clarity about whether such an order would be implemented, and when. Even the California congressional delegation struggled to get information about what might happen.

For months the president has been critical of California’s forest management process, saying state environmental laws are too stringent and keep downed timber and other detritus such as leaves and fallen limbs from being removed before they can catch fire.

“It’s called forest management. You have very poor forest management,” Trump said. “You need good forest management and you will have either no forest fires or very small forest fires that are easily put out.”

Critics accuse the administration of trying to pressure California officials to open the state’s forests to increased logging.

The bulk of California’s forest land is either federal property or private property, and outside the state’s authority to manage, but Trump said California’s strict state environmental laws keep the federal government from managing its lands in the state properly.

“In many cases because of the state environmental rules, the federal government isn’t even allowed to go in and clean them out,” Trump said.

In November, the Camp fire destroyed the town of Paradise in the Sierra Nevada foothills, killing 86 people and destroying more than 13,900 homes in the area; and the Woolsey fire in Los Angeles and Ventura counties left three dead and leveled about 1,500 structures in an unwooded area.

State politicians have implored Trump to remember what he saw when he visited Paradise in November to tour the destroyed area. He spoke at length Wednesday about his shock at the extent of the damage and how quickly the fire moved into and destroyed the town.

“That was a lot of bad luck,” Trump said. “It was dry. You had 80 mile-per-hour winds. It was a very flammable area.”

The latest from Washington »

More stories from Sarah D. Wire »

Source link