republican

May 15 (UPI) — The House Ethics Committee has launched an investigation into Rep. Chuck Edwards over allegations of creating a hostile work environment and engaging in sexual harassment.

Little information about the probe was made public.

In a brief statement issued Thursday, the committee said it was “reviewing allegations that Representative Chuck Edwards may have created or fostered a hostile work environment and engaged in sexual harassment in violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any other applicable standard of conduct.”

The committee said that its investigation and public disclosure do not indicate a violation has occurred.

Edwards told The Hill that he welcomes the investigation and plans “to comply fully with the committee.”

“I am confident the investigation will expose the facts, not politically motivated fiction,” he said.

The announcement follows recent reports that the committee was investigating Edwards, with Axios having been the first to report on the development.

Specifics of the allegations were not clear, but Politico earlier this week reported that he allegedly had an improper relationship with a subordinate as well as allegedly engaged in sexually harassment.

The investigation comes on the heels of two high-profile House resignations last month over sexual misconduct allegations.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., stepped down amid accusations of sexual misconduct and abuse, while Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned after admitting he had an affair with a former aide who died by suicide.

Amid growing concern and anger about alleged abuses by members of the lower chamber, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Ky., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., announced Wednesday the creation of a bipartisan partnership between their parties’ women’s caucuses to combat workplace sexual misconduct in Congress.

Reps. Teresa Leger Fernandez, D-N.M., and Kat Cammack, R-Fla., were designated to lead the effort as respective chairs of the Democratic and Republican Women’s Caucuses in the House.

“To state the obvious, all women should feel comfortable and safe working in the halls of Congress,” Johnson said in a statement, adding that he is happy Cammack and Leger Fernandez “will lead this bipartisan partnership to find ways we can continue to make Capitol Hill safer for women and all staff.”

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday again blocked Democratic legislation that would halt President Trump’s war with Iran, but the number of GOP senators voting against the war grew.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against the war for the first time since it began at the end of February. Two other Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, also voted against the war, as they had done previously.

The war powers legislation ultimately failed to advance 49-50, with Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania the only Democrat to oppose it, yet the close tally reflected growing unease with Trump’s war. Several other Republican senators have signaled they want Congress to weigh in on the direction of the conflict.

“There will be a day — and it might be soon, I believe — where this Senate will say to the president, ‘Stop this war,’” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has spearheaded his party’s tactic of forcing repeated votes on the war, said before the vote.

Even if it passes the Senate, a war powers resolution would have a slim chance of passing the House and would also certainly be vetoed by Trump. But Democrats say the votes are about building political pressure on the president either to withdraw from the conflict or seek congressional authorization to wage the war.

Trump officials downplay role for Congress

The White House, meanwhile, has asserted that it does not need congressional authorization for the war and has circumvented legal requirements to gain approval from Congress to continue the military campaign. It claims that it has “terminated” hostilities with Iran because the U.S. has entered a ceasefire.

That posture has created tension between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House because presidents under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 are required to obtain authorization from Congress after 60 days of engaging in a conflict.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers this week that the U.S. could start attacking Iran again without the White House seeking congressional approval. He told Murkowski during a hearing on Tuesday that the Trump administration believes it has “all the authorities necessary.”

Murkowski voiced skepticism about that argument. She pointed to the troops and war ships deployed to the region, saying, “It doesn’t appear that hostilities have ended.”

GOP leaders back the war, but unease grows

Republican leadership has continued to back the war with Iran, arguing that the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz that has blocked most commercial shipping puts more economic pressure on Iran than it does on the U.S.

“Iran’s economy is on life support. Its leadership is eliminated,” said Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 Republican in leadership, during a floor speech Wednesday.

He also argued that the Democratic effort on the war is all about undermining Trump. Forcing the issue just as he arrived in China for a summit would “pull out the rug from under him,” Barrasso said.

Still, Republicans are also growing uneasy about the high gas prices, especially as the November elections draw near.

Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, said Wednesday he’d prefer that the two branches of government work out the constitutional issues instead of a congressional war powers vote or a potential challenge in court.

The two sides should sit down together and say “we have shared constitutional responsibilities,” Rounds said.

Democrats plan to keep forcing weekly votes on war powers resolutions and are looking ahead to put limitations on Trump during the debate over annual legislation that authorizes and funds the military.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who sponsored Wednesday’s resolution, told reporters that he believes there is an “erosion of support, erosion of enthusiasm, an increase in skepticism” about the war from Republicans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Maine — Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins says she has a benign essential tremor, disclosing the longtime health condition for the first time in her decades-long political career as she seeks reelection in one of this year’s toughest Senate races.

Collins first confirmed the tremor to WCSH-TV in Maine on Wednesday after facing questions about her health from appearances in recent videos, including her campaign announcement video.

The condition causes trembling in Collins’ hands, head and voice, and she said she has had it for the entirety of her nearly three-decade Senate career. It affects millions of Americans over the age of 40 and “does not interfere” with work, Collins said in a Thursday statement to the Associated Press. She said it is not a neurodegenerative condition.

“The tremor is occasionally inconvenient, and sometimes the subject of cruel comments online, but it does not hinder my ability to work and, as I said, is something that I have lived with for decades,” the statement said.

Health issues and candidates’ ages have drawn increased scrutiny in high-profile elections following Democratic President Joe Biden’s decision not to seek reelection in 2024 at age 81. Those questions have only lingered with Republican President Trump, who’s 79 and in recent months has been seen with bruising on the back of his hand, sometimes concealed with makeup. The White House acknowledged last year that Trump was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency.

Collins is up for reelection in a seat Democrats need to flip to have a chance to take back the Senate. Her likely opponent is Democrat Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and combat veteran, after Democratic Gov. Janet Mills suspended her campaign last week. Age has been an issue in the contest, with Collins, 73, and Mills, 78, more than three decades older than Platner, 41.

Platner acknowledged early in his campaign his own health problems. He has spoken openly about chronic pain in his shoulder and knees stemming from combat service, and he has said he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after serving at war. Platner has said he has a 100% disability rating from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs but continues to work as an oyster farmer.

“There are a lot of disabled combat veterans, or just disabled vets, at 100%, who still work,” Platner told WCSH last year. “It’s a very normal thing.”

Collins was first elected to the Senate in 1996 and said in her statement that she has had the condition for all of that time. Over the years, the condition has been noticeable in Collins’ debates and frequent public appearances.

As chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Collins has been at the forefront of the chamber’s many spending disputes this Congress, often leading the floor debate and providing the GOP’s closing arguments. She frequently engages with reporters in the hallways. Her streak of never missing a Senate vote is up to 9,966 and stands as the second-longest consecutive voting streak in the chamber’s history.

Tremors happen when nerves aren’t properly communicating with certain muscles. Essential tremor, sometimes called benign essential tremor, is one of the most common movement disorders, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The risk of developing it increases as people get older, but at least half of cases are inherited, meaning the tremor runs in the family, and those tend to begin at younger ages. It almost always involves shaky or trembling hands but also can affect the head, voice or lower limbs.

Whittle and Kruesi write for the Associated Press. Kruesi reported from Providence, R.I. AP writers Kevin Freking and Lauran Neergaard in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, citing concerns about his privacy and a lack of passion for political combat, on Wednesday proclaimed that he would not run for President in 1996.

For the first time, Powell declared that he was a Republican. And he seemed clearly to leave open the possibility of seeking political office in the future. But he categorically ruled out accepting the vice presidential nomination next year.

In a dramatic afternoon press conference in suburban Washington, Powell, 58, said that entering the political arena “requires a calling that I do not yet hear. And for me to pretend otherwise would not be honest to myself, it would not be honest to the American people.”

“And therefore I cannot go forward,” he said. “I will not be a candidate for President or for any other elective office in 1996.”

Powell’s wife, Alma, stood at his side as he ended months of suspense about his political intentions and disappointed millions of potential supporters. His adult children, Michael, Linda and Annemarie, looked on in the packed hotel ballroom where Powell delivered his fateful verdict.

“I have spent long hours talking with my wife and children, the most important people in my life, about the impact an entry into political life would have on us,” Powell said. “It would require sacrifices and changes in our lives that would be difficult for us to make at this time.”

With the September publication of his best-selling memoirs, “My American Journey,” Powell had become a four-star American icon, the repository of the hopes of millions who dreamed that he could bind up the nation’s racial and political wounds.

But in the end, that task proved too great even for the charismatic general, who braved unfriendly fire in Vietnam and survived the ordeals of bureaucratic combat in four presidential administrations.

Powell said Wednesday he hoped he could help restore civility to American political dialogue and a “sense of shame in our society.” He also said he hoped to bring blacks back into the party by broadening the GOP’s appeal and humanizing its attempts to reform social welfare programs.

“While we’re sending out block grants, while we’re dismantling programs that have not completely satisfied everything we hoped of them, we have to concern ourselves about those who may be cut loose, and we have to be prepared to help them,” Powell said. Over the past months, “I didn’t sense there was enough consideration of that.”

“I will continue to speak out forcefully in the future on the issues of the day, as I have been doing in recent weeks,” Powell said. “I believe I can help the party of Lincoln move once again close to the spirit of Lincoln.”

But–for now–he said he would do so from outside the realm of electoral politics.

Powell largely came to his decision over the weekend and formalized it in a meeting Monday night with two of his closest friends, former Pentagon official Richard L. Armitage and former White House Chief of Staff Kenneth M. Duberstein. With a third aide, retired Col. Bill Smullen, joining in by phone, the three men sat in Powell’s formal office on the ground floor of his McLean, Va., mansion, a room dominated by his Medal of Freedom and three framed photographs of the presidents he has served–Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton.

Alma Powell joined the group about halfway through the 2 1/2-hour meeting, Armitage said in an interview Wednesday.

“By then, the decision was primarily made,” Armitage said. “Over these past weeks, he was up and down, he agonized. He’d go out and meet with crowds and they’d fire him up. Then he’d get back home and wonder, ‘Do I have the necessary fire in the stomach to be worthy of support of these people?’ And he found he did not,” Armitage said.

As it became clear that Powell would not run, the meeting moved quickly to a discussion of the logistics of the announcement. The four discussed various drafts of a statement, then decided that Powell should speak solely in his own words. On Wednesday afternoon, he did just that, speaking largely without reference to the note cards he had carried with him.

He had looked “deep into my own soul” before deciding not to run, Powell said, and had found that he could not summon up the “commitment and passion” he felt every day in his 35 years as a soldier.

Powell also pointedly refused to endorse any of the Republican candidates, or even the party’s eventual nominee. He answered a curt “yes” to the question of whether there were candidates in the current crop of GOP hopefuls who were unacceptable to him.

A close friend said later that Powell was referring specifically to Patrick J. Buchanan, who has harshly criticized Powell’s stands on social issues.

Powell’s decision reopens a presidential contest that had been largely frozen for the last two months as he flirted with running.

Within an hour of Powell’s announcement, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said that the former general’s withdrawal made it more likely that he would enter the race. Gingrich said he would think about it over the next several weeks and make a decision after the current federal budget deliberations are finished but before the Dec. 15 deadline for entering New Hampshire’s primary.

Powell’s withdrawal was particularly welcome news at the White House and at the headquarters of GOP presidential front-runner Sen. Bob Dole. In a statement, Dole praised Powell’s “outstanding character and leadership” and expressed pleasure that he had joined the Republican Party.

At the White House, aides showed unusual discipline in not admitting that they felt a huge sense of relief at not having to face Clinton’s worst nightmare–a black, centrist, Republican military hero–in the general election next year.

“Everyone wants some hook to say there was a sigh of relief at the White House–but you’ll have to do it on your own,” said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

He added that Clinton “understands the decision to run for President of the United States is one of the most difficult decisions any human can make. He respects the general and respects the general’s right to make that decision.”

Powell met with the press for 40 minutes at the Ramada Plaza hotel in Alexandria, Va., a few miles down the George Washington Parkway from the Pentagon, where Powell made history by becoming the first African American and youngest chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

His appearance was marked by the good humor, military carriage and unshakable poise he displayed in private meetings with presidents, kings and prime ministers and in public briefings on the American military operations he directed.

He expressed gratitude to the thousands of citizens who urged him to run. “It says more about America than it says about me. In one generation, we have moved from denying a black man service at a lunch counter to elevating one to the highest military office in the nation and to being a serious contender for the presidency,” he said.

Powell drew laughs when asked whether his wife shared his enthusiasm for the Republican Party. “Next!” he boomed. He also fended off a question about whether he had been bothered by published reports that his wife was under treatment for depression.

“It is not a family secret,” he said. “It is very easily controlled with proper medication, just as my blood pressure is sometimes under control with proper medication.”

For her part, Alma Powell made clear her concerns about her husband’s safety should he become a candidate. She and the general denied that fears of assassination were a factor in his decision not to run, but the final call was not made until Monday night, the day slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was buried in Jerusalem.

Had he been elected, Powell said, his priorities in office would have been: “Show leadership. Be a conciliator. Move the government forward toward less government. . . . Try to inspire people. And try to restore a sense of family, restore a sense of shame in our society, help bring more civility into our society.”

Powell said he regretted the disappointment he caused those who enthusiastically promoted his candidacy.

“I am deeply, deeply appreciative of that support, I’m deeply appreciative of the time and talent and energy you put into it. I’m sorry I disappointed you, but I hope you will see that in the next phase of my life I will continue to serve the country in a way that will justify the kind of inspiration and enthusiasm and support you sent my way this time around,” Powell said, addressing the several dozen supporters who attended the press conference and millions more watching on television.

He said he understood the “down and dirty” of American politics and said they were a proper test of a potential leader. He said he was not afraid of that “test of fire,” but that he was not yet ready to face it.

Among those watching on television were about half a dozen disheartened volunteers at the draft-Powell headquarters in the Crenshaw district in Los Angeles. The group, which had just opened the office last week, vowed to launch an effort to change Powell’s mind. Through letters, phone calls and other means, they hope to persuade the retired general “to report for duty as a candidate for the presidency,” said Powell backer Ron Weekly.

Times staff writers Sam Fulwood III in Washington and Erin Texeira in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

* LOCAL REACTION: General’s Orange County kin pleased with his decision. A17

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Ron DeSantis was once the future of the Republican Party, a battle-tested conservative twice elected as governor of Florida. Then Donald Trump steamrolled him on his way back to the White House.

Now, more than two years after DeSantis ended his presidential campaign and endorsed Trump, the governor has called a special legislative session on redistricting and other issues that will put him back in the national spotlight and maybe remind Republicans that he could lead the party one day.

But there are also plenty of risks involved for the 47-year-old governor, and they became immediately apparent after lawmakers convened Tuesday.

DeSantis is pushing state lawmakers to redraw Florida’s congressional map as part of a coast-to-coast redistricting battle ahead of November’s midterm elections. His proposal, released the day before the session began, would make it easier for Republicans to win up to four more seats, equivalent to Democrats’ potential gains from last week’s referendum in Virginia.

The governor also wanted lawmakers to adopt new regulations for artificial intelligence and loosen vaccine requirements. However, his proposals quickly hit a roadblock when House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican but not a DeSantis acolyte, told members that he would not advance any legislation on those issues.

Perez said the governor’s maps are on a fast track, with a House vote expected Wednesday, but some Republicans are worried that a gerrymandered map will backfire and make it easier for Democrats to pick up seats, something that would be a black eye for DeSantis.

He already faces tough prospects on the national stage, even with Trump constitutionally barred from running for a third term in 2028. DeSantis has had a relatively low profile during Trump’s second presidency and would likely have Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, another Floridian, to contend with in a Republican primary.

“The window for Ron looks reasonably narrow at this point,” said Whit Ayres, who served as DeSantis’ pollster in his first campaign for governor in 2018.

DeSantis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. But the governor has at least embraced the national redistricting fight. When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) last week dared Florida Republicans to go ahead with their special session, the governor punched back with the kind of aggressiveness he showed in the early days of his failed White House bid.

“I will pay for you to come down to Florida and campaign,” DeSantis said of Jeffries. “I’ll put you up in the Florida governor’s mansion. We’ll take you fishing.”

DeSantis wants four more Republican seats

DeSantis unveiled his proposed congressional map to Fox News on Monday even before it had been widely circulated among lawmakers. He argued that the 2020 census shortchanged the state’s population, making it necessary to redraw the lines.

The governor’s map, if approved, would reshape districts in Democratic areas around Orlando, Tampa Bay, Miami and Fort Lauderdale. The changes could cost Democratic Reps. Jared Moskowitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, among others, their seats.

The current maps yielded a 20 to 8 Republican tilt in 2024. DeSantis’ version would aim for an advantage of 24 to 4.

DeSantis first announced the special session in January, months after Trump started pushing Republican-run states to redraw their congressional boundaries. What followed has been a tit-for-tat battle, with each party looking for an edge in the midterms.

The Virginia referendum celebrated by Democrats is facing a court challenge. Another legal battle is playing out in Wisconsin, where Democrats also hope to pick up another seat or two.

There’s no guarantee that new maps will play out the way parties hope. For example, Texas based its revised lines largely on Trump’s performance in 2024, theoretically redistributing the president’s voters across more districts to pull them into the Republican column. But Trump’s popularity has waned since his reelection, including among Latino voters who figure prominently in the state.

Florida could face a similar conundrum. Creating more majority-Republican districts but with thinner margins could dilute GOP advantages and give Democrats more opportunities to win seats, especially if there’s an anti-Trump backlash at the polls this year.

Karl Rove, a former top political advisor to President George W. Bush, warned that if Florida Republicans get too aggressive, “they may lose a seat or two.”

Brian Ballard, an influential Florida lobbyist who has been DeSantis’ top fundraiser, said it’s worth remembering that DeSantis was the muscle behind the current map that expanded Republicans’ advantage in the state.

“He’s incredibly smart and capable,” Ballard said. “And he doesn’t get enough credit for that map. He’s done this before.”

Florida legislative leaders are not rubber stamps for DeSantis

As it did Tuesday, the Florida House has grown more willing to buck the governor in recent sessions. Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton made clear for weeks that they were not drawing their own proposals and would react only to what DeSantis put forward.

Albritton sent multiple memos to senators reminding them of Florida’s state constitutional limits on redistricting and the requirement that it not be done as a blatantly partisan act.

Perez sidestepped questions Tuesday about whether the maps violate those requirements, which Florida voters approved by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in 2010. Democrats and political advocates have promised legal challenges.

Beyond redistricting, DeSantis was effectively asking House members to approve AI and vaccine proposals that they refused even to advance out of committee earlier this year.

On AI, DeSantis wanted to require tech companies to ensure children cannot interact with chatbots without parental permission. He also wanted to prevent AI from generating harmful material for minors. That proposal put DeSantis at odds with Trump, who wants the federal government to be the regulator of AI technology. Perez said he sides with the president, calling AI a “national security issue” that is “bigger than just one state.”

On vaccines, DeSantis wanted to add a conscience-based exemption to public school vaccine requirements, similar to the existing religious exemption. That aligns him with the anti-vaccine portion of the Trump base that was instrumental in making Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the U.S. Health secretary.

Perez countered that vaccine requirements in the U.S. “have been working for decades” and said he remains uncomfortable with “children being in school without measles and mumps and polio and chickenpox vaccines.”

Political observers are watching — even at the White House

Ballard downplayed any political concerns for DeSantis. What may seem to some as strained relations with certain Republican legislative leaders, he said, is simply measuring DeSantis against the opening years of his tenure.

“I mean, he went from batting a thousand to maybe batting .600,” Ballard said, using a baseball analogy for the governor who played the sport while attending Yale. “That isn’t failure.”

During the last Republican presidential primary, DeSantis initially gave conservative establishment figures and key donors an option other than Trump, who grew frustrated by the challenge and mocked the governor as “Ron DeSanctimonious.”

But Trump seemingly forgave DeSantis when he dropped out of the race and endorsed Trump following his victory in the Iowa caucuses. He even promised to call DeSantis by his actual name.

There’s more bad blood within the White House, though. Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, a Floridian, managed DeSantis’ razor-thin 2018 victory, only for the governor to have a falling-out with her.

Wiles did not respond to a request for comment. But Ayres said he’s certain she’s paying attention.

“Donald Trump has a long memory, and Susie Wiles has a longer one,” he said. “And that doesn’t bode well for Gov. DeSantis to be Donald Trump’s Republican successor.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press. Scott Bauer contributed to this report from Madison, Wis.

‘The great puzzle’

While Massie has long dominated elections in Kentucky’s 4th district, polling this year shows a tighter race than expected.

A Quantus Insights survey conducted from April 6 to 7 showed Massie leading Gallrein 46.8 percent to 37.7 percent.

Another survey conducted by Big Data Poll in early April had Massie ahead with 52.4 percent to Gallrein’s 47.6 percent.

The relatively close primary could be a bellwether for Republican voting trends nationwide, according to Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.

“Massie is an early opportunity to see what Republican voters will do when their pro-Trump leanings clash with their conservative leanings,” Voss said. “That is the great puzzle of this race.”

This is not the first time Trump has turned against Massie, though. In 2020, another election year, Trump famously petitioned to “throw Massie out of the Republican Party”.

But by 2022, Trump had reversed course, endorsing Massie over a challenger who questioned the congressman’s commitment to the president.

Still, the past year has widened the rift between Trump and Massie, leading the president to make his most aggressive moves yet to unseat the congressman.

The two Republicans clashed on a range of issues in 2025. Massie, for example, opposed the president on his tax and spending measures, fearing increases to the national debt.

That meant voting against Trump’s signature piece of legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last July.

The Kentucky Republican also denounced Trump’s campaign of foreign intervention. Last June, NBC News reported that it was after Massie criticised Trump’s strikes on Iran that the president’s allies began laying the groundwork for a primary challenge.

Massie also led the charge to compel the Department of Justice to release all the files related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted child sex offender.

Shortly thereafter, Trump gave his stamp of approval to Gallrein, posting on his Truth Social site, “RUN, ED, RUN.”

By that point, Gallrein, a military veteran and fifth-generation farmer, had yet to enter the race. Four days later, on October 21, he launched his bid.

Critics argue Gallrein’s platform does not offer much of a distinction from Massie’s. His campaign website lists his priorities as cutting taxes, reducing government spending, protecting gun rights and opposing abortion — issues Massie also supports.

“I don’t think he’s offering any kind of alternative, except for being the selection of Donald Trump,” Kahne said. “I think that’s it. That’s the only thing he has to offer.”

But Gallrein has drawn heavily from Trump’s endorsement, using it as a badge of loyalty and authenticity.

“You deserve an authentic, true Republican conservative that stands shoulder to shoulder with our president and the Republican Party,” Gallrein declared at the Trump rally in March.

Trump, meanwhile, told the crowd he had grown so frustrated that he just wanted “somebody with a warm body to beat Massie”.

WASHINGTON — Polls show that record numbers of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Anxious voters find no shortage of corroboration. Seeming proof of national decline is everywhere–the savings-and-loan bailout, an imperial Congress, overpaid executives at the top of underperforming companies, record murder rates in cities, declining school quality, an intractable drug epidemic, spiraling health-care costs and a flat economy riddled with deep pockets of regional recession. We haven’t felt good about ourselves, our country or our future since the Gulf War.

President George Bush’s decline in the polls mirrors this trend. As long as voters were concerned about foreign policy, his high standing compensated for lower ratings on domestic affairs. The Cold War’s end has changed the issue mix of presidential races forever.

The recession is an immediate problem, but that will decline in importance when the growth most economists predict resumes this spring. But the recession masks a deeper fear that our post-Cold War inheritance is a declining standard of living, with high-paying jobs and prosperity flowing overseas. That fear will not recede quickly.

With the recession ending by spring, campaign planners will be tempted to heave sighs of relief and run a status-quo candidacy against the uncertainties of a switch to the Democrats. That would be a serious mistake.

For Bush will never have more fertile ground to lay out a new GOP agenda that addresses the deep fear voters have about the future of America. He can capitalize on the public’s thirst for certainty by laying out a set of ambitious goals–in government, in jobs, in schools and in social progress.

He can start with government. A recent Gallup poll shows 20% blame Bush for the economy’s condition, but 54% blame Congress. Support for term limits and a Trumanesque campaign to fix what’s wrong with Congress will not only pay political dividends, but give him a governing coalition for a second term. Beginning with this week’s State of the Union, Bush should challenge Congress to pass his economic recovery program within 100 days and return it to him for signature. He should also push legislation on health-care reform, education and crime by similarly challenging Congress. To dramatize the push for excellence, he might consider national middle-class merit scholarships for college.

Nor should he give up on trade, despite the Japan trip. Presidential involvement in a few trade confrontations will make his claim to fight for American jobs more credible. Where unfair trading practices are found, executive action on import relief should be swift.

By establishing his vision for the post-Cold War future, contrasting his own activism with Democratic and congressional obstruction, showing that he thinks free trade should benefit us as well as our partners and fighting hard for the middle class–in essence charting a course the country thinks takes us in the right direction and gets us off the wrong track–he’ll win not only reelection but a mandate.

It’s also important to understand this is not the 1984 reelection. Compression of the primary calendar means there are fewer days between the first Iowa caucuses, Feb. 10, and Super Tuesday, March 10, and the Democratic winner-take-all rules could give a front-runner enough momentum to be the apparent nominee by April. There is little prospect for a protracted Democratic primary battle like 1984’s between Gary Hart and Walter F. Mondale.

Because the Democrats won’t be tearing each other apart as long, Bush should engage the Democrats early. But he needs to shore up his own vulnerabilities before he begins to contrast with the Democratic nominee. He needs to sharpen his middle-class message, starting with the economy and people’s fears about the future.

This should be done well before the summer Democratic convention, when the Democratic ticket will have a solid week of national television coverage to engage in Bush-bashing.

It’s also critical to understand this is not 1988. The Democratic nominee will also have learned a lesson from Michael S. Dukakis–define your candidacy before your opponent gets a chance to define it negatively for you. It’s highly unlikely the ’92 Democratic nominee will be kept on the defensive for months as was Dukakis.

This year’s presidential election takes place in politically uncharted territory. It is the first contest of the post-Cold War era, probably the last election with a World War II veteran running for President. World events, from Eastern Europe’s velvet revolutions of 1989 to last summer’s failed Soviet coup, have irrevocably reshaped America’s political landscape.

Foreign policy and defense no longer matter much to voters. Communism’s death also buried anti-communism as an issue. With few external threats, Americans see old relationships through a new prism. They supported the post-war alliance with Japan for mutual security; without the Cold War, that same relationship looks one-sided.

To win reelection, it’s critical to understand what this dramatic shift means. The old rules are gone–now is the time for a new political order in American campaigns. For four decades, we’ve elected presidents against a Cold War backdrop. Now that we’ve won the Cold War, we need a new presidential agenda that’s relevant for the ‘90s.

Reporting from Sacramento — — Two days after he was finally sworn in as California’s lieutenant governor after a grueling partisan battle, Republican Abel Maldonado appeared on national TV with political comedian Stephen Colbert to discuss his signature issue, a primary election designed to reduce the influence of party hardliners in the Legislature.

“Why on Earth would you want to destroy the two-party system?” demanded Colbert, who parodies a right-wing cable news host.

Leaders from both major parties in California, who vehemently oppose the open-primary measure, are asking essentially the same question, only they don’t see it as a laughing matter.

Proposition 14, which appears on the June 8 ballot, would put all candidates for statewide, congressional and legislative offices on the same primary ballot and allow voters to choose from the full list. The top two vote-getters for each office — regardless of party — would face each other in a runoff.

A poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed 60% of respondents in favor of the measure, 27% opposed and 13% undecided.

Backers, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, say the system would free candidates from the need to court the radical wings of their parties to win nomination to the November ballot. That, in turn, would lead to the election of more moderate lawmakers and more cooperation on tough issues like fixing California’s $19.1–billion budget deficit.

Under the current system, Republicans vote on one ballot in a primary election and Democrats on another. Independents, who now represent a record 20% of the California electorate, are allowed to choose either ballot. But few do, so their influence in a primary is minimal, and candidates for November are generally chosen by hard-core party loyalists.

About a third of California congressional and legislative districts are dominated by a single party, according to a recent report by the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. Almost all are Democratic strongholds. In some, Democrats have such an advantage that the two top primary vote-getters might both be Democrats.

In those cases, Proposition 14 supporters said, they hope the more moderate candidate could win by appealing to Republicans and independents.

As of Friday, Schwarzenegger and the California Chamber of Commerce had helped raise more than $4.7 million for a Yes on 14 campaign, which has started airing a radio ad that claims the measure would reduce “the influence of the major parties which are now under the control of the special interests.”

In a display of harmony that would seem unthinkable on other issues, leading state Democrats and Republicans announced a joint campaign to defeat the measure. They had raised $200,000 as of Friday.

“Both political parties in California hate this measure,” said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which tracks state political races. “They like having these little private clubs. But the voters don’t.”

Party leaders say passage of Proposition 14 would invite a slew of unintended consequences, including higher campaign costs and political skullduggery.

“It allows for mischief where Democrats could go and choose the Republican nominee,” said John Burton, chairman of the state Democratic Party.

He said there are Democrats in safe districts who might try to help their party by casting their primary votes for hard-line Republicans who are “so far out” that they could not win a general election.

Under the current system, primary campaigns are less expensive than general elections because candidates have to woo only voters registered in their own party. With an open system, candidates would need to appeal to all voters, sending out a lot more mail and potentially buying expensive air time on radio and TV. The increased costs could drive them deeper into the arms of well-heeled special interests, party leaders say.

Those leaders also take issue with the underlying notion that they are a source of unhealthy division.

“Broad-based political parties are an essential part of our democracy,” said California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring. “The alternative is to have voters divided by … region, or ethnicity or religion.”

Burton, whose Democrats control both chambers of the Legislature, scoffed at the notion that he can call the shots for lawmakers.

“If I had power, this wouldn’t even be on the ballot, because I urged the [Senate president] pro tem and the Assembly speaker not to do it,” he said.

In fact, it was the Legislature that put the measure on the ballot after one lone moderate broke last year’s budget stalemate. Maldonado, then a state senator, agreed to vote for tax increases after legislative leaders agreed to put the open-primary measure before voters.

But the Legislature’s leaders don’t want the measure to pass and are now opposing it. The move won Maldonado a friend in Schwarzenegger, however, and the governor nominated him for the vacant lieutenant governor post.

The confirmation process quickly descended into a partisan fight.

“They came at me from all sides, and it was all driven by the party bosses,” Maldonado said of the roughly 150 days he spent in limbo, waiting for confirmation. “But with the open primary initiative, you would only be accountable to the people.”

While politicians debate the measure’s possible effect, many academics wonder if it would have any noticeable effect. Bruce Cain, a professor of political science at UC Berkeley, said he expected the major parties and big donors would adapt quickly and make sure they have only one credible candidate in each primary.

“As a social scientist, I’m glad that California wants to do another experiment; it generates more papers and more studies,” Cain said. “But I share the prevailing skepticism of my profession that any significant change will come about.”

jack.dolan@latimes.com