Senate

Missouri Senate approves congressional redistricting map

Sept. 12 (UPI) — Republican Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe has the final say on a congressional redistricting map that would split an existing House district seat held by Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II.

The Missouri Senate voted 21-11 on Friday to approve the redistricting map that the state’s House of Representatives already approved, Roll Call reported.

Two GOP members of the Missouri Senate broke ranks and voted against the redistricting measure as several state legislatures scramble to revise their respective district maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts are held by Republicans, which narrows the state GOP’s redistricting options.

The revised map would affect Cleaver’s district in the greater Kansas City area.

Missouri Senate and House members drafted the proposed redistricting legislation during a special session that was convened several weeks after Texas lawmakers approved a redistricting map there, according to NBC News.

California lawmakers likewise have revised the state’s congressional district maps to offset potential GOP gains of up to five seats from the Texas redistricting effort, which California voters would have to approve.

Virtually all of the respective states’ redistricting efforts are expected to face legal challenges.

Source link

Missouri Senate passes Trump-backed plan that could help Republicans win an additional U.S. House seat

Missouri Republicans handed President Trump a political victory Friday, giving final legislative approval to a redistricting plan that could help Republicans win an additional U.S. House seat in next year’s elections.

The Senate vote sends the redistricting plan to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe for his expected signature to make it law. But opponents immediately announced a referendum petition that, if successful, could force a statewide vote on the new map.

“This fight is not over. Missouri voters — not politicians — will have the final say,” said Elsa Rainey, a spokesperson for People Not Politicians, which is leading the referendum effort.

U.S. House districts were redrawn across the country after the 2020 census to account for population changes. But Missouri is the third state to take up mid-decade redistricting this year in an emerging national battle for partisan advantage ahead of the midterm elections.

Republican lawmakers in Texas passed a new U.S. House map last month aimed at helping their party win five additional seats. Democratic lawmakers in California countered with their own redistricting plan aimed at winning five more seats, but it still needs voter approval. Other states could follow with their own redistricting.

Each seat could be critical, because Democrats need to gain just three seats to win control of the House, which would allow them to obstruct Trump’s agenda and launch investigations into him. Trump is trying to stave off a historic trend in which the president’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections.

Republicans currently hold six of Missouri’s eight U.S. House seats. The revised map passed the Republican-led state House earlier this week as the focal point of a special session called by Kehoe that also includes a proposal making it harder for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to win voter approval.

The Republican-led Senate passed both measures Friday after changing the chamber’s rules, then shutting off Democratic opponents.

Kehoe promoted the reshaped districts as a way to amplify “Missouri’s conservative, common-sense values” in Washington.

Trump had pressed Missouri officials to act, asserting on his social media site earlier this week that the Senate “must pass this Map now, AS IS, to deliver a gigantic Victory for Republicans.”

Missouri’s revised map targets a seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by shaving off portions of his Kansas City district and stretching the rest of it into Republican-heavy rural areas. The plan reduces the number of Black and minority residents in Cleaver’s district, partly by creating a dividing line along a street that has served as a historical segregation line between Black and white residents.

Cleaver, who was Kansas City’s first Black mayor, has served in Congress for over 20 years. He won reelection with over 60% of the vote in both 2024 and 2022 under districts adopted by the Republican-led state Legislature after the 2020 census.

Cleaver has said he plans to challenge the new map in court and seek reelection in 2026, regardless of the shape of his district.

Cleaver’s revised Kansas City district would stretch from near the city’s St. James United Methodist Church — which Cleaver once led — 180 miles southeast to include another United Methodist church in rural Vienna. In the neighborhood around Cleaver’s hometown church, where his son is now pastor, about 60% of the residents are Black or a mix of Black and another race, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. By contrast, the area around Vienna has just 11 Black residents out of nearly 2,500 people.

Democratic state Sen. Barbara Washington of Kansas City, who described Cleaver as her longtime pastor, said the new map “erases the voice of my community.”

“Carving up Kansas City and silencing our constituents is terrible,” Washington said.

Kansas City resident Roger C. Williams Jr., a 79-year-old former middle-school principal, said the effort to reshape congressional districts reminds him of the discrimination he witnessed against Black residents while growing up in Arkansas.

“What Republicans are doing now in the state of Missouri is they’re taking me back to a time when I, or people that looked like me, would not have an opportunity, because they wouldn’t have a voice,” he said.

Republican lawmakers said little during Senate debate. But sponsoring state Rep. Dirk Deaton, a Republican, has said the new congressional map splits fewer overall counties and municipalities into multiple districts than the current one.

“It is a better map for the state of Missouri,” Deaton told a Senate committee Thursday. “By really every metric I look at, I feel that way.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Heather Hollingsworth in Kansas City, Mo., and John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., contributed to this report.

Source link

Senate Republicans poised to change rules to speed up Trump’s nominees

Senate Republicans are taking the first steps to change the chamber’s rules on Thursday, making it easier to confirm groups of President Trump’s nominees and overcome Democratic delays.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s move is the latest salvo after a dozen years of gradual changes by both parties to weaken the filibuster and make the nominations process more partisan. He has said the Democrats’ obstruction is “unsustainable” as they have drawn out the confirmation process and infuriated Trump as many positions in his administration have remained unfilled.

Opening up the Senate, Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said that the delays have prevented the Senate from spending time on legislative business.

“We’re going to fix this today, and restore the longtime Senate precedent of expeditious confirmation, and the Senate’s role as first and foremost a legislative body,” Thune said.

Republicans are taking a series of procedural votes Thursday on a group of 48 of Trump’s nominees, and are expected to vote to “overturn the chair,” or change the rules, which takes a simple majority vote. If all goes according to their plan, the nominees — undersecretaries and staff positions for various agencies across the government as well as several ambassadors — could be confirmed by next week.

The rules change effort comes as both parties have obstructed the other’s nominees for years, and as both Republicans and Democrats have advocated speeding the process when they are in the majority. The Republican rules change stops short of speeding up votes on high-level Cabinet officials and lifetime judicial appointments, and it is loosely based on a proposal from Democrats under President Biden.

Republicans have been pushing the rules change since early August, when the Senate left for a monthlong recess after a breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over the confirmation process and Trump told Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer to “GO TO HELL!” on social media.

Democrats have blocked more nominees than ever before as they have struggled to find ways to oppose Trump and the GOP-dominated Congress, and as their voters have pushed them to fight Republicans at every turn. It’s the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn’t allowed at least some quick confirmations.

Schumer has said Democrats are delaying the nominations because Trump’s nominees are “historically bad.”

“If you don’t debate nominees, if you don’t vote on individual nominees, if there’s not some degree of sunlight, what will stop Donald Trump from nominating even worse individuals than we’ve seen to date, knowing this chamber will rubber stamp anything he wishes?” Schumer said Monday.

Schumer told Republicans that they will “come to regret” their action — echoing a similar warning from GOP Leader Mitch McConnell to then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2013, when Democrats changed Senate rules for executive branch and lower-court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations. At the time, Republicans were blocking President Obama’s picks.

Republicans took the Senate majority a year later, and McConnell eventually did the same for Supreme Court nominees in 2017 as Democrats tried to block Trump’s nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“I say to my Republican colleagues, think carefully before taking this step,” Schumer said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Black man shot at while waiting to go to work says South Carolina needs hate crime law

When Jarvis McKenzie locked eyes with the man in the car, he couldn’t understand the hate he saw. When the man picked up a rifle, fired over his head and yelled “you better get running, boy!” as he scrambled behind a brick wall, McKenzie knew it was because he is Black.

McKenzie told his story a month after the shooting because South Carolina is one of two states along with Wyoming that don’t have their own hate crime laws.

About two dozen local governments in South Carolina have passed their own hate crime ordinances as the latest attempt to put pressure on the South Carolina Senate to take a vote on a bill proposing stiffer penalties for crimes driven by hatred of the victims because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or ethnicity.

A decade of pressure from businesses, the survivors of a racist Charleston church massacre that left nine dead, and a few of their own Republicans hasn’t been enough to sway senators.

Local governments pass hate crime laws but with very light penalties

Richland County, where McKenzie lives, has a hate crime ordinance and the white man seen on security camera footage grabbing the rifle and firing through his open car window before driving into his neighborhood on July 24 is the first to face the charge.

But local laws are restricted to misdemeanors with sentences capped at a month in jail. The state hate crimes proposal backed by business leaders could add years on to convictions for assault and other violent crimes.

McKenzie sat in the same spot at the edge of his neighborhood for a year at 5:30 a.m. waiting for his supervisor to pick him up for work. For him and his family, every trip outside now is met with uneasiness if not fear.

“It’s heartbreaking to know that I get up every morning. I stand there not knowing if he had seen me before,” McKenzie said.

Hate crime law efforts have stalled since 2015 racist Charleston church massacre

The lack of a statewide hate crime law rapidly became a sore spot in South Carolina after the 2015 shooting deaths of nine Black worshippers at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. After a summer of racial strife in 2020, business leaders made it a priority and the South Carolina House passed its version in 2021.

But in 2021 and again in the next session in 2023, the proposal stalled in the South Carolina Senate without a vote. Supporters say Republican Senate leadership knows it will pass as more moderate members of their own party support it but they keep it buried on the calendar with procedural moves.

The opposition is done mostly in silence and the bill gets only mentioned in passing as the Senate takes up other items, like in May 2023 when a debate on guidelines for history curriculum on subjects like slavery and segregation briefly had a longtime Democratic lawmaker ask Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey why hate crimes couldn’t get a vote.

“The problem right now is there is a number of people who think that not only is it feel good legislation, but it is bad legislation. It is bad policy not because people support hate but because it furthers division,” Massey responded on the Senate floor.

Supporters say federal hate crime laws aren’t enough

Opponents of a state hate crimes law point out there is a federal hate crimes law and the Charleston church shooter is on federal death row because of it.

But federal officials can’t prosecute cases involving juveniles, they have limited time and resources compared to the state and those decisions get made in Washington, D.C., instead of locally, said Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott who pushed for the hate crime ordinance in his county.

“It’s common sense. We’re making something very simple complicated, and it’s not complicated. If you commit a crime against somebody just because of the hate for them, because of who they are, the religion, etcetera, we know what that is,” Lott said.

Democrats in the Senate were especially frustrated in this year’s session because while senators debated harsher sentences for attacking health care workers or police dogs, hate crimes again got nowhere.

Supporters of a state hate-crime law say South Carolina’s resistance to enact one emboldens white supremacists.

“The subliminal message that says if you’re racist and you want to commit a crime and target somebody for their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whatever it is you can do it here,” said McKenzie’s attorney, Tyler Bailey.

Governor says South Carolina laws provide punishment without new hate crime bill

Republican Gov. Henry McMaster understands why local governments are passing their own hate crime laws, but he said South Carolina’s laws against assaults and other violent crimes have harsh enough sentences that judges can give maximum punishments if they think the main motivation of a crime is hate.

“There’s no such thing as a love crime. There is always an element of hatred or disrespect or something like that,” said the former prosecutor who added he fears the danger that happens when investigators try to enter someone’s mind or police their speech.

But some crimes scream to give people more support in our society, Lott said.

“I think it’s very important that we protect everybody. My race, your race, everybody’s race, your religion, there needs to be some protection for that. That’s what our Constitution gives us,” the sheriff said.

And while the man charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature for shooting at McKenzie faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, the man who was just waiting to go to work feels like the state where he lives doesn’t care about the terror he felt just because of his race.

“I feel like somebody is watching me. I feel like I’m being followed,” McKenzie said. “It spooked me.”

Collins writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Column: Democrats should force a shutdown to save the government

Democrats have to change their ways. Ideally yesterday.

The Democratic Party is the pro-government party, simply speaking, and Republicans the antigovernment party. Democrats want to make the government work for people. Trump-era Republicans might as well wear knock-offs of Melania Trump’s old “I really don’t care. Do U?” jacket. For three decades, as actual and threatened government shutdowns have become routine for Washington funding fights, it’s generally been Republicans who’ve provoked them. For Democrats, shutting down the government goes completely against their brand, against their very DNA.

But what are Democrats to do when the federal government is wholly run by Republicans — in Congress, the executive branch and even the Supreme Court — acting in thrall to a president who in eight months has transformed that government into a plaything for his whims, compulsion for chaos, personal enrichment and political retribution?

What to do when the government has stripped states, cities, universities and federal programs of funding Congress appropriated by law for teaching grants, healthcare, scientific research and so much more, and fired hundreds of thousands of public employees without cause, including federal prosecutors, military lawyers and inspectors general who might blow the whistle on administration lawlessness?

What to do when the government sends masked federal agents to seize people, without warrants, and disappear them into unmarked cars (with at least the temporary, precedent-breaking blessing this week of the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority)?

Do Democrats in Congress vote to keep that government running?

That’s the question they face this month as government funding expires with the fiscal year on Sept. 30: Do enough Democrats give Republicans the votes they need in the Senate to keep the Trump train running on Oct. 1 and beyond?

Despite all that is wrong with that track, the answer to whether to keep going isn’t a simple “Hell, no.”

Shutting down the government hurts Americans who work for it, who receive benefits or need information from it, who visit national parks and veterans’ hospitals — people Democrats seek to help. A shutdown further empowers the president, who gets to decide what’s essential and can stay open. A shutdown hurts the economy in the short term. And as Republicans of the past can attest, a shutdown usually exacts a political price for the party that’s blamed for it.

For all those reasons, when Congress last had to vote to fund the government in March, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York led a small group of fellow Democratic senators in acquiescing to Republicans’ package. Democrats in the House and the party’s voter base erupted in fury. Morale tanked among Democrats spoiling for a fight, and with it the party’s standing in polls.

All but one House Democrat opposed the March funding bill, but the Republican majority narrowly passed it. Under Senate rules, however, the slim Republican majority couldn’t go it alone; they needed a few Democratic votes to reach a 60-vote supermajority and avoid a filibuster. It’s practically the only leverage Democrats have in Donald Trump’s Washington. In March they didn’t use it.

This time should be different.

I say that as someone who reluctantly supported Schumer’s decision six months ago, even as I and many others were infuriated by his ham-handed execution: his party’s lack of a message against the earlier spending bill, Schumer’s mixed signals and then his eleventh-hour surrender. It was because of Democrats’ message-less morass that I supported his action: because Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hadn’t made the Democrats’ case ahead of time so that the party could win a shutdown showdown with Republicans in the court of public opinion.

It might already be too late, with less than three weeks before a new fiscal year, but the Senate and House Democrats must prepare their ground and take a stand. It’s a bad sign that they’re only now huddling, that they weren’t ready with a message and strategy when Congress finally returned after Labor Day from its August recess or, better yet, before Congress left.

But here we are, and now the Democrats should do two things:

First, they must demand that Republicans finally negotiate with them. Outline concise conditions for getting any Democrat’s vote on a government funding bill, whether it’s a stopgap measure to buy more bargaining time or a longer-term bill. Show Americans what Democrats are for, not just that they’re against President Trump. Harp daily on the Democratic demands — say, restoration of healthcare money that was slashed to pay for Republicans’ tax cuts; extension of expiring Obamacare tax credits for lower- and middle-income workers; less money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and more for local police. And elevate new, younger Democrats to spread the word — like first-term Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who tweeted on Monday, as party leaders were still noodling: “If the President wants my vote, he has to negotiate. One place to start is to walk back cuts to health care.”

Second, when Trump and the Republicans inevitably don’t compromise — the president has never met with the Democratic leaders since he took office, and his pre-recess message to Schumer in a social media post was “GO TO HELL” — then Democrats should vote no on funding the government. And hold their ground during a shutdown, even as pressure builds when federal offices close and services lapse.

Senate Democrats’ leverage on spending bills is pointless if Democrats don’t use it. Yes, Schumer was correct in March when he defensively wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the victims of a government shutdown are “the most vulnerable Americans” and communities. But the six months since then have shown that, under Trump, the vulnerable are suffering anyway — as he shutters more and more of the government and the innocent are swept up in, or live in fear of, his dragnets. If Democrats can alter that picture, even a little, a temporary shutdown is worth it.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Source link

Former CDC Director Susan Moranez to testify before Senate

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., seen here at a hearing at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. in September. He allegedly pushed now-former Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, Director Susan Monarez to resign only a month after she was given the job. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 10 (UPI) — Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez will testify before the Senate about the organization she briefly ran.

Monarez will appear on Sept. 17 before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, along with Deb Houry, the former Chief Medical Officer and Deputy Director for Program and Science at CDC. Houry resigned her position to protest Monarez’s termination.

The two are slated to discuss their time at the CDC to offer testimony regarding their take on the state of the agency.

“To protect children’s health, Americans need to know what has happened and is happening at the CDC,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chairperson of the HELP Committee, in a press release Tuesday. “They need to be reassured that their child’s health is given priority. Radical transparency is the only way to do that.”

“[Susan Monarez] is a public health expert with unimpeachable scientific credentials,” Kennedy had said of her at the beginning of August after she was sworn into her role. “I have full confidence in her ability to restore the [CDC’s] role as the most trusted authority in public health and to strengthen our nation’s readiness to confront infectious diseases and biosecurity threats.”

However, Monarez only held her position at the CDC for about four weeks, before allegedly being pushed out because she wouldn’t echo the agenda of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. or remove scientists from the agency because of his plans.

She was fired after refusing to resign.

“Susan Monarez is not aligned with the president’s agenda of Making America Healthy Again,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement to media in regard to her being axed.

“Since Susan Monarez refused to resign despite informing HHS leadership of her intent to do so, the White House has terminated Monarez from her position with the CDC,” he added.

“Parents deserve a CDC they can trust to put children above politics, evidence above ideology and facts above fear,” wrote Monarez in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last week. “I was fired for holding that line.”

Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who formerly led the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and Dr. Daniel Jernigan, who headed the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, also quit the CDC as Kennedy has worked to reshape the vaccine advisory panel to meet his own vaccine policies.

Kennedy, who cancelled approximately $500 million in contracts for mRNA vaccines last month, changed the recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women to receive COVID-19 vaccinations and led the reduction of approval for updated COVID shots this fall to only cover people over 65, or younger Americans with underlying conditions, via the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA.

Source link

Senate Republicans investigate Palisades fire response

Two Senate Republicans have opened yet another investigation into the deadly Palisades fire, adding to a long list of ongoing probes aimed at determining whether local officials prepared sufficiently for the emergency.

The investigation will look at whether emergency preparations were sufficient, including an examination of whether there was enough reservoir water to respond to the deadly wildfire.

Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin announced Monday that they were leading the congressional investigation, which they said is necessary to “uncover and expose the truth” about how the state and local governments responded to the major blaze, which broke out amid hurricane-force winds and quickly overwhelmed firefighting resources.

“Families in this community deserve answers and accountability,” Scott and Johnson wrote in a joint statement.

The new probe is the latest in a string of ongoing investigations into the start of the fire and how officials responded. It comes almost nine months since the fire broke out on Jan. 7, killing 12 and largely destroying Pacific Palisades. That same day, the Eaton fire erupted in Altadena, killing 19 people and devastating the foothill community.

The congressional investigation appears to focus only on the Palisades fire, and will look specifically at what water resources were — or weren’t — available, and why.

The Times first reported that the Santa Ynez Reservoir, located in the heart of Pacific Palisades, was empty when the fire broke out, and remained that way as firefighters experienced dry hydrants and water pressure issues. The 117-million-gallon water storage complex had been closed for repairs to its cover for nearly a year, officials said.

After The Times’ reporting on the reservoir, Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered an investigation into the city’s water system and how it may have hampered firefighting efforts.

Times reporting also exposed poor preparation and deployment by the Los Angeles Fire Department, even as city officials were repeatedly warned about life-threatening winds and red flag conditions. Top brass at the agency decided not to deploy roughly 1,000 available firefighters and dozens of water-carrying engines in advance of the Palisades fire.

The announcement of this federal investigation comes a few weeks after Scott — the former governor of hurricane-prone Florida — met with former reality star Spencer Pratt to tour some of the areas destroyed by the Palisades fire. At the time of their meeting, Pratt, who lost a home in the fire, was demanding a congressional investigation — an action that Scott said he would do his “best to make sure it happens.”

Pratt has also sued the city, alleging it failed to maintain an adequate water supply and other infrastructure.

In recent weeks, Scott has sent letters to several agencies seeking answers about how California used federal funds for wildfire management and response. In an August letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Scott said it appeared that the state and the city of Los Angeles had not used the agency’s funds “wisely or appropriately.”

The response to the January firestorm, particularly in the Palisades, has become a polarizing topic — and rife with misinformation —among national and local political leaders, from President Trump to developer Rick Caruso, a former mayoral contender against L.A.’s current mayor, Karen Bass. Caruso, who owns Palisades Village mall, became an immediate critic of the city’s response, blasting officials for struggling to meet water demands during the fire fight.

But fire and water experts have repeatedly said that the conditions during the fire were unprecedented, and one that no urban water system could have been properly prepared.

Still, understanding what, if anything, went wrong during the Palisades fire appears to have struck somewhat of a bipartisan note. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday said his team will “absolutely welcome” this additional review.

“It complements the thorough investigations already taking place — including by the federal government, the state, and an independent review by the nation’s leading fire experts,” Newsom said in a statement. “From day one, we’ve embraced transparency because Californians deserve nothing less.”

Los Angeles officials last month delayed releasing one of those reports, so as not to interfere with a federal investigation into the cause of the Palisades fire.

The new congressional investigation, which will be led by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, will give senators the power to issue subpoenas and seek documents for the committee’s review.

Source link

Defiant RFK Jr. questions vaccine data, defends record under bipartisan Senate grilling

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s health secretary and a longtime vaccine skeptic, struck a defiant tone Thursday as he faced bipartisan criticism over changes he has made to reorganize federal health agencies and vaccine policies, telling senators that he is determined to “eliminate politics from science.”

In the testy appearance before the Senate Finance Committee, Kennedy repeatedly defended his record in heated exchanges with senators from both parties and questioned data that show the effectiveness of vaccines. In turn, senators accused him of taking actions that contradict his promise seven months earlier that he would do “nothing that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines.”

“Secretary Kennedy, in your confirmation hearing you promised to uphold the highest standard for vaccines. Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned,” Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, a top-ranking Senate Republican and a physician, said during the hearing.

Kennedy forcefully denied that he has limited access to vaccines and defended his record in restoring trust in federal healthcare agencies under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“They deserve the truth and that’s what we’re going to give them for the first time in the history of the agency,” Kennedy told senators.

From the outset, it was expected that Democrats would slam Kennedy’s record. Some of them called on him to resign and accused him of politicizing federal health policy decisions. But three other Republicans, including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was key in advancing Kennedy’s nomination, joined Democrats in criticizing Kennedy’s actions, mostly pertaining to vaccine policy changes.

Thursday’s session marked a peak of bipartisan frustration over a string of controversial decisions by Kennedy that have thrown his department into disarray. Kennedy dismissed an entire advisory panel responsible for vaccine recommendations and replaced its members with known vaccine skeptics. He withdrew $500 million in funding earmarked for developing vaccines against respiratory viruses. And, just last week, he ousted the newly appointed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention following disagreements over vaccine policy.

In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Susan Monarez, the former CDC director, wrote that she was forced out after she declined to recommend people “who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric” to an influential vaccine advisory panel.

At the hearing, Kennedy said Monarez was lying. Instead, he said he fired her because he asked her if she was trustworthy, and she told him, “no.”

He added that he fired all the members of the vaccine panel because it was “plagued with persistent conflicts of interest.”

“We depoliticized it and put great scientists on it from a very diverse group, very, very pro-vaccine,” he claimed.

In questioning, however, members of his own party questioned his support for vaccines. At one point, Cassidy, a physician, read an email from a physician friend who said patients 65 and older need a prescription to get a COVID-19 shot.

“I would say effectively we are denying people vaccines,” Cassidy said.

“You’re wrong,” Kennedy responded.

In that same exchange, Cassidy asked Kennedy if he believed President Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for his administration’s work on Operation Warp Speed, the initiative that sped the development of the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments.

“Absolutely,” Kennedy said.

Cassidy said he was surprised at his answer because he believes Kennedy is trying to restrict access to the COVID-19 vaccine. He also expressed dismay at Kennedy’s decision to cancel $500 million in contracts to develop vaccines using mRNA technology, which Cassidy said was key to the operation.

Kennedy’s position on vaccines have reverberated beyond Capitol Hill.

Ahead of the hearing, more than 1,000 employees at the health agency and national health organizations called on Kennedy to resign. Seemingly in support of Kennedy’s direction, Florida announced plans to become the first state to end all vaccines mandated, including for schoolchildren. And three Democratic-led states — California, Washington and Oregon — have created an alliance to counter turmoil within the federal public health agency.

The states said the focus of their health alliance will be on ensuring the public has access to credible information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Almost as if in a parallel universe, Kennedy told senators on Thursday that his goal was to achieve the same thing, after facing hours of criticism on his vaccine policies.

“I am not going to sign on to something if I can’t make it with scientific certainty,” he said. “It doesn’t mean I am antivax, it just means I am pro-science.”

Source link

Voters have spurned rich candidates for California governor, U.S. Senate

The rich, to paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, are different. In California, they lose a lot of very expensive, very high-profile political races.

Over the past 50-plus years, a half-dozen fabulously wealthy men and women — William Matson Roth, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina among them — have clambered atop their hefty cash piles and, despite any significant political experience, tried to launch themselves into the office of governor or U.S. senator.

Every last one of them failed.

Others with at least some background in elected office — Michael Huffington, Jane Harman, Richard Riordan to name a few — sunk a goodly chunk of their fortunes and came up similarly short in their efforts to win one of California’s top two political posts.

That history is worth noting as the very-well-to-do Rick Caruso eyes a possible entry into the wide-open race to succeed Gavin Newsom. Caruso recently told my colleague Julia Wick he was “very seriously considering” both a gubernatorial run and a second try for Los Angeles mayor.

“I’m running down two parallel paths,” the billionaire developer said. “As we speak, there are teams very busy working on both of those paths.”

(Wealthy businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, another political first-timer, has been campaigning for governor for months, spending liberally to little avail.)

There’s a common disclaimer in the field of investment — “past performance is no guarantee of future returns” — which certainly applies here.

Still, as waiting-for-Caruso replaces waiting-for-Kamala among political gossips, it’s worth asking whether there’s something — floating in the air, mixed in the water or soil — that has made California such an inhospitable place for so many lavishly monied candidates. Unlike, say, Illinois or New Jersey, which elected billionaire neophyte JB Pritzker and multimillionaire Frank Lautenberg, as, respectively, governor and U.S. senator.

Part of the reason could be the particular political climate.

“If you’re the rich outsider, you have to show up in an election cycle where people want the outsider,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who worked for Meg Whitman’s failed 2010 gubernatorial campaign, which cost a cool $180 million.

(Yes, $180 million. The former tech CEO coughed up most of that sum at a time California’s median household income was about $61,000.)

All that lucre couldn’t override the prevailing sentiment among discontented voters who were ready, after nearly eight years of the uber-outsider Arnold Schwarzenegger, to embrace the tried-and-true experience of the reemergent Jerry Brown.

That said, there’s a lengthy enough record of futility to suggest more is at work than the changeable mood of a fickle electorate.

Garry South believes California voters are of two minds when it comes to super-rich candidates. In 1998, the Democratic strategist helped Lt. Gov. Gray Davis maneuver past two moneybags, billionaire former airline executive Al Checchi and Rep. Harman, to win the governor’s race. Four years later, South led Davis’ successful reelection campaign against another multimillionaire newcomer, William Simon Jr.

“Part of them kind of admires someone who went out and made a killing in our capitalistic society … and walked away filthy rich,” South said of voters’ dueling impulses. “But they also have a suspicion that, because of their wealth and because of the benefits that it confers on that person, they don’t really know how the average person lives.”

Call it an empathy gap.

Or, perhaps more aptly, an empathy canyon.

“If somebody has $150 million sitting around they can dump into a campaign for public office,” South said, channeling the skeptical sentiment, “what understanding do they have of my day-to-day life?”

Bill Carrick, a consultant for Harman’s 1998 campaign, agreed it’s incumbent on a rich candidate to “have something substantive to say and be able to articulate why you’re going to make people’s lives better.”

That’s no different than any other office-seeker. But unlike less affluent, more relatable candidates, a billionaire or multimillionaire has a much heavier burden convincing voters they know what they’re talking about and genuinely mean it.

Don Sipple, who helped elect Schwarzenegger governor in California’s 2003 recall election, said wealth often comes with a whiff of privilege and, even more off-putting, an air of entitlement. (To be clear, Schwarzenegger won and replaced Davis because he was Arnold Schwarzenegger, not because of his personal fortune.)

A lot of California’s failed rich candidates, Sipple said, appeared viable — especially to political insiders — “because of their money. And they really didn’t have anything to offer beyond that.”

“It’s the same as somebody who goes out and tries to earn a job,” he went on. “You never deserve it. You’ve got to out and work for it. And I think voters make the distinction.”

Of course, wealth confers certain advantages. Not least is easy access to the extraordinary sum it takes to become well-known in a place with more eligible voters — nearly 27 million, at last count — than the population of all but a handful of states.

California is physically immense, too, stretching approximately 800 miles from north to south, which makes costly advertising the only realistic way to communicate in a statewide top-of-the-ticket contest.

There’s another old aphorism about wealth, credited to the burlesque star and actress, Sophie Tucker. “I’ve been rich,” she famously said, “and I’ve been poor. Rich is better.”

That’s undeniably true, so far as it goes.

The singer and comedian never tried to be governor or a U.S. senator from California.

Source link

Iowa GOP loses supermajority in state Senate after Democrat’s win

Aug. 26 (UPI) — Democrat Catelin Drey is on track to break the GOP supermajority in the Iowa state Senate by flipping a seat previously held by a Republican in a Tuesday special election.

Drey was leading with 55% of the vote to Republican Christopher Prosch’s 44%, according to the unofficial tally by the Woodbury County Auditor’s Office.

Her victory is the latest bright spot for Iowa Democrats ahead of the 2026 elections after seeing their clout in the once competitive state decline over the last decade. It also means that Republicans will lose their two-thirds majority in the chamber, forcing GOP Gov. Kim Reynold to get the support of at least one Democrat for her executive appointments.

Democrat Mike Zimmer won a surprise victory for an eastern Iowa Senate seat in a special election in January, reported the Des Moines Register. That followed a competitive showing for an Iowa House seat and a win for a Cedar Rapids-based House seat in the spring, the paper reported.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin hailed the results in a statement saying they were a sign that voters in the state were ready for a change

“They are putting Republicans on notice and making it crystal clear: any Republican pushing Trump’s unpopular, extreme agenda has no place governing on behalf of Iowa families,” he said.

However, Jeff Kaufmann, chair of the Iowa GOP, dismissed the results in a post on X.

“National Democrats were so desperate for a win that they activated 30,000 volunteers and a flood of national money to win a state Senate special election by a few hundred votes,” he wrote.

Drey, 37, works in marketing and lives in Sioux City with her husband and daughter, according to the Register.

“Overwhelmingly the main frustration point that I am hearing is that we have an affordability crisis, whether that’s housing, child care or healthcare,” Drey said. “And folks are really feeling that in their pocketbooks and in their spending decisions.”

The seat, which includes Sioux City, was previously held by Rocky De Witt who was re-elected in 2022 with nearly 10% of the vote and died in June.

Source link

Texas’ new congressional maps head to governor after Senate OK

Aug. 23 (UPI) — The Texas State Senate has now passed a bill approving new congressional redistricting maps, aimed at giving Republicans more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“The One Big Beautiful Map has passed the Senate and is on its way to my desk, where it will be swiftly signed into law,” Gov Greg Abbott, R-Texas, said in a statement Saturday morning after Bill HB4 was passed in an overnight session.

Texas state House Republicans passed an identical bill Wednesday, despite continued vocal pushback from Democrats who call the move supported by President Donald Trump a power grab. Several times the House failed to reach a quorum because Democrats fled to other states.

“I promised we would get this done, and delivered on that promise,” Abbott said in the statement, calling the legislation “a bill that ensures our maps reflect Texans’ voting preferences.”

The new maps are expected to give the state an extra five Republican seats in the U.S. House in time for the 2026 mid-term elections. The Republicans currently hold a 219-212 advantage with vacancies from the deaths of three Democrats and one GOP member who resigned.

Currently, Texas has 38 congressional districts, 25 of which are controlled by Republicans.

Lawmakers have said they will challenge the move in court.

Congressional maps are traditionally redrawn every decade in conjunction with a new U.S. Census, which is next scheduled to take place in 2030.

Democrats have fought to keep Texas from passing the legislation to bring in new maps. A contingent of state lawmakers left Texas in an attempt to block the bills from passing by making the governing bodies unable to reach quorum, drawing the ire of Abbott and Trump.

“This is not democracy, this is disgraceful,” Democratic State Sen. Sarah Eckhardt said on X after the bill was passed during the overnight legislative session.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is leading a push from Democrats to counteract the Texas move.

Newsom has said his state will respond by redrawing its own congressional maps that would create more seats in the House for Democrats.

“Republicans are determined to rig every rule they can, to break laws, in order to seize power. As Democrats, we have a responsibility to fight back and fight back hard, and that’s what I love about what California is doing,” Newsom said on X earlier in the week.

This week, the California state Assembly and Senate introduced three bills that would allow it to consider holding a special election needed to pass a constitutional amendment. That amendment would allow it to replace existing congregational maps through 2030.

Source link

Texas Senate approves redrawn congressional map favouring Republicans | News

Governor Greg Abbott is expected to quickly sign it into law, though Democrats have vowed to challenge it in court.

The Texas Senate has given final approval to a new Republican-leaning congressional voting map, sending it to Governor Greg Abbott for his signature.

The state senate voted along party lines to pass the map 18-11 shortly after midnight on Saturday, following more than eight hours of heated debate.

President Donald Trump has pushed for the map to help the GOP maintain its slim majority in Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. It has five new districts that would favour Republicans.

Abbott, a Republican, is expected to quickly sign it into law, though Democrats have promised to challenge it in court.

The effort by Trump and Texas’s Republican-majority legislature prompted state Democrats to hold a two-week walkout and kicked off a wave of redistricting efforts across the country.

The weeks-long showdown has roiled the Texas Legislature. Much of the drama unfolded in the House, where the map ultimately passed on Wednesday.

The showdown has also inflamed a broader, state-by-state redistricting battle, with governors from both parties pledging to redraw congressional maps.

California Democrats approved legislation on Thursday calling for a special election in November for residents to vote on a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more House seats next year. Governor Gavin Newsom quickly signed it.

California’s map needs voter approval because, unlike in Texas, a nonpartisan commission normally draws the map to avoid the sort of political battle that is playing out.

On Friday, Abbott called California’s redistricting “a joke” and asserted that Texas’s new map is constitutional but California’s would be overturned.

Trump wants more states to revise maps

On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. The incumbent president’s party usually loses seats in the midterms.

The Texas redraw is already reshaping the 2026 race, with Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett, the dean of the state’s congressional delegation, announcing on Thursday that he will not seek re-election to his Austin-based seat if the new map takes effect.

Under the proposed map, Doggett’s district would overlap with that of another Democratic incumbent, Republican Greg Casar.

Trump has pushed other Republican-controlled states, including Indiana and Missouri, to also revise their maps to add more winnable GOP seats.

Ohio Republicans were also already scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. While some states have their own limitations, there is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade.

The US Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not outlaw partisan gerrymandering, only using race to redraw district lines.

Source link

Sex Club Allegations Drive Senate Candidate From Race

Illinois Republican Jack Ryan gave up his Senate bid Friday, pressured by GOP outrage over sex club allegations in his divorce records.

In the documents released Monday, his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, stated that he had taken her to clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans, where he tried to force her to engage in sex acts in front of strangers.

Ryan, who repeatedly has denied the allegations, said in a statement Friday that it would be nearly impossible to continue his campaign.

“It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” said Ryan, 44. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign — the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”

The state Republican Party has suffered a series of setbacks in recent years, including losing the governorship and many other statewide offices in the 2002 elections.

After the details of the divorce records were released, Illinois Republican leaders were among the first to call for Ryan to bow out.

“You’ve got to wonder why people don’t have the good sense to say to themselves: ‘Well, I’ve got this skeleton in my closet, so I can’t really run for public office,’ ” said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

“A lot of people are extremely naive of the level of scrutiny they will go under when they run for office, particularly people in the private sector,” Cain said. “They assume that the stuff they get away with their private life, they can get away with in public life. And, of course, they’re wrong, wrong, wrong.”

This was the first foray into the political arena for Ryan, a self-made millionaire who had left his career as an investment banker to teach at a Chicago inner-city school.

For months, he has trailed the Democratic candidate, state Sen. Obama Barack.

A poll conducted last month by the Chicago Tribune and WGN-TV showed that Obama held a 22% lead over Ryan.

The impending retirement of Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald drew 15 contenders into the race — seven of whom are millionaires.

It also unleashed a debate about personal morals, drug use and messy divorces.

Multimillionaire Blair Hull, a Democrat, watched his political support plummet during the primary after local media reported that he allegedly had abused and threatened to kill his ex-wife, Brenda Sexton.

After Hull’s marital problems became public last spring, Ryan released part of his divorce records.

But he omitted his ex-wife’s allegations about the sex clubs. Jeri Ryan is best known for her television roles in “Star Trek Voyager” and “Boston Public.”

Jack Ryan at the time said he would not release the remainder of the sealed file out of concern for his young son. His campaign sought to play down the allegations, saying they were nothing more than “an unprecedented smear campaign.”

The Tribune and WLS-TV sued to get access to the full court file.

Last week, a Los Angeles judge ordered the material be made public.

Ryan has said the couple did attend one sex club in Paris, but left because it made them feel uncomfortable.

Illinois Republican leaders said they already were considering candidates to replace Ryan on the ballot in November, among them former state Board of Education Chairman Ron Gidwitz, state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger and dairy owner Jim Oberweis.

Gidwitz and Oberweis lost to Ryan in the March primary.

“We intend to fight for this seat,” said Judy Baar Topinka, chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party. “We will have a good candidate, a winning candidate.”

Beckham reported from Chicago and Huffstutter from Milwaukee.

Source link

State Senate Race May Boil Down to Style

It may come down to a matter of style in the race between Assemblymen Scott Wildman and Jack Scott, who are vying for the Democratic nomination to fill the state Senate seat vacated by Adam Schiff.

Do voters want Scott, the genteel former college president with a soft Texas twang, or do they want Wildman, the hyperkinetic, attention-grabbing former fourth-grade teacher?

The winner of the March 7 Democratic primary for the 21st state Senate district will probably face a tough fight against well-funded Republican Paul Zee.

The race is widely viewed as a significant contest because it is one of just five open Senate seats this year that are up for grabs by either party. Democrats currently hold the Senate majority in Sacramento with 25 seats, while the Republicans have 15.

South Pasadena’s Councilman Zee is the GOP front-runner in the traditionally swing district, according to political observers. He is running against engineer Dave Wallis.

The 21st Senate district includes parts of the east San Fernando Valley, Burbank, Glendale, the Los Angeles communities of Los Feliz, Eagle Rock, Silver Lake and Griffith Park, and the city of Pasadena.

After three years, Schiff is leaving the state Senate to run against incumbent Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale) in a hotly contested battle for the 27th congressional district seat, which includes some of the same areas.

Zee, a businessman who emigrated from Hong Kong in 1977, has raised $512,000 to date–almost as much as Scott, who has raised about $570,000, and significantly more than Wildman, who has raised about $400,000.

Bob New is running unopposed for the Libertarian Party nomination.

The 21st district was once a Republican stronghold, but a recent influx of Latino and Asian voters has contributed to a decrease in GOP registration of six percentage points since Schiff’s win in 1994. Democrats now comprise 44% of the 393,882 registered voters in the district, to the Republicans’ 36%.

In such a tight race, victory could hinge on factors as seemingly inconsequential as voter turnout, the candidates’ ability to take advantage of the district’s recent demographic changes, and the number of moderate and crossover votes up for grabs in an open presidential primary, political observers said.

The candidate who can woo the growing Latino vote could have an edge, said Alan Heslop, the director of Claremont McKenna College’s Rose Institute, which analyzes local politics and demographics.

“I think it’s really a style difference,” said Rick Taylor, a political consultant, who believes a Democrat will win the race in November.

“Scott is a more soft-spoken leader, doing things quietly,” Taylor said. “Wildman is more of a wild man–loud and good at grabbing the headlines and creating media opportunities. Both have been very effective.”

Scott and Wildman’s voting records and legislation are similar, and their issues–both centered on education–often overlap.

Both Democratic candidates have basked in the public spotlight this last year–Scott for successful gun control legislation, and Wildman for voicing loud opposition against finishing the $200-million Belmont Learning Complex, which the Los Angeles Unified school board scrapped last week.

But a day on the campaign trail with each illuminates their disparate styles.

On a recent Saturday the 67-year-old Scott headed over to Los Feliz with his wife, Lacreta, to introduce himself to voters in Wildman’s Assembly district. He drove a clean, gold Buick LeSabre, and dressed like an escaped academic, wearing comfortable walking shoes, khakis and a plaid shirt.

He carried his campaign literature neatly in a bag and had carefully mapped out the neighborhood he will canvass.

Scott said his issues are public education, gun control and consumer and patient rights.

The avuncular assemblyman, who attended Yale University and Claremont Graduate School, said seven years as president of Pasadena City College taught him to be fiscally responsible. Earlier in his education career he served as president of Cypress College and was dean of instruction at Orange Coast College.

Scott, whose 27-year-old son Adam was killed when a gun went off accidentally at a party in 1993, has had seven firearms bills signed into law since he was elected in 1996.

He helped author and pass legislation to ban assault weapons, and require trigger locks. He is working to require a safety course and license for handgun buyers. He has also worked to reduce class sizes, improve the training and recruitment of teachers and expand charter schools.

Scott also wrote the first HMO reform bill signed into California law.

Wildman does his campaigning on the fly, between meetings, squeezing it in when he has time. During the week, he works the phones from Sacramento, calling long distance back to his home district, trying to win votes.

On a recent Sunday afternoon he went out for an hour with a staff member. He wore scuffed cowboy boots, jeans and a jacket. The sunroof was open on his dirt-flecked Mitsubishi sedan. Precarious piles of campaign literature balanced in the driver’s seat. The radio blared the pop music of Matchbox 20.

He headed for a Burbank neighborhood where he said his support wasn’t as strong as it should have been in the last election.

Unlike Scott, who knocked only on the doors of registered Democrats in an effort to cover more ground, Wildman marched to the door of every registered voter, regardless of party affiliation.

Wildman said his issues are education, patients rights, law enforcement and preserving local jobs.

Wildman, 49, spent his early career in the printing business. He later became a fourth-grade bilingual teacher and was a leader with United Teachers-Los Angeles. He continues to have strong ties with the union group.

In the Assembly he has written laws to increase school safety and expand teacher training. He has been outspoken in the fight to keep the film industry from fleeing to cheaper locations, proposing a 10% tax rebate for companies that keep production in California.

He has served as chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee since 1997–initially churning out so many press releases his Democrat colleagues asked him to calm down. He is questioning the planned expansion of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill in Granada Hills.

Wildman explains the difference between him and his colleagues like this: “It’s more than a difference in style, I have a different level of activity.”

Scott has the backing of nine state legislators, while Wildman has garnered union support from the state level down–a factor observers say could help him in a race with low voter turnout.

Source link

Senate Police Seize Packwood for Quorum Call

Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) was seized by Senate police in the wee hours of Wednesday morning and carried into the Senate to answer a quorum call, but he was in good humor after the incident, joking: “I rather enjoyed it. I instructed four of my staff to get a sedan chair.”

Other Republicans, however, bridled at the arrest, which took place as Democratic and Republican lawmakers staged a lengthy fight over legislation that would limit spending on congressional elections. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said the action made the chamber look like “a banana republic.”

The incident–during which Packwood was carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by three plainclothes officers–highlighted the unusual intensity of the fight over the bill. Although Senate rules allow the sergeant-at-arms to compel absent members to attend sessions, it was the first time the procedure had been used since a 1942 filibuster over civil rights.

Vote Planned Friday

Senate leaders plan to vote Friday in an attempt to end Republican stalling tactics, but their strategists concede that campaign finance reform is probably dead for the rest of the year. Supporters of the bill vowed Wednesday to try to make it an election issue in the fall.

The arrest incident occurred after Senate aides began bringing cots into the cloakrooms behind the chamber late Tuesday night. Republicans walked out in an attempt to deprive the Senate of a quorum and shut down the chamber for the night. Democrats responded by voting, 45 to 3, on a motion by Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) to order the Senate police to search out missing members and compel them to attend.

Armed with arrest warrants for all 46 Republicans, the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms, Henry Giugni, and his men began to search the corridors of the Capitol and the Senate office buildings. After checking several empty offices, they spotted Sen. Steve Symms (R-Ida.) but he fled down a hallway and escaped arrest. Then a cleaning woman tipped them that Packwood was in his office, and Giugni–a burly former Hawaii vice officer–opened the door with a passkey.

Bruised Knuckles

Packwood tried to shove the door closed, but Giugni and two of his assistants pushed it open. The senator, who hurt his left arm in an accident two weeks ago and has been wearing a cast since then, tried to use his left hand to keep the door shut, bruising his knuckles in the process.

“It was their mass against my mass,” Packwood said. “Except for the honor of it, I’d rather walk.”

Later in the day, an X-ray showed no serious injury. Packwood proudly displayed his cast and gauze-wrapped left hand to reporters as he described the arrest.

Packwood Forgiving

At a news conference attended by Giugni, Packwood said: “This man deserves accolades, not criticisms.”

Democratic senators, however, were not so forgiving.

Byrd served notice that he had run out of patience. “Senators are supposed to be grown-ups, not kids. They’re supposed to come to the Senate floor to vote,” Byrd told reporters, calling the incident a “sideshow” designed to divert attention from the substantive issues.

Republican attempts to kill the campaign financing bill–which would restrict election spending, provide limited public funds for congressional campaigns and cut back contributions by political action committees–began last spring.

But until this week, Democratic leaders had allowed the Republicans to conduct a “gentlemanly filibuster,” debating the bill for a few hours every few weeks, then setting it aside.

On Tuesday, Byrd said he would put the Republicans to the test of an old-fashioned, non-stop, talk-all-night filibuster. “There is no point in having an easy, gentlemanly filibuster back in the cloakrooms,” he said. “Let’s have it right out here on the Senate floor where the American people can see it.”

Supporters of the bill say it is needed to reduce the power of special-interest money in congressional elections. Opponents say that spending limits would entrench incumbents because challengers generally need to spend more money to become well enough known to beat a sitting lawmaker.

Source link

One of California’s best-known Republicans is backing Democrat Loretta Sanchez for Senate. Here’s why

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is supporting his colleague Rep. Loretta Sanchez in this fall’s Senate race, a contest that pits two Democrats against each other and gives GOP voters no obvious choice.

The two appeared together in Issa’s congressional district this week, giving Sanchez an opportunity to publicize her expertise on national defense in a part of the state where she needs to do well with Democrats, Republicans and independents alike if she hopes to overtake her rival, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris.

For Issa, the bipartisan event may help soften his image as congressional Republican leadership’s attack dog on the Obama administration.

He said that despite their differences on most issues facing the nation, he respects Sanchez’s knowledge of military and world affairs and they both support efforts to keep the country safe.

Reps. Mike Turner, left, Darrell Issa, Loretta Sanchez and Scott Peters hold a news conference in Oceanside.

Reps. Mike Turner, left, Darrell Issa, Loretta Sanchez and Scott Peters hold a news conference in Oceanside.

(Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times )

The Vista Republican said that background makes the choice clear for Republicans and other voters about whom to support Nov. 8.

Hurting for support in her own party, Rep. Loretta Sanchez tilts her Senate campaign to the right >>

“I’ve already long ago figured out that Loretta Sanchez, her work on national security, probably tips the scale for a lot of us,” Issa told The Times. “She’s also very well aware of our problems with water. So those are, in my particular case, making a difference that is pretty measurable.”

The comments were made after he and Sanchez toured San Diego military installations, saying they found common ground when it comes to national defense and protecting the troops.

The visit also provided both with ample, mostly positive news coverage in a region loaded with Navy and Marine bases and defense contractors, an added benefit for two politicians facing tough elections.

“There’s nothing wrong with coming back and paying attention to your district. I think all congressmen should do that,” said San Diego Republican political consultant Jennifer Jacobs. “Yes, it will be good for his constituents, and, yes, I’m sure it will help him with the voters.”

Election 2016 | California politics news feed | Sign up for the newsletter

They were in the region as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation assessing the needs of the military. Joining them were Reps. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) and Scott Peters (D-San Diego). Sanchez, Turner and Peters are members of the House Armed Services Committee. Issa’s district includes the Camp Pendleton Marine base, and he is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The four joined together for a news conference in Oceanside to voice concerns about the aging Marine Corps F-18 Hornet aircraft. So many planes are out of service for maintenance that pilot flying time has been seriously curtailed, they said.

Although they all insisted that the event was not political, it provided a dose of positive publicity. Their concerns were aired on two local television stations and picked up by the San Diego Union-Tribune.

“What most people don’t understand, because they see politics and Republicans and Democrats fighting all the time, the reality is that we need to do our work in the Congress,” Sanchez said after the tours, which were not open to the media. “And to do that you have to work with both sides of the aisle, and that’s what we do especially on the military committee.’’

Issa’s Democratic challenger in his 49th congressional district, retired Marine Col. Doug Applegate, has criticized the congressman as a Washington insider not mindful of the people he represents in a race that has drawn attention as a potential surprise this fall.

[email protected]

Twitter: @philwillon

ALSO:

Issa challenger came out of nowhere, raised more money

Hurting for support in her own party, Rep. Loretta Sanchez tilts her Senate campaign to the right

Obama, Biden endorse Kamala Harris for U.S. Senate

Updates on California politics

Source link

Contributor: Of course Trump wants to flex on D.C. Where are the Democrats to stop him?

Remember “I alone can fix it”? Donald Trump, who made that laughable statement in his 2016 convention acceptance speech, is now testing the theory in Washington.

Trump and his party have been threatening a D.C. takeover for years and made it part of the Republican platform last year. But it was all just empty talk and random uppercase words until a former staffer at the Department of Government Efficiency was reportedly attacked in an attempted carjacking in the wee hours of Aug. 3 in a busy area of bars and restaurants.

It doesn’t matter at all to Trump that D.C.’s violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low last year and is down another 26% so far this year compared with 2024, or that a police report suggests police saw the incident and intervened. This particular victim — a teenage Elon Musk protégé and notorious DOGE operative — gave this particular president the “emergency” he needed to declare a “public safety emergency.”

Of course, he called it “a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.” He has federalized the city’s Metropolitan Police Department and deployed 800 members of its National Guard (to start). Over the weekend he sent 450 federal police officers from 18 agencies to patrol the city.

It’s the second time this year that Trump has played the National Guard card to show who’s boss. He sent 4,000 Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, ostensibly to restore order amid immigration raids. But the move sparked new tensions, protests and at least one surreal foray by armed, masked agents into a park where children were attending summer camp. It also drew a legal challenge from Newsom, which is unfolding in court this week.

There will be no similar lawsuit in D.C., where I’ve lived for decades. That’s because the U.S. president controls our National Guard. The hard truth is that though Wyoming and Vermont each have fewer people than D.C.’s 700,000-plus residents, D.C. is not a state. It’s still in a semi-colonial status, with a mayor and city council whose actions can be nullified by Congress, and with no voting representation in that Congress.

In fact, Congress accidentally slashed $1.1 billion from D.C.’s budget — our own money, not federal dollars! — in its cost-cutting frenzy last spring. A promised fix never came, forcing cuts that affect public safety and much else. And yet the city’s crime rate has continued to fall.

Compared with California, an economic juggernaut of more than 39 million people located thousands of miles from Washington, D.C. is a minuscule and all too convenient target for an executive aiming to prove his manhood, show off to autocrats in other countries or create headlines to distract from news he doesn’t like.

I could go off on Trump for his lies, overreach and disrespect for D.C. and its right to govern itself. Or the various Republicans who have imposed conservative policies on D.C. for years and now are trying to repeal its home rule law.

But what really enrages me is the lack of Democratic nerve — or even bravado — that has left D.C. so vulnerable to Trump and conservative-run Congresses. Where was the modern-day Lyndon Johnson (the “master of the Senate,” in Robert Caro’s phrase) in 2021, to whip support in the narrowly Democratic Senate after the House passed a D.C. statehood bill for the second year in a row?

Trump has no mastery beyond bullying and bribery — but those tactics are working fine with Congress, corporations, law firms, academia and sovereign nations across the globe. As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich put it last week: “You have this rock standing in the middle of history called Donald Trump. And he’s saying: ‘Do you want to do it my way, or do you want to be crushed? I prefer you do it my way, but if you have to be crushed, that’s OK.’ ”

Gingrich correctly characterized most responses to Trump as “You know, I’ve always wanted to be part of the team,” and added: “If he can sustain this, he’s moving into a league that, other than Washington and Lincoln, nobody has gotten to the level of energy, drive and effectiveness that we see with Trump.”

Unfortunately, Trump is aiming to speed-raze what Washington and Lincoln built. (He keeps claiming it’s “Liberation Day” for D.C., but the last “Liberation Day” — his April 2 tariff announcements — tanked the stock market.) The only conceivable antidote is to elect a mad-as-hell Democratic Congress in 2026 and, in 2028, an arm-twisting, strong-arming, terror-inspiring Democratic president who’s in a hurry to get things done. Someone who’s forceful, persuasive and resolved to use the power they have while they have it.

The top priorities, beyond reversing as much institutional and constitutional damage as possible, should be structural: Supreme Court term limits and ethics rules with teeth, a national gerrymandering ban, a sensible and uniform national voter ID policy, and minimum national standards for early voting and mail voting — to protect the will of the people and the republic itself.

Equally important, make D.C. the state of Douglass Commonwealth, named after the abolitionist Frederick Douglass rather than the colonizing Christopher Columbus. Rural America has wielded disproportionate power since the late 1800s, when Republicans added sparsely populated states and permanently skewed the Senate. Two new D.C. senators would help correct that imbalance.

The problem is that the next president, or even the next Congress, might arrive too late for D.C. Trump has already begun the federal takeover he has threatened so often for so many years. He took over the Kennedy Center. He took over Congress. We should have expected we’d be next.

Back in March, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) proposed that D.C. seek temporary sanctuary with Maryland, which ceded most of the land to create the capital in the first place. “You’d definitely be safer,” he said he told Mayor Muriel Bowser.

That offer, joke or not, practical or not, is looking increasingly inviting by the day.

Jill Lawrence is a writer and author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” @jilldlawrence.bsky.social

Source link

August recess can’t hide tensions ahead for Congress on spending and Trump nominations

Lawmakers have left Washington for the annual August recess, but a few weeks of relative quiet on the U.S. Capitol grounds can’t mask the partisan tensions that are brewing on government funding and President Trump’s nominees. It could make for a momentous September.

Here’s a look at what’s ahead when lawmakers return after the Labor Day holiday.

A bitter spending battle ahead

Lawmakers will use much of September to work on spending bills for the coming budget year, which begins Oct. 1. They likely will need to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the government funded for a few weeks while they work on a longer-term measure that covers the full year.

It’s not unusual for leaders from both parties to blame the other party for a potential shutdown, but the rhetoric began extra early this year, signaling the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual.

On Monday, Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent their Republican counterparts a sharply-worded letter calling for a meeting to discuss “the government funding deadline and the health care crisis you have visited upon the American people.”

They said it will take bipartisanship to avert a “painful, unnecessary shutdown.”

“Yet it is clear that the Trump Administration and many in your party are preparing to go it alone and continue to legislate on a solely Republican basis,” said the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Republicans have taken note of the warnings and are portraying the Democrats as itching for a shutdown they hope to blame on the GOP.

“It was disturbing to hear the Democrat leader threaten to shut down the government in his July 8 Dear Colleague letter,” Thune said on Saturday. “… I really hope that Democrats will not embrace that position but will continue to work with Republicans to fund the government.”

Different approaches from the House and Senate

So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills, mostly along party lines. The Senate has passed three on a strongly bipartisan basis. The House is pursuing steep, non-defense spending cuts. The Senate is rejecting many of those cuts. One side will have to give. And any final bill will need some Democratic support to generate the 60 votes necessary to get a spending measure to the finish line.

Some Democratic senators are also wanting assurances from Republicans that there won’t be more efforts in the coming weeks to claw back or cancel funding already approved by Congress.

“If Republicans want to make a deal, then let’s make a deal, but only if Republicans include an agreement they won’t take back that deal a few weeks later,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., a veteran member of the House Appropriations committee, said the Democratic minority in both chambers has suffered so many legislative losses this year, “that they are stuck between a rock and their voting base.” Democrats may want to demonstrate more resistance to Trump, but they would rue a shutdown, he warned.

“The reality would be, if the government were shut down, the administration, Donald Trump, would have the ability to decide where to spend and not spend,” Fleischmann said. “Schumer knows that, Jeffries knows that. We know that. I think it would be much more productive if we start talking about a short-term (continuing resolution.)”

Republicans angry about pace of nominations

Republicans are considering changes to Senate rules to get more of Trump’s nominees confirmed.

Thune said last week that during the same point in Joe Biden’s presidency, 49 of his 121 civilian nominees had been confirmed on an expedited basis through a voice vote or a unanimous consent request. Trump has had none of his civilian nominees confirmed on an expedited basis. Democrats have insisted on roll call votes for all of them, a lengthy process than can take days.

“I think they’re desperately in need of change,” Thune said of Senate rules for considering nominees. “I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations, is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.”

Schumer said a rules change would be a “huge mistake,” especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward.

The Senate held a rare weekend session as Republicans worked to get more of Trump’s nominees confirmed. Negotiations focused on advancing dozens of additional Trump nominees in exchange for some concessions on releasing some already approved spending.

At times, lawmakers spoke of progress on a potential deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told Republicans to pack it up and go home.

“Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

Source link

Mitch McConnell’s legacy comes under fire in Kentucky race to replace him in the Senate

Republican Nate Morris had deftly warmed up a crowd of party faithful, gushing about President Donald Trump and recounting his own life’s journey — from hardscrabble childhood to wealthy entrepreneur — when he turned his attention to the man he wants to replace, Sen. Mitch McConnell.

That’s when things got feisty. While bashing Kentucky’s longest-serving senator at a GOP dinner on the eve of Saturday’s Fancy Farm picnic, a tradition-laden stop on the state’s political circuit, Morris was cut off in midsentence by a party activist in the crowd, who noted that McConnell isn’t seeking reelection and pointedly asked Morris: “What are you running on?”

Morris touted his hard line stance on immigration and defended Trump’s tariffs as a boon for American manufacturing. But he didn’t retreat from his harsh critique of McConnell.

“We’ve seen 40 years of doing it the same way,” Morris said. “And, yes, he’s not on the ballot, but his legacy is on the ballot. Do you want 40 more years of that? I don’t think you do.”

McConnell’s blunt-force approach used against him

The pushback from a county GOP chairman revealed the political risks of attacking the 83-year-old McConnell in the twilight of his career. Towering over Kentucky politics for decades, McConnell is regarded as the master strategist behind the GOP’s rise to power in a state long dominated by Democrats. The state Republican headquarters bears McConnell’s name. As the longest-serving Senate party leader in U.S. history, McConnell guided Republican policymaking and helped forge a conservative Supreme Court. Back home, his appropriating skills showered Kentucky with federal funding.

Now, his blunt-force style of campaigning — which undercut so many foes — is being used against him.

Morris is running against two other prominent Republicans — U.S. Rep. Andy Barr and former state Attorney General Daniel Cameron — for McConnell’s seat. The outcome will be decided in the spring primary next year. Kentucky hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since Wendell Ford in 1992.

All three Republican hopefuls lavish praise on Trump — in hopes of landing his endorsement — but also have ties to McConnell, who mentored generations of aspirational Republicans. Cameron and Barr have chided McConnell at times, but it’s been mild compared to Morris’ attacks. Morris interned for McConnell but glosses over that connection.

McConnell pushes back

At events surrounding the Fancy Farm picnic, an event long known for caustic zingers that he has always relished, McConnell showed no sign of backing down.

“Surely this isn’t true, but I’ve heard that one of the candidates running for my office wants to be different,” McConnell told a Republican crowd that included Morris at a pre-picnic breakfast in Mayfield. “Now, I’m wondering how you’d want to be different from the longest-serving Senate leader in American history. I’m wondering how you’d want to be different in supporting President Trump.”

McConnell received multiple standing ovations. Morris stayed seated.

McConnell has consistently voted for Trump’s policies more often than Kentucky’s other Republican senator, Rand Paul, according to a Congressional Quarterly voting analysis. McConnell recently supported Trump’s signature tax and spending measure. Paul opposed it, saying it would drive up debt.

Yet Morris has taken on McConnell, who has famously had an up-and-down relationship with Trump.

McConnell teamed with Trump to put conservatives on the federal bench and pass tax cuts during the president’s first term. McConnell also guided the Senate — and Trump — through two impeachment trials that ended in acquittals. But the relationship was severed after McConnell blamed Trump for “disgraceful” acts in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack by Trump’s supporters.

McConnell endorsed Trump in 2024, but in a biography by Michael Tackett of The Associated Press, released shortly before the election, McConnell described him as “a despicable human being.”

Running against career politicians

Morris, who started a waste management technology company, says the senator has been insufficiently loyal to Trump and allowed festering issues like immigration and the national debt to grow worse during his years in Senate leadership.

Morris wants to tether his opponents to McConnell while running on anti-establishment themes that his campaign thinks will appeal to legions of Trump supporters in the Bluegrass State.

“Let’s face it, folks, career politicians have run this country off a cliff,” Morris said.

Morris’ rivals sum up the anti-McConnell attacks as an angry, backward-looking message. Cameron called it a diversionary tactic to obscure what he said is Morris’ lack of both a message and credibility as a supporter of Trump’s MAGA movement.

“He can’t talk about his actual record. So he has to choose to pick on an 83-year-old,” Cameron said.

At Fancy Farm, where candidates hurl insults at one another against a backdrop of bingo games and barbecue feasts, Morris took a swipe at McConnell’s health.

“I have a serious question: who here can honestly tell me that it’s a good thing to have a senior citizen who freezes on national television during his press conferences as our U.S. senator?” Morris said. “It seems, to me, maybe just maybe, Mitch’s time to leave the Senate was a long time ago.”

McConnell had his customary front-row seat for much of the event but wasn’t there for Morris’ remarks. He typically leaves before all the speeches are delivered and exited before his would-be successors spoke.

Living by the sword

McConnell complimented Trump in his speech, singling out Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites.

“He turned Iran’s nuclear program into a pile of rocks,” McConnell, a steadfast advocate for a muscular U.S. foreign policy, said to cheers.

At the GOP dinner the night before in Calvert City, where candidates typically are more politely received, party activist Frank Amaro confronted Morris for his anti-McConnell barrage.

“He keeps bashing Mitch McConnell like he’s running against Mitch McConnell,” Amaro, a county Republican chairman, said afterward. “Overall, he’s helped Kentucky and the United States, especially our Supreme Court, more than any other U.S. senator in this country.”

But Morris’ blistering assessment of McConnell hit the mark with Trump supporter Patrick Marion, who applied the dreaded Republican-in-Name-Only label to McConnell.

“Personally, I think Mitch has been a RINO for way too long,” Marion said later. “I don’t think he was a true MAGA supporter of President Trump.”

Afterward, Morris was in no mood to back off.

“He’s the nastiest politician maybe in the history of this state if not in the history of this country,” Morris said of McConnell. “Look, you live by the sword, you die by the sword.”

Schreiner writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Senate confirms former Fox host Jeanine Pirro as top prosecutor

Aug. 3 (UPI) — The Senate has confirmed former Fox News TV host and Donald Trump supporter Jeanine Pirro as the top U.S. federal prosecutor.

Pirro, a former New York state district attorney and county judge, was confirmed along party lines 50-45 Saturday. She was among a host of staunch Trump backers who claimed the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump due to fraudulent voting. There was no evidence to support that claim.

Pirro said in a statement that she was “blessed” to have been confirmed by lawmakers and said in a statement to “get ready for a real crime fighter.”

Pirro used her platform as a host of the Fox New “Justice with Jeanine” host to purvey a baseless conspiracy theory that the election was stolen from Trump, and later became co-host of the Fox show “The Five.”

In 2021, Pirro was among five defendants named in a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems, accusing the network of knowingly promoting false claims about the company’s voting machines used to tabulate votes in the election.

Fox eventually settled the lawsuit with Dominion for $785 million and acknowledged that claims about a fraudulent election were false.

President Donald Trump nominated Pirro in May, calling her a “powerful crusader for victims of crime,” and, in a social media post, a person who “excelled in all ways.”

“Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position,” Trump wrote in the post.

At the end of Trump’s first term, he pardoned Pirro’s husband, Albert Pirro, Jr., who had been convicted in 2000 on charges of fraud and tax evasion.

Criticism of the nomination was swift and exacting. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., saying “blind obedience to Donald Trump is nearly unrivaled among his ardent supporters.”

“For an important prosecutorial position like this one, the country has a right to demand a serious and principled public servant,” Schiff added. “Jeanine Pirro is not it.”

The Senate adjourned for a monthlong recess Saturday having failed to advance dozens of other Trump nominees.

Trump reacted on social media, telling Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to “Go to Hell!”

Source link