ReportWire

Tag: Democrats

  • Former VP Kamala Harris offers few regrets about failed presidential campaign at first L.A. book event

    [ad_1]

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris offered a spirited defense of her short, unsuccessful 2024 presidential bid, lamented the loss of voters’ faith in institutions and urged Democrats to not become dispirited on Monday as she spoke at the first hometown celebration of her new book about her roller-coaster campaign.

    She appeared to take little responsibility for her loss to President Trump in 2024 while addressing a fawning crowd of 2,000 people at The Wiltern in Los Angeles.

    “I wrote the book for many reasons, but primarily to remind us how unprecedented that election was,” Harris said about “107 Days,” her political memoir that was released last week. “Think about it. A sitting president of the United States is running for reelection and three and a half months before the election decides not to run, and then a sitting vice president takes up the mantle to run against a former president of the United States who has been running for 10 years, with 107 days to go.”

    She dismissed Trump’s claims that his 2024 victory was so overwhelming that it was a clear mandate by the voters

    “And by the way, can history reflect on the fact that it was the closest presidential election?” Harris said, standing from her seat on the stage, as the audience cheered. “It is important for us to remember so that we that know where we’ve been to decide and chart where we are.”

    Trump beat Harris by more than 2.3 million votes — about 1.5% of the popular vote — but the Republican swept the electoral college vote, winning 312-226. Other presidential contests have been tighter, notably the 2000 contest between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. Gore won the popular vote by nearly 544,000 votes but Bush won the electoral college vote 271-266 in a deeply contentious election that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Harris, faulted for failing to connect with voters about their economic pain in battleground states in the Midwest and Southwest, criticized former President Biden about his administration’s priorities. She said she would have addressed kitchen table issues before legislation about infrastructure and semiconductor manufacturing.

    “I would have done the family piece first, which is affordable childcare, paid leave, extension of the child tax credit,” she said, basic issues facing Americans who “need to just get by today.”

    Harris spoke about her book in conversation with Jennifer Welch and Angie “Pumps” Sullivan, the hosts of the “I’ve Had It” podcast and former cast members of the Bravo series “Sweet Home Oklahoma.”

    Attendees paid up to hundreds or thousands of dollars on the resale market for tickets to attend the event, part of a multi-city book tour that began last week in New York City. The East Coast event was disrupted by protesters about Israeli actions in Gaza. Harris is traveling across the country and overseas promoting her book.

    The former vice president’s book tour is expect to be a big money maker.

    Harris’ publisher recently added another “107 Days” event at The Wiltern in Los Angeles on Oct. 28.

    The Bay Area native touched upon current news events during her appearance, which lasted shortly over an hour.

    About the impending federal government shutdown, Harris said Democrats must be clear that the fault lies squarely with Republicans because they control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

    “They are in power,” she said, arguing that her party must stand firm against efforts to cut access to healthcare, notably the Affordable Care Act.

    She also ripped into Trump for his social media post of a fake AI-generated video of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The video purports to show Schumer saying that Latino and Black voters hate Democrats, so the party must provide undocumented residents free healthcare so they support the party until they learn English and “realize they hate us too.” Jeffries appears to wear a sombrero as mariachi music plays in the background.

    “It’s juvenile,” Harris said. Trump is “just a man who is unbalanced, he is incompetent and he is unhinged.”

    Harris did not touch on the issues she wrote in her book that caused consternation among Democrats, such as not selecting former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to be her running mate because she did not believe Americans were ready to support a presidential ticket with a biracial woman and a gay man. She also did not mention her recounting of reaching out to Gov. Gavin Newsom after Biden decided not to seek reelection, and him not responding to her beyond saying he was out hikinG.

    Harris lamented civic and corporate leaders caving to demands from the Trump administration.

    Among those Trump targeted were law firms that did work for his perceived enemies.

    “I predicted almost everything,” she said. “What I did not predict was the capitulation of universities, law firms, media corporations be they television or newspapers. I did not predict that.”

    She said that while she worked in public service throughout her career, her interactions with leaders in the private sector led her to believe that they would be “among the guardians of our democracy.”

    “I have been disappointed, deeply deeply disappointed by people who are powerful who are bending the knee at the foot of this tyrant,” Harris said.

    Harris did not mention that her husband, Doug Emhoff, is a partner at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher that earlier this year that reached an agreement with the White House to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal work during the Republican’s time in the White House and beyond.

    In April, the firm reached an agreement with the Trump administration, with the president saying their services would be dedicated to helping veterans, Gold Star families, law enforcement members and first responders, and that the law firm agreed to combat antisemitism and not engage in “DEI” efforts.

    Emhoff, who joined the law firm in January and also is now on the has faculty at USC , has condemned his law firm’s agreement with the administration.

    Emhoff, who was in attendance at the event and posing for pictures with Harris supporters, declined comment about the event.

    “I’m just here to support my wife,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Former California Senate leader Toni Atkins drops out of 2026 governor’s race

    [ad_1]

    Toni Atkins, a former California Assembly speaker and former president pro tempore of the State Senate, is withdrawing her campaign to become the state’s next governor.She was among the crowded pool of Democrats hoping to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place once he terms out in 2026. In California, one can only hold the office of governor for two terms.In a Monday message to her supporters, she said it’s important that California Democrats be united in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.”That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins said. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory. Though my campaign is ending, I will keep fighting for California’s future.”Atkins is considered an LGBTQ+ trailblazer and was the lead author of a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in California. Voters approved the measure in 2022. “Toni Atkins’ run in this race is only the latest chapter in a career defined by trustworthy service and lifting up others – a legacy that will continue to shape California for generations to come,” shared the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in a statement, in part. “As the first openly LGBTQ+ individual and woman to lead both houses of our State Legislature, and as a proud member of our Caucus, Toni has shattered barriers once thought unbreakable and led with compassion, courage, and conviction. We were proud to support her campaign for governor because it was more than a candidacy – it was a powerful testament to how far our community has come and a beacon for what is possible.”Her withdrawal makes her the second prominent Democrat to drop out of the race, with current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis announcing her dropped gubernatorial campaign in August.Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spent this past summer mulling a run for governor before ultimately deciding against it.Even with Atkins out, several Democrats are still in the race. They include:Former U.S. House Rep. Katie PorterState Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony ThurmondFormer U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier BecerraFormer Los Angeles Mayor Antonio VillaraigosaCalifornia Democratic Party Vice Chair Betty YeeFormer California Assembly Majority Leader Ian CalderonU.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala that he is also not ruling out a run for governor. His term ends in 2029.| RELATED | The full list of who’s running for California governorThe two prominent Republicans are Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton.According to a Berkeley IGS Poll last month, Porter held a small lead as first choice, but nearly twice as many voters were undecided.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Toni Atkins, a former California Assembly speaker and former president pro tempore of the State Senate, is withdrawing her campaign to become the state’s next governor.

    She was among the crowded pool of Democrats hoping to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place once he terms out in 2026. In California, one can only hold the office of governor for two terms.

    In a Monday message to her supporters, she said it’s important that California Democrats be united in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.

    “That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins said. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory. Though my campaign is ending, I will keep fighting for California’s future.”

    Atkins is considered an LGBTQ+ trailblazer and was the lead author of a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in California. Voters approved the measure in 2022.

    “Toni Atkins’ run in this race is only the latest chapter in a career defined by trustworthy service and lifting up others – a legacy that will continue to shape California for generations to come,” shared the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in a statement, in part. “As the first openly LGBTQ+ individual and woman to lead both houses of our State Legislature, and as a proud member of our Caucus, Toni has shattered barriers once thought unbreakable and led with compassion, courage, and conviction. We were proud to support her campaign for governor because it was more than a candidacy – it was a powerful testament to how far our community has come and a beacon for what is possible.”

    Her withdrawal makes her the second prominent Democrat to drop out of the race, with current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis announcing her dropped gubernatorial campaign in August.

    Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spent this past summer mulling a run for governor before ultimately deciding against it.

    Even with Atkins out, several Democrats are still in the race. They include:

    • Former U.S. House Rep. Katie Porter
    • State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond
    • Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra
    • Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
    • California Democratic Party Vice Chair Betty Yee
    • Former California Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon

    U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala that he is also not ruling out a run for governor. His term ends in 2029.

    | RELATED | The full list of who’s running for California governor

    The two prominent Republicans are Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton.

    According to a Berkeley IGS Poll last month, Porter held a small lead as first choice, but nearly twice as many voters were undecided.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know after New York City Mayor Eric Adams ends his reelection bid

    [ad_1]



    What to know after New York City Mayor Eric Adams ends his reelection bid – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced Sunday he’s ending his campaign for reelection. Riley Rogerson from NOTUS and Matt Brown from the Associated Press joined “The Takeout” to discuss the race and some of the day’s other top political headlines.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Democratic Rep. Nikki Buzniski on her party’s health care demands in government funding talks

    [ad_1]



    Democratic Rep. Nikki Buzniski on her party’s health care demands in government funding talks – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    Democratic Rep. Nikki Buzniski of Illinois joins “The Takeout” with her thoughts on negotiations with Republicans to avoid a government shutdown.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Both sides dig in ahead of threatened government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    Washington is barreling toward a government shutdown Tuesday night, with few signs of an off-ramp as Democrats and Republicans dig in for a fight over government spending.

    Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill is insisting on an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as part of a package to fund the government. At least seven Democratic votes are needed in the Senate to pass a seven-week stopgap bill that cleared the House last week.

    But Republican lawmakers and the White House have dismissed the proposal, with senior officials in the Trump administration threatening to use unique legal authorities granted during a government shutdown to conduct yet more mass firings of federal workers.

    Bipartisan congressional leadership met with President Trump at the White House on Monday afternoon in a last-minute effort to avert the crisis. But neither side exited the meeting with expectations of a breakthrough. On the contrary, Republican leaders in the House told the GOP caucus to plan to return to work next week and said they would hold a news conference on Wednesday anticipating the government’s closure.

    “We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of everyday Americans, period, full stop,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Monday.

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer talk to reporters outside the White House.

    (Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

    Vice President JD Vance said he thought the country was “headed to a shutdown,” labeling Democratic calls for healthcare tax credits an “absurd” demand that amounts to an “excuse for shutting down the people’s government.”

    “You don’t use your policy disagreements as leverage to not pay our troops,” Vance said. “That’s exactly what they’re proposing out there.”

    When the government shuts down, the law requires all nonessential government services to cease, requiring most federal workers to go on furlough or work without pay. Essential services — such as national security functions and air traffic control — are not affected.

    Ahead of the meeting, Trump told reporters he hoped Democrats would agree to “keeping our country open,” before proceeding to criticize their proposals.

    “They’re going to have to do some things, because their ideas are not very good ones,” Trump said. “They’re very bad for our country. So we’ll see how that works out.”

    But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he thought his message was beginning to resonate with the president after their meeting Monday afternoon.

    “We have very large differences, on healthcare, and on their ability to undo whatever budget we agree to, through rescissions and through impoundment,” Schumer said. “I think for the first time, the president heard our objections and heard why we needed a bipartisan bill. Their bill has not one iota of Democratic input. That is never how we’ve done this before.”

    “We’ve made to the president some proposals,” Schumer added. “Ultimately, he’s a decision-maker.”

    Schumer faced widespread ridicule from within his party in March after reversing course during the last showdown, choosing then to support the Trump administration’s continuing resolution to fund the government at the height of an aggressive purge of the federal workforce.

    At that point, Schumer feared a shutdown could accelerate the firings. But Schumer is now defiant, despite the renewed threat of layoffs, after the White House Office of Management and Budget circulated a memo last week directing federal agencies to relieve workers on discretionary projects that lose funding after Oct. 1.

    “This is an attempt at intimidation,” Schumer said in response to the memo. “Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one — not to govern, but to scare. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government.”

    Vice President JD Vance talks to reporters as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune listen.

    Vice President JD Vance talks to reporters as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune listen.

    (Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

    Still, Schumer began gauging his caucus Monday afternoon on the prospects of a continuing resolution that would in effect delay a shutdown by a week, briefly extending government funding in order to continue negotiations.

    Betting markets had chances of a shutdown soaring above 70% by the end of the day on Monday.

    Speaking to Fox News on Monday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the president’s position was “the reasonable and commonsense thing to do,” calling on Democrats to continue funding to the military and its veterans.

    “All we are asking for is a commonsense, clean funding resolution — a continuing resolution — to keep the government open,” Leavitt said. “This is a bill that keeps the government funded at the exact same levels as today, just adjusted for inflation.”

    “So there is zero good reason for the Democrats to vote against this,” she added. “The president is giving Democrat leadership one last chance to be reasonable.”

    But Jeffries dismissed Leavitt as “divorced from reality” in a podcast interview.

    “In what world will any rational American conclude, after we’ve been lectured throughout the year about this so-called mandate that the Republican Party has in this country, and their complete control of government in Washington, that because Democrats are unwilling to gut the healthcare of the American people as part of the Republican healthcare crisis, that it’s us shutting the government down?” Jeffries said.

    “Nobody’s buying that,” he continued, “outside of the parts of the MAGA base who basically, seemingly, will buy anything that Donald Trump has to peddle.”

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would call a vote on funding the government Tuesday afternoon.

    “This is purely and simply hostage-taking,” Thune said Monday. Whether it passes or fails, he said, is “up to the Democrats.”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Pa. Supreme Court justices rarely lose seats in retention elections, so why is this year’s race so important?

    [ad_1]

    Pennsylvania voters will decide in November whether to retain three state Supreme Court justices – all Democrats – in an election with major ramifications for the composition of the commonwealth’s top appellate court.

    Justices on the seven-member Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, are each elected to serve 10-year terms. When justices already serving on the bench reach the end of their cycles, they face retention elections with simple “yes” or “no” votes on whether to give them another 10-year term. A judge needs a majority to retain the seat. Partisan judicial elections are only held when the court has vacancies, most often because a justice has reached the state’s age limit of 75 years old. Rarely do seats open up as a result of a justice losing a retention election, which has happened only once since 2000.


    MORE: Hundreds of people will sleep at the Phillies ballpark on Nov. 20. Here’s why.


    “Pennsylvania traditionally has between 25% and one-third of people vote no on judicial retention candidates,” said David Senoff, a Philadelphia-based attorney who has helped lead past retention campaigns for both Democrats and Republicans on the state Supreme Court. “If you have a really organized ‘vote no’ campaign, maybe you can get that number close to 50%.”

    The three justices up for retention this year – Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue and David Wecht – each were elected to the Supreme Court in 2015 in a historically unusual cycle with three vacancies. The three Democrats soundly outperformed their GOP opponents that year, capturing a majority on the court after Republicans had held the advantage for more than a decade.

    Campaign spending on the 2015 race topped $16 million, making it the most expensive state Supreme Court election in U.S. history at the time. When Justices Kevin Brobson, a Republican, and Daniel McCaffery, Democrat, were elected in races for single open seats in 2021 and 2023, respectively, spending in each surpassed $10 million.

    Retention elections typically don’t attract as much money or attention, in part because candidates are not running against opponents, but this year is viewed as an outlier because it presents a rare chance for Republicans to free up as many as three seats.

    With just over a month to go before the Nov. 4 election, filings from the three justices up for retention show they have already raised nearly $3 million combined. TV and online ads from interest groups have cast the races, normally a down-ballot issue, as an ideological moment of truth for Pennsylvania.

    “This year’s retention elections have certainly drawn increased attention because of the hyper-politicized environment that we are in generally,” said civil litigation lawyer John Hare, who co-chairs the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Historical Commission and Commission on Judicial Independence. “If past is prologue, this court will be required to decide the most important issues that jurists are called upon to decide – civil rights, the death penalty, redistricting, issues of life and death.”

    ‘We want them in courthouses’ 

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was established in 1722 and is the oldest continuously operating appellate court in the Western Hemisphere. While justices were originally appointed by the governor with Senate confirmation, the switch to an electoral system was made in 1850 with an amendment to the state Constitution.

    “Whether appointed or elected judges are better has been debated by Pennsylvanians for decades,” Hare said.

    In the late 1950s, a state commission sought to reform judicial selection to an initial appointment system followed by retention votes. That effort was voted down by the public, but the search for a balanced approach led to the establishment of the current elections and retention cycles in 1968.

    “The more overt politicking required by an elective system is seen as distasteful for judges who generally are – and are supposed to be – above politics,” Hare said. “That has been the main criticism, the necessary interjection of political realities into judicial races.”

    One of the challenges for justices seeking retention is that they have to campaign in ways that don’t violate judicial ethics. This year, even though justices are barred from partisan campaigning and discussing cases, the three Democrats up for retention have jointly held public forums in Philadelphia to talk about the impartiality of the court system.

    “The collective wisdom is we don’t want our judges out on the campaign trail,” Senoff said. “It doesn’t matter what party they are. We want them in courthouses doing their work.”

    Pennsylvania has fewer campaign finance limitations on judicial candidates than races for any other statewide office. There are no caps on individual donations. Outside of ethics considerations, the only restriction for judges already on the bench is that they can’t start raising money until after the November election of the year prior to their retention vote.

    Senoff said many judges voluntarily make adjustments during and after their campaigns to account for taking money from lawyers and businesspeople, including those with pending cases. They may temporarily recuse themselves from cases connected to campaign donors to avoid the appearance of bias or impropriety.

    In the legal community, attorneys routinely support candidates from both parties and view retention elections as a nonpartisan procedure.

    “I know people don’t ever believe that,” Senoff said. “But on the ballot there will be no party identification. It’s just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for a particular judge.”

    History favors justices up for retention

    The last time a Supreme Court justice in Pennsylvania lost a retention bid was in 2005, when Philadelphia-based Justice Russell Nigro, a Democrat, was voted off the court by a 51%-49% margin. Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, a Republican from Philadelphia, narrowly retained her seat with 54% of the vote that year.

    The retention election in 2005 is considered an odd case. Months earlier, the state legislature approved a pay raise for state lawmakers, judges and top elected officials during an early-morning session with minimal public notice. Lawmakers voting to give government officials raises was an unpopular move that many voters took out on judges who benefited but were not directly involved.

    “The governor signed it and the judges were part of that pay raise, and so it was easy to paint the judges as part of this ‘midnight pay raise,” Senoff said.

    Dougherty, Donohue and Wecht do not face an immediate uproar against state government and none of them are enveloped by scandal, which also has cost justices their seats in years past.

    Before his election to the Supreme Court, Dougherty spent 14 years on the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia specializing in family law cases. Donohue was a trial lawyer in Allegheny County for decades and served as state Superior Court judge before reaching the Supreme Court. Wecht similarly served as a Superior Court judge, also with a background in family law, before he was elected to the Supreme Court.

    Some of the “vote no” messaging about the three Democratic justices has lumped them together as part of a decade-long Supreme Court majority that authored contentious decisions regarding COVID-19 protocols, education, redistricting and other issues.

    “Those cases become magnified during campaign season, and they do tend to capture the public’s attention because they are so easily exploited by either side,” Hare said. “The ‘vote yes’ ads that are on TV focus on abortion and contraception. I think in a swing state like Pennsylvania, those hot-button national issues will always resonate because all you need to do is swing a couple percent of the electorate.”

    In the event that any of the three justices are not retained, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, would then be able to appoint interim judges that would require consent from the Republican-controlled Senate. A battle over replacements could disrupt the court’s operations until an open, partisan election would be held next year to fill the vacancy.

    The Democratic National Committee announced last week it will make a “six-figure investment” to protect Pennsylvania’s high court from “MAGA extremists” and the influence of “billionaires across the country” as their spending increases on the “vote no” campaign. 

    “I think with PACs, candidates and others, this race could easily reach $10 million,” said Deborah Gross, president of the nonprofit Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, which educates the public about the judiciary and advocates for impartiality and fairness in the courts. “This will definitely be the most expensive retention race is PA history.”

    Gross noted that all three justices have been endorsed by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the state’s influential professional association for lawyers. 

    Among the general voting public, Senoff said it’s common for people to tune out judicial elections. Many voters have difficulty remembering candidates’ names, and telling them to “vote no” could even end up impacting Republican judges in lower court races. 

    A spending blitz on ads may ramp up visibility and partisan antagonism, but Senoff is skeptical that it will significantly move the needle in November. He said it’s harder to motivate people to vote to remove a single candidate than it is to get them to choose between one or another.

    “You have to convince the voters to fire people,” he said. “If there’s not something that this particular justice has done that you think is so beyond the pale, generally it’s better to vote retain your judges. At a minimum, you retain consistency. If you lose three justices who have been there for 10 years, the combined institutional knowledge loss would be outrageous.”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Tanenbaum

    Source link

  • Eric Adams Drops Out of the New York Mayor’s Race

    [ad_1]

    Following Donald Trump‘s election in 2024, Adams—who was elected as a Democrat in 2021—flew to Florida for lunch with the real estate magnate and attended his inauguration, moves seen by many as an effort to end the federal investigation against him. For many, it was the last straw in a mayoralty marked by crisis and controversy.

    This isn’t the last voters will see of Adams, however, as his announcement comes after the deadline to print the ballots for the November 4 election has already passed. Recent polling showed him in fourth place, trailing Mamdani, Cuomo, and even Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa, the cat-loving Guardian Angels founder who is currently in the midst of his second consecutive mayoral campaign.

    Curtis Sliwa speaks during an anti-migrant rally and protest on August 27, 2023.

    Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

    Adams didn’t endorse any of his competitors on his way out the door, but he may have been alluding to Mamdani in his parting remarks, referring to “divisive agendas” and saying “beware of those who claim the answer is to destroy the very system we built together over generations. That is not change, that is chaos.”

    According to The New York Times, Adams had also prepared some remarks aimed at Cuomo in an early draft of the speech, saying “politicians who waffled on key issues and sought to push others aside in their quest for power ‘cannot be trusted.’” Those sentiments did not appear in the version of Adam’s speech released today.

    It remains unclear how deeply Adams’s departure will impact the race—or if it will at all. Polling from earlier this month suggests that Mamdani’s double-digit lead in the race will drop with Adams’s departure, with Cuomo benefitting. But with Sliwa insisting that he will remain in the race, that same polling predicts that Mamdani will retain the lead, a situation that has even Donald Trump seemingly rooting against the Republican candidate, and for Cuomo, a long-time ally.

    “I would like to see two people drop out and have it be one-on-one,” Trump said of the race earlier this month. “And I think that’s a race that could be won.”

    [ad_2]

    Eve Batey

    Source link

  • Trump to meet with US congressional leaders in last-ditch effort to avoid shutdown

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump has reversed course and is purportedly planning to host a bipartisan gathering of the top four US congressional leaders at the White House on Monday afternoon in a last-ditch effort to avoid a looming government shutdown, the House speaker and the US president’s fellow Republican Mike Johnson said on Sunday.

    Trump’s climbdown comes days after he scrapped a planned meeting to discuss the crisis with Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, the respective Democratic minority leaders in the House and Senate.

    The president accused the pair of making “unserious and ridiculous demands” in return for Democratic votes to support a Republican funding agreement to keep the government open beyond Tuesday night – but left the door open for a meeting “if they get serious about the future of our nation”.

    Johnson, appearing on CNN, said he spoke with Trump at length on Saturday, and that the two Democrats had agreed to join him and John Thune, the Republican Senate majority leader, for an Oval Office discussion Monday.

    Related: Crunch time: Democrats ready for shutdown standoff over Republican health cuts

    He did not say if Trump would be negotiating directly with the Democrats – but portrayed Trump as keen to “try to convince them to follow common sense and do what’s right by the American people”.

    Schumer, talking to NBC’s Meet the Press, said he was “hopeful we can get something real done” – but was uncertain of the mood they would find Trump in when they sat down for the 2pm ET discourse.

    “If the president at this meeting is going to rant, and just yell at Democrats, and talk about all his alleged grievances, and say this, that, and the other thing, we won’t get anything done,” Schumer said.

    “We don’t want a shutdown. We hope that they sit down and have a serious negotiation with us.”

    According to CBS News on Sunday, meanwhile, Trump is not hopeful the meeting will lead to an agreement.

    The network’s chief national correspondent, Robert Costa, told Face the Nation he spoke with Trump by phone Sunday morning and that a government shutdown “looks likely at this point based on my conversation … He says both sides are at a stalemate.”

    Costa said: “Inside the White House, sources are saying president Trump actually welcomes a shutdown in the sense that he believes he can wield executive power to get rid of what he calls waste, fraud and abuse.”

    If no deal is reached, chunks of the federal government are set to shut down as early as Wednesday morning, with the White House telling agencies to prepare to furlough or fire scores of workers.

    Republican and Democratic leaders have been pointing fingers of blame at each other for days as Tuesday’s deadline for a funding agreement approaches.

    The narrow House Republican majority passed a short-term spending bill known as a continuing resolution earlier in September that would keep the government funded for seven weeks – but it faces opposition in the Senate, where it needs the support of at least eight Democrats to pass.

    Democrats have made the extension of expiring healthcare protections a condition of their support, warning that planned Republican spending cuts would affect millions of people.

    “If we don’t extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, more than 20 million Americans are going to experience dramatically increased premiums, copays, deductibles, in an environment where the cost of living in America is already too high,” Jeffries told CNN on Sunday.

    “We’ve made clear that we’re ready, willing and able to sit down with anyone, at any time and at any place, in order to make sure that we can actually fund the government, avoid a painful Republican caused shutdown, and address the healthcare crisis that Republicans have caused that’s [affecting] everyday Americans.”

    But Trump and Republicans have repeatedly accused their political opponents of exploiting the issue to force a shutdown while there was still plenty of time to fix healthcare before the subsidies expire on 31 December.

    “The Obamacare subsidies is a policy debate that has to be determined by the end of the year, not right now, while we’re simply trying to keep the government open so we can have all these debates,” Johnson said.

    “There is nothing partisan about this continuing resolution, nothing. We didn’t add a single partisan priority or policy rider at all. We’re operating completely in good faith to get more time.”

    Related: Democrats reject spending bill over healthcare cuts as shutdown looms

    Thune, on Meet the Press, also attempted to blame Democrats for the potential shutdown and said “the ball is in their court” as to the next development.

    “There is a bill sitting at the desk in the Senate right now, we could pick it up today and pass it, that has been passed by the House that will be signed into law by the president to keep the government open,” he said.

    “What the Democrats have done is take the federal government as a hostage, and by extension the American people, to try [to] get a whole laundry list of things that they want.”

    But US senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who has previously urged his party leadership to be stronger in standing up to the Trump administration, said the problem was Republicans handing “a complete blank check” to the president to spend money on his own political interests, and not those of the nation.

    “Until now the president has said he’d rather shut down the government than prevent those healthcare costs from spiking,” he told CNN.

    “Democrats are united right now on this question. I’m glad we’re finally talking. We’ll see what happens.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In Trump’s ‘domestic terrorism’ memo, some see blueprint for vengeance that echoes history

    [ad_1]

    At a tense political moment in the wake of conservative lightning rod Charlie Kirk’s killing, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum focusing federal law enforcement on disrupting “domestic terrorism.”

    The memo appeared to focus on political violence. But during a White House signing Thursday, the president and his top advisors repeatedly hinted at a much broader campaign of suppression against the American left, referencing as problematic both the simple printing of protest signs and the prominent racial justice movement Black Lives Matter.

    “We’re looking at the funders of a lot of these groups. You know, when you see the signs and they’re all beautiful signs made professionally, these aren’t your protesters that make the sign in their basement late in the evening because they really believe it. These are anarchists and agitators,” Trump said.

    “Whether it be going back to the riots that started with Black Lives Matter and all the way through to the antifa riots, the attacks on ICE officers, the doxxing campaigns and now the political assassinations — these are not lone, isolated events,” said Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff. “This is part of an organized campaign of radical left terrorism.”

    Neither Trump nor Miller nor the other top administration officials flanking them — including Vice President JD Vance, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel — offered any evidence of such a widespread left-wing terror campaign, or many details about how the memo would be put into action.

    Law enforcement officials have said Kirk’s alleged shooter appears to have acted alone, and data on domestic extremism more broadly — including some recently scrubbed from the Justice Department’s website — suggest right-wing extremists represent the larger threat.

    Many on the right cheered Trump’s memo — just as many on the left cheered calls by Democrats for a clampdown on right-wing extremism during the Biden administration, particularly in light of the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. In that incident, more than 1,500 were criminally charged, many convicted of assaulting police officers and some for sedition, before Trump pardoned them or commuted their sentences.

    Many critics of the administration slammed the memo as a “chilling” threat that called to mind some of the most notorious periods of political suppression in the nation’s history — a claim the White House dismissed as wildly off base and steeped in liberal hypocrisy.

    That includes the Red Scare and the often less acknowledged Lavender Scare of the Cold War and beyond, they said, when Sen. Joseph McCarthy and other federal officials cast a pall over the nation, its social justice movements and its arts scene by promising to purge from government anyone who professed a belief in certain political ideas — such as communism — or was gay or lesbian or otherwise queer.

    Douglas M. Charles, a history professor at Penn State Greater Allegheny and author of “Hoover’s War on Gays: Exposing the FBI’s ‘Sex Deviates’ Program,” said Trump’s memo strongly paralleled past government efforts at political repression — including in its claim that “extremism on migration, race and gender” and “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” are all causing violence in the country.

    “What is this, McCarthyism redux?” Charles asked.

    Melina Abdullah, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, said the Trump administration is putting “targets on the backs of organizers” like her.

    Abdullah, speaking Friday from Washington, D.C., where she is attending the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual legislative conference, said Trump’s efforts to cast left-leaning advocacy groups as a threat to democracy was “the definition of gaslighting” because the president “and his entire regime are violent.”

    “They are anti-Black. They are anti-people. They are anti-free speech,” Abdullah said. “What we are is indeed an organized body of people who want freedom for our people — and that is a demand for the kind of sustainable peace that only comes with justice.”

    Others, including prominent California Democrats, framed Trump’s memo and other recent administration acts — including Thursday’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over the objections of career prosecutors — as a worrying blueprint for much wider vengeance on Trump’s behalf, which must be resisted.

    “Trump is waging a crusade of retribution — abusing the federal government as a weapon of personal revenge,” Gov. Gavin Newsom posted to X. “Today it’s his enemies. Tomorrow it may be you. Speak out. Use your voice.”

    White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, left, FBI Director Kash Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi listen to President Trump Thursday in the Oval Office.

    (Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta noted that the memo listed various incidents of violence against Republicans while “deliberately ignoring” violence against Democrats, and said that while it is unclear what may come of the order, “the chilling effect is real and cannot be ignored.”

    Bonta also sent Bondi a letter Friday expressing his “grave concern” with the Comey indictment and asking her to “reassert the long-standing independence of the U.S. Department of Justice from political interference by declining to continue these politically-motivated investigations and prosecutions.”

    Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the Trump administration is twisting Kirk’s tragic killing “into a pretext to weaponize the federal government against opponents Trump says he ‘hates.’”

    “In recent days, they’ve branded entire groups — including the Democratic Party itself — as threats, directed [the Justice Department] to go after his perceived enemies, and coerced companies to stifle any criticism of the Administration or its allies. This is pure personal grievance and retribution,” Padilla said. “If this abuse of power is normalized, no dissenting voice will be safe.”

    Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said it was “the highest form of hypocrisy for Democrats to falsely claim accountability is ‘political retribution’ when Joe Biden is the one who spent years weaponizing his entire Administration against President Trump and millions of patriotic Americans.”

    Jackson accused the Biden administration of censoring average Americans for their posts about COVID-19 on social media and of prosecuting “peaceful pro-life protestors,” among other things, and said the Trump administration “will continue to deliver the truth to the American people, restore integrity to our justice system, and take action to stop radical left-wing violence that is plaguing American communities.”

    A month ago, Miller said, “The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization” — a quote raising new concerns in light of Trump’s memo.

    On Sept. 16, Bondi said on X that “the radical left” has for too long normalized threats and cheered on political violence, and that she would be ending that by somehow prosecuting them for “hate speech.”

    Constitutional scholars — and some prominent conservative pundits — ridiculed Bondi’s claims as contrary to the 1st Amendment.

    On Sept. 18, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that unnamed national security officials had told him that the FBI was considering treating transgender suspects as a “subset” of a new threat category known as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists” — a concept LGBTQ+ organizations scrambled to denounce as a threat to everyone’s civil liberties.

    “Everyone should be repulsed by the attempts to use the power of the federal government against their neighbors, their friends, and our families,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said Wednesday. “It creates a dangerous precedent that could one day be used against other Americans, progressive or conservative or anywhere in between.”

    In recent days, Trump has unabashedly attacked his critics — including late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose show was briefly suspended. On Sept. 20, he demanded on his Truth Social platform that Bondi move to prosecute several of his most prominent political opponents, including Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

    “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” wrote Trump, the only felon to ever occupy the White House. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

    Comey’s indictment — on charges of lying to Congress — was reported shortly after the White House event where Trump signed the memo. Trump declined to discuss Comey at the event, and was vague about who else might be targeted under the memo. But he did say he had heard “a lot of different names,” including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and George Soros, two prominent Democratic donors.

    “If they are funding these things, they’re gonna have some problems,” Trump said, without providing any evidence of wrongdoing by either man.

    The Open Society Foundations, which have disbursed billions from Soros’ fortune to an array of progressive groups globally, said in response that they “unequivocally condemn terrorism and do not fund terrorism” and that their activities “are peaceful and lawful.” Accusations suggesting otherwise were “politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with,” the group said.

    John Day, president-elect of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said his organization has not taken a position on Trump’s memo, but had grave concerns about the process by which Comey was indicted — namely, after Trump called for such legal action publicly.

    “That, quite frankly, is very disturbing and concerning to us,” Day said. “This is not the way the legal system was designed to work, and it’s not the way it has worked for 250 years, and we are just very concerned that this happened at all,” Day said. “We’re praying that it is an outlier, as opposed to a predictor of what’s to come.”

    James Kirchick, author of “Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington,” which covers the Lavender Scare and its effects on the LGBTQ+ community in detail, said the “strongest similarity” he sees between then and now is the administration “taking the actions of an individual or a small number of people” — such as Kirk’s shooter — “and extrapolating that onto an entire class of people.”

    Kirchick said language on the left labeling the president a dictator isn’t helpful in such a political moment, but that he has found some of the administration’s language more alarming — especially, in light of the new memo, Miller’s suggestion that the Democratic Party is an extremist organization.

    “Does that mean the Democratic Party is going to be subject to FBI raids and extremist surveillance?” he asked.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Supporters of redrawing California’s congressional districts raise tens of millions more than opponents

    [ad_1]

    Supporters of the November ballot measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts — an effort led by Gov. Gavin Newsom to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year — have far out-raised the opposition campaigns, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the state.

    The primary group backing Proposition 50 raked in $77.5 million and spent $28.1 million through Sept. 20, according to a campaign finance report that was filed with the secretary of state’s office on Thursday.

    The committee has $54.4 million in the bank for the final weeks of the campaign, so Californian should expect a blizzard of television ads, mailers, phone calls and other efforts to sway voters before the Nov. 4 special election.

    The two main groups opposing the ballot measure have raised $35.3 million, spent $27.4 million and have roughly $8.8 million in the bank combined, campaign finance reports show.

    Despite having an overwhelming financial advantage, the campaign supporting Proposition 50 has tried to portray itself as the underdog in a fight to raise money against opposition campaigns with ties to President Trump and his supporters.

    “MAGA donors keep pouring millions into the campaign to stop Prop. 50 in the hopes of pleasing their ‘Dear Leader,’” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the Yes on 50, the Election Rigging Response Act campaign. “We will not take our foot off the gas — Prop. 50 is America’s best chance to stop this reckless and dangerous president, and we will keep doing everything we can to ensure every Californian knows the stakes and is ready to vote yes on 50 this Nov. 4th.”

    A spokesperson for one of the anti-Proposition 50 campaigns, which was sending mailers to voters even before the Democratic-led California Legislature placed Proposition 50 on the November ballot, said their priority was to help Californians understand the inappropriateness of redrawing congressional boundaries that had been created by a voter-approved, state independent commission.

    “We started communicating with voters early about the consequences of having politicians draw their own lines,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for a coalition that opposes the ballot measure. “We are confident we’ll have the resources necessary to continue through election day.”

    A spokesperson for the other main anti-Proposition 50 group agreed.

    “When you’re selling a lemon, no amount of cash can change the taste. We’re confident in raising more than sufficient resources to expose Prop. 50 for the blatant political power grab that it is,” said Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the No on 50 – Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab campaign. Newsom “can’t change the fact that Prop. 50 is nothing more than a ploy for politicians to take the power of redistricting away from the voters and charge them for the privilege at a massive cost to taxpayers.”

    The special election is expected to cost the state and the counties $282 million, according to the secretary of state’s office and the state department of finance.

    If approved, Proposition 50 would have a major impact on California’s 2026 congressional elections, which will play a major role in determining whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda in the final two years of his tenure. The party that wins the White House frequently loses congressional seats two years later, and Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House.

    After Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress in next year’s midterm election, Newsom and other California Democrats responded by proposing a counter-effort to boost the ranks of their party in the legislative body.

    California’s congressional districts are drawn once every decade after the U.S. Census by a voter-approved independent redistricting commission. So Democrats’ proposal to replace the districts with new boundaries proposed by state lawmakers must be approved by voters. The state Legislature voted in August to put the measure before voters in a special election on Nov. 4.

    Polling about the proposition is not definitive. It’s an off-year election, which means turnout is likely to be low and the electorate is unpredictable. And relatively few Californians pay attention to redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts.

    There are more than 30 campaign committees associated with Proposition 50 registered with the secretary of state’s office, but only three have raised large amounts of money.

    Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 effort has received several large donations since its launch, including $10 million from billionaire financier George Soros, $7.6 million from House Majority PAC (the Democrats’ congressional political arm) and $4.5 million from various Service Employees International Union groups. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife have contributed $1 million to a separate committee supporting the proposition.

    The opposition groups had few small-dollar donors and were largely funded by two sources — $30 million in loans from Charles Munger Jr., who for years has been a major Republican donor in California, and a $5-million donation from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the GOP political arm of House Republicans.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Ezra Klein Argues for Big-Tent Politics

    [ad_1]

    But it’s not in the spirit of giving counsel. I’m not saying you do it—

    No, I take that point. I don’t see myself in those conversations as a counsellor.

    Because, you know, there is a tradition of this—Walter Lippmann giving counsel to this one or that one.

    And doing secret diplomatic missions. The lines were blurry back then.

    So you keep it pretty on the up and up.

    I try to.

    Would you ever go into politics?

    No.

    Absolutely not? You’re making a Sherman statement.

    I’m making a Sherman statement. I think you have to know what you’re good at doing. I think I’m good at doing this.

    What is your sense of your mission as a podcaster, as a writer?

    My sense of mission is simple: I have values and beliefs about how the world should work and what would make the world better, and I try to persuade people of them, but I also try to explore them in an honest way. I do this because I care about where things are going. I’m not dispassionately observing from the sidelines. I am emotionally, intellectually, spiritually involved.

    But what I’m doing, and the way I’m doing it, has changed a lot over the years. In ways that I can follow more through intuition than through some framework. The version of me that was writing “Wonkblog,” and telling everybody about health care and aging in one chart, is not what I’m doing on my podcast now. My podcast is a forum in which I’m not primarily trying to be persuasive. Over time I think it has persuasive elements, but it’s mostly other people talking. I have a lot of people on the show whom I disagree with. And I think it acts as a space in which certain kinds of conversations can be had and then can be put into conversation with each other. And that matters.

    In my column, I’m more prescriptive. What goes into, eventually, the book “Abundance,” comes more from the column, and that’s me trying to understand the world and trying to find ways to confront things in it that I find puzzling or unnerving. I try to take seriously questions that I don’t love. I don’t try to insist the world works the way I want it to work. I try to be honest with myself about the way it is working.

    You are an important figure at what I think is still, today, the most important news-gathering organization on earth, the New York Times, but it’s also one that everybody has opinions about. And recently Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote a book about the summer of 2020, which was dramatic in a lot of quarters, including the Times. James Bennett fired. Bari Weiss left and created The Free Press. What’s your opinion about Bari Weiss’s increasing influence? It looks like she’s about to be a very important figure at CBS News.

    Yeah, it seems like she’s about to take over CBS.

    What do you think?

    My thing about Bari—and I’ve been on her show—I have a lot of admiration for how good she is at what she does. My disagreements with Bari are that I think she’s asymmetric in sympathy and generosity.

    Tell me what that means.

    I’ve thought The Free Press’ work on, say, starvation in Gaza has been really bad.

    Spell it out.

    It’s done this whole thing, like, Well, a lot of the kids who have died and have been reported on, well, they had secondary conditions. And, yes, when you starve a population the people who die first will be the most vulnerable. But that’s not exculpatory. There was overwhelming evidence of how bad things were in Gaza. I felt that they were trying to whitewash it.

    I think Bari, though, is an insane talent spotter. If you look at what she’s built at The Free Press, she’s very, very good at finding people, at pulling them in, at networking with them. She’s sort of an impresario. Bringing in Tyler Cowen to be a columnist was a very good idea for them.

    The economist.

    I’m somebody who’s edited a site, Vox, right? I know how hard this is to do. And Bari has an incredibly sensitive feel for the political moment. It is not my feel for the moment, and her politics are not mine.

    What are her politics? How would you describe them?

    What I see her trying to do is something that used to be somewhat more common, which is to self-consciously be what she would define as the center. And I see The Free Press tacking back and forth around that. It was much more sort of pro-Trump, I would say, when he was running and the Democrats were in power. But now that he’s in it’s, like, Oh, no, they’re the vandals. The publication is a little bit, to me, like the old New Republic, doing things they used to do. . . . Actually, it’s funny. When I was a blogger, this was something we all used to complain about all the time. All of these organizations that we felt were using this concept, this amorphous concept of the center as a positioning device—

    That it was a dodge.

    No, it wasn’t a dodge—it was navigational. They weren’t dodging. They were just kind of . . . there were a lot of politicians and a lot of players who had felt like their politics were hewing to some idea of the center, as opposed to a very consistent set of views and principles. And, as media has become polarized, many fewer places are doing that. I think Bari saw a market opportunity in that. Is her center what I think is the center? No. But I recognize a lot of editorial skill there.

    [ad_2]

    David Remnick

    Source link

  • Where Should the Democrats Go from Here?

    [ad_1]

    On Sunday, MAGA’s great and good travelled to Arizona to pay tribute to Charlie Kirk, the right-wing activist who was assassinated this month. Much was remarkable about the event—the huge turnout, the alternating notes of forgiveness and retribution, the generally messianic atmosphere—but something that Pete Hegseth, the Fox host turned Pentagon chief, said onstage stood out to me. Hegseth recalled meeting Kirk more than a decade ago, when Kirk was building his youth movement, Turning Point USA. “I still have the sticker: ‘Big government sucks,’ ” Hegseth said. Kirk “pursued that truth with more vigor than anyone I’ve ever met,” he added. “We always did need less government. But what Charlie understood and infused into his movement is, we also needed a lot more God. Charlie had big plans, but God had even bigger plans.”

    There was that messianism again—but what caught my ear was the stated disavowal of big government. In May, when I started writing Fault Lines in the absence of Jay Caspian Kang (who will return next week), my first column explored the apparent contradiction between the Trump Administration preaching a fairly classic vision of small government, not least via the supposedly cost-slashing work of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, and simultaneously expanding the power of the state over civil society in radical new ways. In the end, I concluded that, actually, this wasn’t much of a contradiction because the cuts often doubled as assertions of leverage, or intimidation. Since then, even the pretense of pursuing limited government has become all but impossible to sustain. Musk crashed out of D.C. without making a serious dent in spending. President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” has been projected to add some three trillion dollars to the federal deficit. Hegseth’s Department of Defense was (sort of) renamed the Department of War, at least symbolically trading a reactive principle for an aggressive one (while claiming an expansive new remit to execute supposed drug smugglers in the Caribbean). Most significantly, Trump and his Administration ratcheted up their use of state power to go after independent institutions, critics, and inconvenient bureaucrats. After Kirk was killed, Trump quite openly declared war on some vaguely-defined radical left and threatened to punish speech that he deems hostile to his cause. Jimmy Kimmel—whose late-night talk show was briefly taken off air by ABC after Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, criticized remarks that Kimmel had made about Kirk’s killing and hinted darkly at regulatory consequences—was one casualty. (His show continues to be preëmpted on certain network affiliates.) There will be others.

    These latest attacks on free expression in general, and on Kimmel in particular, have been denounced even by some of Trump’s allies, suggesting that some on the right do still believe that “big government sucks,” at least in this context. (Ted Cruz pungently likened Carr’s behavior to that of a Mob boss.) In the past few months, I’ve written about other intra-MAGA tensions, over questions related to the proper role of the state—on spending and strikes on Iran, for instance—and more lurid plotlines, not least the ongoing controversy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files. Such splits have illuminated not only the unwieldy ideological breadth of the MAGA coalition but also the fraying bonds linking the Trump diehards to the podcast hosts and comedians—often collected under the “manosphere” rubric—who were perceived as crucial to Trump’s reëlection but who were never unwavering true believers. Some of the latter were highly disapproving of the Iran strikes, as I wrote about in June, and have more recently expressed concern about Kimmelgate, among other issues. This week, the Department of Homeland Security took down a video showing Theo Von appearing to celebrate the act of deportation after Von said that it didn’t reflect the nuance of his “thoughts and heart.”

    Squint, and these controversies may even point to durable trouble for MAGA, at least once Trump is no longer on the scene. At Kirk’s memorial last weekend, a MAGA rapper told my colleague Antonia Hitchens that “they think we’re praising Trump like our God,” but “Charlie showed me there’s more to life than this movement.” For now, though, Trump continues to sit athwart both the Republican Party—acting simultaneously, as I wrote in the aftermath of the Iran strikes, as the “charismatic glue holding an otherwise disparate movement together and its wrathful enforcer”—and the federal government. His recent, blatantly authoritarian rhetoric and behavior—suggesting that critical media reporting is “illegal”; openly advocating for the indictment of the former F.B.I. director James Comey—have further raised the stakes of other questions to which I’ve returned repeatedly this summer: What shape is the Democratic resistance (or #Resistance) to Trump taking? And is it working? At what feels like yet another inflection point, the contours of a dual imperative for the Democratic Party are becoming clearer—oppose Trump with one strong voice while starting to build a new broad church of its own. The Party is still not doing enough on either count.

    In part, the resistance to Trump continues to feel fragmented, as I wrote in my second Fault Lines column, because it must coalesce within an increasingly splintered media ecosystem. As far as the institutional Democratic Party is concerned, it’s not all that surprising that it has failed to cohere around a winning message, let alone a singular messenger, so soon after such a crushing defeat. And some prominent figures are already projecting strength in the face of Trump’s abuses. I wrote in June about Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker becoming a particularly strident anti-Trump voice, California Governor Gavin Newsom (who initially sought to play MAGA whisperer on his podcast) punching back after Trump dispatched the military to Los Angeles, and New York City Comptroller Brad Lander getting arrested while accompanying a migrant in immigration court. Since then, Pritzker has furiously opposed Trump sending troops to Chicago (and, seemingly, succeeded in forestalling that outcome for now); Newsom is leading a redistricting charge after Republicans in Texas egregiously gerrymandered maps on Trump’s orders; and Lander was arrested again, last week, following a sit-in at an immigration holding area, alongside ten other elected Democrats. (It’s perhaps a sign of the times that Lander’s second arrest caused barely a ripple in the national discourse.)

    But other Democratic leaders are not meeting this dangerous moment with the focus it requires, and, if the Party as a whole is still widely perceived as feckless, that is in no small part self-inflicted. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the House, was asked on MSNBC this week if he shares his predecessor Nancy Pelosi’s relish for going toe-to-toe with Trump. Jeffries described sending the President a letter laying out the Party’s position on funding the government. Prominent Democratic-aligned thinkers have continued to wring their hands regarding the precise words that the Party’s leaders should and shouldn’t use, pointlessly self-flagellating over the term “microaggression” while Washington burns. And many of the more direct attempts to fight Trump come across as stale. Last month, we were treated to the miserable spectacle of Newsom tweeting IN UNHINGED ALL CAPS, like Trump does. Various lawmakers have since imitated this tactic even less convincingly. After ABC suspended Kimmel, Chuck Schumer, the flailing Senate Minority Leader, wrote, “IS EPSTEIN THE REAL REASON TRUMP HAD KIMMEL CANCELED?!”

    In fact, this post was a reflection of two separate failures of Democratic communication, the other one being many Democrats’ baffling insistence that almost everything Trump does is a distraction from the Epstein controversy—perhaps the closest thing this summer has had to a singular narrative through line, even as vastly more consequential stories have come and gone—and attendant demand that his Administration publish the investigative files from the case, without actually knowing what is in them. This failure strikes me as one of strategy; yes, the Epstein story has stuck to Trump with unusual persistence given the President’s penchant for shrugging off negative press, but increasingly it seems closer to an irritation than a fatal political wound. More important, it’s a failure of morals. There may well be additional damaging information about Epstein and his associates that has yet to come out. But in the absence of much fresh substance—this controversy, remember, was sparked by Trump officials promising to release the files themselves, then under-delivering, sparking the fury of the MAGA base—Democrats have gleefully joined in what amounts to a right-wing witch hunt that has cheapened a real tragedy, and undercut the Party’s standing as one that defends evidence-based inquiry and due process. Ro Khanna, a leading Democratic proponent of releasing the files, said in July that he trusts the American people not to tag any innocent parties whose names appear therein with guilt by association—a confidence that I do not share and that, in this of all moments, might actually be dangerous.

    [ad_2]

    Jon Allsop

    Source link

  • Federal prosecutors weighing charges for former FBI Director James Comey, sources say

    [ad_1]



    Federal prosecutors weighing charges for former FBI Director James Comey, sources say – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    Sources tell CBS News that federal prosecutors are nearing a decision about whether to seek an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. CBS News Department of Justice reporter Jake Rosen has more.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Can a Maine Oyster Farmer Defeat a Five-Term Republican Senator?

    [ad_1]

    Across the bay from Bar Harbor lies the small town of Sullivan, Maine, population twelve hundred and nineteen. On August 16th, Graham Platner, the bearded, strawberry-blond co-owner of the Waukeag Neck Oyster Company, brought his Carolina Skiff over to the Sullivan Harbor launch. It was three days before a video titled “Platner for U.S. Senate” would drop, catapulting this local oyster farmer, harbormaster, and former marine onto the national stage.

    The video was produced by Morris Katz, a top political strategist for New York City’s Democratic mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani. “Within a few minutes of talking to him, I was, like, ‘This guy owes it to the country to run for Senate,’ ” Katz recalled, of his first meeting with Platner. The video was meant to present the forty-one-year-old Maine native as a rugged and likable working-class Democratic candidate running to unseat Susan Collins, but it could just as easily have been the opener for a reality-TV show called “Oyster Man.” A macho pastiche with a Jeep-commercial soundtrack, it shows him diving in his wetsuit, chopping wood, hauling oyster cages, and doing kettlebell swings. There are closeups of his tattoos, along with shots of him holding hands with his wife, Amy Gertner, as they walk along a beach with their two dogs. Standing at the helm of his boat, Platner tells the camera, “When I tell people around here that I’m running for Senate, sometimes the initial reaction is, ‘What the ——?’ ” There’s a bleeped-out expletive, and Platner laughs. Then he gets serious: “It seems like the fabric of what holds us together is being ripped apart by billionaires and corrupt politicians profiting off destroying our environment, driving our families into poverty, and crushing the middle class.”

    The campaign rollout, which was orchestrated by Platner’s senior adviser, Joe Calvello (John Fetterman’s former director of communications), raised half a million dollars in its first four days; volunteer sign-ups for the campaign averaged three hundred a day. “No one was expecting this,” Calvello told me. The Times, ABC, NBC, and Fox News covered the launch, focussing on Platner as a political novice who represented a new approach for the Party. “Platner has never run for office and seldom wears a suit,” Mother Jones noted. The launch video was viewed more than two and a half million times on X in the first twenty-four hours alone. The streamer and leftist commentator Hasan Piker showed it on his Twitch channel, where comments included “TAX THE RICH AND EAT THE OYSTERS” and “Wow this guy looks like a progressive mind in [a] MAGA body.”

    I’ve spent almost every summer of my life on Frenchman Bay, near Sullivan, and, like many of my neighbors, I’ve had Platner’s number for years, and have picked up oyster orders from his boat. I’ve seen him shuck oysters at parties, fund-raisers, and at the local summer music series, where a half-dozen oysters go for twenty dollars; he also shucks them at Ironbound, a restaurant in the town of Hancock which is owned by his mother, Leslie Harlow. I first learned of Platner’s Senate run in late July by text from a friend who is close to Platner; she wrote, “Big news…” Soon, my friends were discussing over gin-and-tonics how they always knew he would be famous.

    That morning in August, I met Platner at the launch, and he drove us out on his boat to his oyster farm on the bay. It’s situated off an island with a ledge so rocky that lobstermen know not to drop traps there; Platner keeps tow ropes on hand in case he needs to help stranded boaters. The haze from Canadian wildfires, which covered the bay for much of the summer, had lifted, and Mt. Cadillac, on Mt. Desert Island, was a bright green. Once we were moored, Platner pointed out the busy wildlife: bald eagles, osprey.

    Earlier in the summer, a few weeks before Graham Platner fever swept Maine and beyond, a group of mostly millennial Democrats, coördinating with Maine labor leaders, community activists, and volunteers, many of them Bernie Sanders campaign alums, had been scouting the state for a candidate who could unseat Collins. These Democrats thought that the five-term, seventy-two-year-old Republican senator was vulnerable: her approval ratings were down, and Kamala Harris had won the state in 2024. After they saw a video featuring Platner—this one made by the local Frenchman Bay Conservancy in 2020, to stop a commercial salmon farm from building in the bay—they decided that he was exactly what they were looking for: a working-class guy with a military background and a deep connection to Maine.

    Jason Shedlock, the president of the Southern Maine Labor Council, was involved in the search (and was the only member of the group who would speak on the record). “What we’re looking for is someone who understands that solidarity is not a spectator sport, it’s an action word,” Shedlock said. He heard that Platner was “the real deal.” They had their first conversation over Zoom. “The Zoom camera was bobbing up and down because he was on an oyster boat, and I just got off of a job site, and we had the conversation right then and there, with the wind blowing, and it was like talking to somebody who I would meet in a union hall.”

    Several Maine labor figures reached out to Katz and Calvello, who closed the deal. Platner was taken by surprise by their interest. “They’re, like, ‘We think that right now Susan Collins is uniquely weak,’ ” he told me. “We think the Democrats are going to choose a bad candidate for this race specifically, and we think that you’re a good candidate for this. And Amy and I promptly told them, ‘That’s fucking insane. We work full time. We don’t have any money.’ . . . We’re just normal fucking people who have very busy schedules, and running for U.S. Senate is the most ridiculous thing that I could’ve ever heard for myself.” Platner pulled up a cage. He lifted out a mesh bag full of tiny oysters, each the size of a pumpkin seed, explaining that as the oysters grow they need more space. “It’s very much like gardening,” he said. “I’m just thinning.”

    [ad_2]

    Lisa Wood Shapiro

    Source link

  • Trump, Kimmel and the debate over freedom of speech in America

    [ad_1]

    Jimmy Kimmel is back on the air after ABC pulled his show last week over comments about the death of Charlie Kirk. Kimmel’s return comes amid an intense debate over the state of free speech in America. CBS News chief Washington analyst Robert Costa has more.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dr. Lucky Sekhon on Trump’s announcement about Tylenol and autism

    [ad_1]

    Dr. Lucky Sekhon joins CBS News to share her thoughts on President Trump’s announcement this week about pregnant women, Tylenol and autism.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats Kicked Out Of County Fair Over Threatening Merch

    [ad_1]



    Democrats were ordered to leave a county fair after they were caught selling political buttons that were adorned with messages that were perceived as threats against President Donald Trump’s life.

    The Ashland County Democrat Party was told to pack up after they refused to stop selling merchandise that included the numbers “8647.” Those numbers have long been associated with code language meaning to assassinate President Trump.

    The Ashland County Fair Board would like to let you know this afternoon we were made aware of offensive buttons in the Democrat booth. We are a family friendly fair and do not condone this from any vendor/merchant. We apologize for those who saw the display. The democrat party has been asked to pack their booth up for this year so they will not be here the remaining of our Fair week. This is not political, we just can’t have this at our County Fair!

    “We don’t condone anything of that nature at all,” Ashland County Fair President Martin Wesner told Fox 8. “I mean, there is free speech in this world, but the county fair and what we are trying to here with all the kids is not the place.”

    Local law enforcement is investigating and the Secret Service has been made aware of the allegations.

    “This particular incidence was a red ball cap with ‘Felon’ across the top of it and ‘Is he dead yet’ and some other innuendos about his obituary and we are referring to the president of the United States,” Ashland County Sheriff Kurt Schneider told Fox 8.

    The Demcorats released a lengthy statement defending their use of threatening language and said it was nothing more than political speech – an argument that many don’t believe in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

    The Ashland County Democratic Party was ejected from its booth at the Ashland County
    Fair yesterday, September 18th, 2025.

    Three Republican members of the Ashland County fair board, backed by two Republican
    County sheriff deputies, ordered the Ashland County Democratic Party to leave the county
    fair and shut down their booth because they disapproved of Ashland Democrats criticizing
    the Republican administration. Deputies told the residents staffing the booth that they had
    to leave.

    Both county parties have had booths at the county fair each year for over five decades.
    This is the first time county officials have ever ejected anyone from the fair for strictly
    political reasons.

    The Sheriff told FOX News in Cleveland that he was informing the Secret Service.

    This incident is not an isolated event but part of a dangerous pattern. We have seen
    instances of abuse of power before. Nixon kept an enemies list and attempted to use the
    IRS to target journalists. McCarthy dragged writers, actors, and reporters before hearings
    and wrecked careers with blacklists and loyalty oaths. Those were shameful chapters.
    However, even then, the machinery of the state was not routinely deployed to silence the
    chairs of opposing parties at local community events.

    The use of law enforcement to suppress political speech at the local level represents a
    grave threat to our democracy and the foundational principle that government officials
    cannot use their power to punish dissent. As Senator Ed Markey warned us this week,
    what we are witnessing is “censorship in action.”

    Our party remains committed to engaging with the voters of Ashland County and fighting
    for the democratic principles that are under attack.

    The Ashland County Democratic Party is committed to advocating for the values of
    fairness, equality, and opportunity for all residents of Ashland County. We work to elect
    Democratic candidates and engage with the community to build a brighter future for Ohio.
    We hear those in our own party and those in opposition who feel those buttons were in
    poor taste.

    In retrospect, given the emotions running high in the wake of the Charlie Kirk
    assassination and subsequent scrutiny of criticism by the government, we should have
    thought about this more. We strongly oppose many of the policies of the Trump
    administration. We feel they are damaging the country. We express our ideas using our
    words and peaceful demonstrations. We do not and will never endorse political violence.

    Syndicated with permission from ToddStarnes.com – founded by best-selling author and journalist Todd Starnes. Starnes is the recipient of an RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award and the Associated Press Mark Twain Award for Storytelling.

    [ad_2]

    Todd Starnes

    Source link

  • Seed Global Health CEO Vanessa Kerry reacts to Trump’s U.N. comments about climate change

    [ad_1]

    President Trump criticized efforts to fight climate change while addressing the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday. Vanessa Kerry, CEO of Seed Global Health and WHO special envoy for climate change and health, joined CBS News to discuss the president’s remarks.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris breaks silence on Biden dropout, admits she has regrets about her handling of situation

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris broke her silence on the chaos following former President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the 2024 race just three and a half months before Election Day.

    Harris previewed her upcoming book “107 Days” with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Monday night describing Biden’s move as “recklessness” and admits she has regrets about not pushing him harder to reconsider.

    “So when I write this, it’s because I realize that I have and had a certain responsibility that I should have followed through on,” Harris told Maddow. “So when I talk about the recklessness, as much as anything, I’m talking about myself. There was so much at stake, and at the time I worried it would come off as being completely self-serving.”

    Then-Vice President Kamala Harris gives remarks alongside then-President Joe Biden on Aug. 15, 2024, in Largo, Maryland.  (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    KAMALA HARRIS REVEALS WHAT BIDEN TOLD HER JUST BEFORE CRUCIAL DEBATE WITH TRUMP THAT LEFT HER ‘ANGRY’

    The comments marked the first time Harris has publicly admitted doubts about how she handled the political earthquake.

    Harris says the decision left her with just over 100 days to strategize and face off against President Donald Trump.  She says the scenario was “unprecedented.”

    Her last-minute entry left Democrats scrambling while Trump had been building his war chest for months and hammering down his opponent on the campaign trail.

    Vice President Kamala Harris introduces President Joe Biden during a campaign rally at Girard College

    Vice President Kamala Harris introduces President Joe Biden during a campaign rally at Girard College in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 29, 2024.  (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

    KAMALA HARRIS ADMITS THERE ARE THINGS SHE WOULD’VE DONE DIFFERENTLY IN 2024, FAILS TO ELABORATE

    She recalled how “people who seemingly had nothing in common came together by the thousands with an A-level of optimism and, dare I say, joy about the possibilities for America.”

    Critics among her own political party questioned whether she could unite Democrats and win over independents with so little time left.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump and Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, attend the 9/11 Memorial ceremony

    Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, Democratic presidential nominee former vice president Kamala Harris, former president Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, President Donald Trump and Republican Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio.  (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom signs California law forcing federal agents to unmask

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a new law prohibiting federal law enforcement officers, like ICE agents, from wearing masks when conducting arrests. Elise Preston reports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link