Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: By running for mayor, Nithya Raman will learn how left L.A. really is — or isn’t

Published

on

Commentary: By running for mayor, Nithya Raman will learn how left L.A. really is — or isn’t

On the last day of January, hundreds of people filled the pews of Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Koreatown to hear not the word of God but the gospel of the Democratic Socialists of America.

It was the local chapter’s bimonthly meeting and also a kickoff event for a year during which they planned to build on an already impressive foothold in L.A. politics. Four of their own are council members and the two up for reelection — Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martínez — received standing ovations after their impassioned speeches. They implored the faithful to believe that anything is politically possible in a year when President Trump is waging war on Los Angeles and one of their own, Zohran Mamdani, is the mayor of New York.

Among the true believers was someone who arrived late that day: L.A.’s original democratic socialist insurgent, Nithya Raman.

She shocked the city’s political class in 2020 by beating Councilmember David Ryu — the first time in 17 years that an incumbent lost their seat. Her upset blazed the way for Hernandez and Soto-Martínez in 2022 and fellow DSAer Ysabel Jurado in 2024. They’ve created a progressive bloc that has helped Mayor Karen Bass implement her agenda, offering Her Honor cover from critics on the left while also pushing for democratic socialist principles such as less police spending and more intervention programs.

Raman kept a low profile at the DSA-LA event, according to attendees. The 44-year-old listened to her colleagues’ speeches and those of other hopefuls, made small talk with fellow members and then left.

Advertisement

There was no hint that afternoon of the political earthquake she uncorked this Saturday, when Raman announced a mayoral run against longtime ally Bass. The council member described the mayor to The Times as an “icon” who nevertheless needs to be replaced because “Los Angeles is at a breaking point.”

I can only imagine Bass — whom Raman publicly endorsed just a month ago — was surprised.

The mayor seems vulnerable, for sure. From her handling of the Palisades fire to crumbling infrastructure to the economy and so much more, critics maintain Bass spent all of last year living up to the old Johnny Mathis and Deniece Williams duet: She did things too much, too little and too late. This was all before sources told The Times last week that Bass ordered an after-action report on the Palisades fire be — no pun intended — watered down to limit legal liability against the city.

Her supporters point to a drop in homelessness and homicides over the last four years as reason enough for Bass to return — but their hosannas haven’t gotten as much traction as an incumbent should be seeing at this point in a reelection campaign. That’s why the proverbial smart money had someone on the right side of L.A.’s Democratic spectrum mounting a strong challenge this year — Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez or Traci Park, L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath or even 2022 challenger Rick Caruso.

While Mamdani’s fall win got local progressives dreaming about one day doing the same in Los Angeles, the prospect of a strong challenger from the left in this mayoral cycle was considered so unlikely that DSA-LA didn’t have candidate Rae Huang — a dues-paying member and Presbyterian minister — speak at the Immanuel gathering since she couldn’t gather enough signatures to make her case for an endorsement in the fall.

Advertisement

Raman has proved effective enough as a council member to win her reelection outright two years ago during the primaries despite a well-funded effort to paint her as a limousine leftist. I admire her brio to take on Bass and respect her place in L.A. political history. I’m glad someone is going to make the mayor work hard to get reelected because no incumbent should ever have an automatic reelection.

But Nithya Raman?

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman, left, talks with Mayor Karen Bass at Hazeltine Park in Sherman Oaks during a 2024 rally for Raman’s ultimately successful reelection bid. She’s now challenging Bass in the 2026 mayoral election.

(Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Presbyterians, such as those who pray at the Koreatown church, have historically believed in predestination, the idea that God has determined everyone’s fate and we can’t do a thing about it. Raman doesn’t belong to the denomination, but perhaps its tenets moved her at Immanuel into believing that another unlikely political revival is in her stars. Because that’s the only way to make sense of Raman’s turn and belief that she can pull off the victory.

Raman’s 4th District is one of the wealthier in the city, a mishmash of Encino rich, Silver Lake hipster and the San Fernando Valley lower middle class — relatively sheltered from the day-to-day struggles of many working class and working poor Angelenos living in L.A. While Soto-Martínez and Hernandez draw their perspective and base from the union and activist left, Raman’s loudest supporters have struck me as folks who might have the passion and money to win over her district but don’t have the street-level knowledge and experience to sell their candidate to all corners of the city.

Raman has walked the progressive walk during her two council terms by getting arrested at sit-ins, showing up to protests and through her City Hall work. But the coalition she needs to topple Bass seems exceedingly hard to build.

She’d have to run under the assumption that enough people on the left think the current mayor is a sellout — or at minimum, just not progressive enough. That conservative and centrist voters so loathe Bass that they’ll hold their nose and vote for a democratic socialist. She’d have to win over Latino voters, who went with Caruso four years ago but who represent only 19% of Raman’s district in a city that’s nearly majority Latino.

Raman would have to peel off labor from Bass, who has counted on and rewarded their support from Sacramento to Washington to City Hall for over two decades. Needs to paint Bass as soft on Trump’s deportation deluge despite her consistently calling him out. Appeal to homeowners who won’t like Raman’s ties to YIMBY-minded folks seeking to shove multistory units anywhere and everywhere. Convince Black voters — who already must reckon with the likely reality that the city will not have three Black council members for the first time since 1963 because the leading candidates to replace outgoing Curren Price are Latinos — that dethroning the city’s first Black female mayor is somehow good for the community’s political future.

Advertisement

And then there’s Raman’s fellow DSA members. The rank-and-file are currently furious at her for recently, unsuccessfully trying to tweak L.A.’s so-called mansion tax. Raman can’t run in the primary with DSA’s endorsement because that process ended last fall. Supporters can petition for a vote on the matter, but that opens her anew to critics who engineered a censure of her during her 2024 reelection campaign for accepting an endorsement by a pro-Israel group while the country was bombing Gaza.

Raman — who can keep her council seat if she doesn’t beat Bass — is about to find out that L.A. isn’t as progressive as people make it out to be.

Nithya Raman

Los Angeles Councilmember Nithya Raman speaks to a crowd as she hosts an election night event in Edendale in March 2024 in Los Angeles.

(Myung Chun/Los Angeles Times)

She might have visions of a populist movement a la what happened in New York ushering her into City Hall — but she’s no Mamdani and Bass is no Eric Adams. Even fans of Raman I talked to over the weekend are upset that the progressive march that DSA-LA has successfully launched in city and county politics this decade now must deal with a curveball from within. It threatens to distract from efforts for other campaigns in a year when the left needs to concentrate on defeating true opponents — not a fellow traveler like Bass.

Advertisement

Raman must figure this disruption is worth the risk for her legacy and will further strengthen L.A.’s left. Let’s see what voters decide.

Politics

Stephen Colbert calls out CBS for blocking interview with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico

Published

on

Stephen Colbert calls out CBS for blocking interview with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico

Late night comedian Stephen Colbert called out his network, CBS, saying it blocked him from broadcasting an interview with a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate over the Trump administration’s controversial enforcement of its equal-time rules.

During Stephen Colbert’s Monday night monologue on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” Colbert carried on per usual, introducing the Late Show Band and his guest Jennifer Garner. He then posed the question, “You know who is not one of my guests tonight?”

The late-night host was meant to have Texas state Rep. James Talarico on the show. But he said on air that he was “told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.”

He continued on to explain the FCC’s proposed new guidance for equal-time rules under its chairman, Brendan Carr. The rules require broadcasters who feature political candidates to provide the same time to their rivals, if requested.

Typically, news content on daytime and late-night talk shows has been excluded from these regulations, as it has been an informal tradition for presidential candidates to make their rounds on various late-night shows.

Advertisement

But the FCC under Carr — who has made no secret of his intention to carry out an agenda that is aligned with President Trump’s wishes — has questioned whether late-night and daytime talk shows deserve an exemption from the equal-time rules for broadcast stations using the public airwaves.

Many legal and media experts have said a stricter application of the rule would be hard to enforce and could stifle free speech.

“Let’s just call this what it is. Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV,” Colbert said Monday night.

CBS disputed Colbert’s claims that it prohibited the segment from airing “The Late Show’s” interview with Talarico.

“The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled,” wrote a CBS spokesperson. “ ‘The Late Show’ decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options.”

Advertisement

Earlier this year, ABC’s “The View” featured Talarico as well as his main rival, fellow Democrat Jasmine Crockett. Talarico is currently facing off with Crockett and Ahmad Hassan in the Democratic primary for one of Texas’ two seats in the U.S. Senate. The FCC is also reportedly investigating his appearance on “The View.”

Experts consider the equal-time rule to be antiquated, designed for a time when consumers were limited to a handful of TV channels and a dozen radio stations if they lived in a big city.

The emergence of cable, podcasts and streaming audio and video platforms — none of which are subject to FCC restrictions in terms of content — have greatly diminished traditional broadcast media’s dominance in the marketplace.

Carr has previously suggested that if TV hosts want to include political candidates in their programming, they can do it — just not on broadcast TV.

Colbert said he was taking Carr’s “advice” and revealed that his entire interview with Talarico was instead uploaded on YouTube. During the interview, Talarico calls out the Republican Party for initially running against “cancel culture.”

Advertisement

“Now they are trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture, the kind that comes from the top,” Talarico said. “They went after ‘The View’ because I went on there. They went after Jimmy Kimmel for telling a joke they didn’t like. They went after you for telling the truth about Paramount’s bribe to Donald Trump.”

Walt Disney Co.-owned ABC temporarily suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live!” last fall after Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group, owners of ABC affiliates, said they would not air the talk series because of comments Kimmel made about the suspect in the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is leaving the air come May, signaling the end of CBS’ long-standing relationship with the late-night talk show. Its cancellation was a “purely financial decision,” according to CBS.

But it also came at a time when Paramount Global, which owns CBS, was seeking regulatory approval from the Trump administration to sell itself to Skydance Media. The merger was finalized in August.

CBS drew scrutiny over its decision to settle a lawsuit Trump filed against CBS News over edits made to a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent in the race for the White House.

Advertisement

The suit was settled for $16 million even though most First Amendment experts believed Trump’s claims were frivolous. But getting past the complaint without a lengthy trial was seen as necessary by former CBS News parent Paramount Global to assure regulatory clearance of its merger with Skydance Media.

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘ShamWow Guy’ reveals what is motivating him to run for Congress: ‘This woke mess won’t clean itself’

Published

on

‘ShamWow Guy’ reveals what is motivating him to run for Congress: ‘This woke mess won’t clean itself’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Vince Offer Shlomi, more commonly known to the masses as the “ShamWow Guy,” is running for Congress in Texas as an anti-establishment Republican vowing to “clean the swamp.”

If elected, Shlomi, who is beloved for his high-energy late-night ShamWow and “Slap Chop” commercials, has said he will “destroy wokeism,” quipping on his campaign website, “This woke mess won’t clean itself.”

In a recent ad, Shlomi, 61, knocked 84-year-old incumbent Republican Rep. John Carter’s cognitive ability as “worse than Biden,” saying, “vote for me, a guy who’s not half dead.”

Despite President Donald Trump endorsing Carter for re-election, Shlomi believes he would be a better ally in Congress for the president. He suggested Carter is no longer up for the job, likening his continued presence in the House of Representatives to a form of elder abuse.

Advertisement

“He’s not a fighter,” said Shlomi, adding, “It’s not that he’s old, but his capacity is lacking and Trump doesn’t know that.”

TEXAS DEMOCRAT BLASTED FOR TELLING LATINO, BLACK, ASIAN PEOPLE TO UNITE AGAINST ‘OPPRESSOR,’ ‘TAKE OVER’ US

Left: Rep. John Carter, R-Texas. Right: Media personality and Republican congressional candidate Vince Shlomi “ShamWow.” (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Vince Shlomi Campaign)

After years in the media world, Shlomi said he decided to break into politics after “seeing the decline of the civilization.”

“I’m seeing people not standing up to things. Not thinking about God … kind of afraid, they’re kind of intimidated, walking on eggshells,” he explained. “I feel that we need to fight a little bit stronger on just the commonsense American value ideas.”

Advertisement

“I want to bring wholesomeness back to America,” he said.

He also framed his candidacy as standing up to the GOP establishment, something he believes has already put a target on his back.

He believes that “someone” in the GOP deleted his nickname from the ballot to reduce his name recognition. Candidates using nicknames on the ballot is very common but nicknames tied to brand names or products are rarer.

CONSERVATIVE FIREBRAND VOWS TO PURGE ‘RINOS’ IN BATTLE TO REPLACE RETIRING VERN BUCHANAN IN OPEN FLORIDA SEAT

Vince Offer Shlomi is best known for his high-energy television commercials marketing the “ShamWow.” (Vince Shlomi Campaign)

Advertisement

“I think they’re trying to hoodwink the voters from not knowing who I am,” said Shlomi, adding, “Honestly, it’s a swampy move, and that’s one of the things I’ll be working on when I get to Congress.”

Though describing his election effort as an “uphill battle,” Shlomi said he believes it is part of a “higher purpose.”

“The bottom line is I want to help clean the swamp,” he said. “I’ve just seen the world, I’m looking at athletes, and they’re not standing up for kids, or standing up for girls, and they just go with whatever pays the most money. So, I just thought, you know what? I’m not a brave person, but I just can’t let this happen.”

TURNING POINT ISSUES MAJOR ENDORSEMENT IN CRITICAL SENATE RACE AS TRUMP HINTS AT WEIGHING IN

Television commercial star Vince Shlomi, also known as “ShamWow,” is running for U.S. Congress in Texas. (Jason Reed/REUTERS; Vince Shlomi Campaign)

Advertisement

Regarding Shlomi’s ballot name, Abraham George, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, told Fox News Digital that “the National Republican Congressional Committee challenged Mr. Shlomi’s ballot nickname – ‘ShamWow’” and “after considering the law, including Texas Election Code section 52.031, the Republican Party of Texas determined that this challenge was well taken and Mr. Shlomi’s ballot nickname was eliminated. Nicknames that indicate an economic affiliation are impermissible by law.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Carter’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Warner Bros. Discovery reopens bidding, gives Paramount seven days to make its case

Published

on

Warner Bros. Discovery reopens bidding, gives Paramount seven days to make its case

Warner Bros. Discovery is cracking open the door to allow spurned bidder, Paramount Skydance, to make its case — but Warner’s board still maintains its preference for Netflix’s competing proposal.

Warner’s move to reopen talks comes after weeks of pressure from Paramount, which submitted an enhanced offer to buy Warner last week. Paramount’s willingness to increase its offer late in the auction attracted the attention of some Warner investors.

On Tuesday, Warner Bros. Discovery responded with a letter to Paramount Chairman David Ellison and others on Paramount’s board, giving the group seven days to “clarify your proposal.”

“We seek your best and final proposal,” Warner board members wrote. Warner set a Feb. 23 deadline for Paramount to comply.

Advertisement

The closely watched sale of the century-old Warner Bros., known for “Batman,” “The Big Bang Theory,” “Casablanca,” and HBO, the home of “Game of Thrones” and “Succession,” is expected to reshape Hollywood.

The flurry of activity comes as Warner Bros. Discovery and Netflix are seeking to enter the home stretch of the auction. Warner separately issued its proxy and set a special March 20 meeting of its shareholders to decide the company’s fate.

Warner Bros. Discovery is recommending that its stockholders approve the $82.7-billion Netflix deal.

“We continue to believe the Netflix merger is in the best interests of WBD shareholders due to the tremendous value it provides, our clear path to achieve regulatory approval and the transaction’s protections for shareholders against downside risk,” Warner Chairman Samuel A. Di Piazza, Jr., said in a Tuesday statement.

Still, the maneuver essentially reopens the talks.

Advertisement

Warner Bros. is creating an opportunity for Paramount to sway Warner board members, which could perhaps prompt Netflix to raise its $27.75 a share offer for Warner’s Burbank-based studios, vast library of programming, HBO and streaming service HBO Max.

Netflix is not interested in buying Warner Bros. Discovery’s basic cable channels, including CNN, TBS, HGTV and Animal Planet, which are set to be spun off to a stand-alone company later this year.

In contrast, Paramount wants to buy the entire company and has offered more than $30 a share.

Last week, Paramount sweetened its bid for Warner, adding a $2.8-billion “break fee” that Warner would have to pay Netflix if the company pulled the plug on that deal. Paramount also said it would pay Warner investors a “ticking fee” of 25 cents a share for every quarter after Jan. 1 that the deal does not close.

“While we have tried to be as constructive as possible in formulating these solutions, several of these items would benefit from collaborative discussion to finalize,” Paramount said last week as it angled for a chance to make its case. “We will work with you to refine these solutions to ensure they address any and all of your concerns.”

Advertisement

Netflix agreed to give Warner Bros. Discovery a temporary waiver from its merger agreement to allow Warner Bros. Discovery to reengage with Paramount, which lost the bidding war on Dec. 4.

“We granted WBD a narrow seven-day waiver of certain obligations under our merger agreement to allow them to engage with PSKY to fully and finally resolve this matter,” Netflix said Tuesday in a statement. “This does not change the fact that we have the only signed, board-recommended
agreement with WBD, and ours is the only certain path to delivering value to WBD’s stockholders.”

Netflix has matching rights for any improved Paramount offer. The company renewed its confidence in its deal and its prospect to win regulatory approval.

“PSKY has repeatedly mischaracterized the regulatory review process by suggesting its proposal will sail through, misleading WBD stockholders about the real risk of their regulatory challenges around the world,” Netflix said in its statement. “WBD stockholders should not be misled into thinking that PSKY has an easier or faster path to regulatory approval – it does not.”

Warner Bros. Discovery acknowledged that Paramount’s recent modification “addresses some of the concerns that WBD had identified several months ago,” according to the letter to Paramount.

Advertisement

But Warner Bros. Discovery added Paramount’s offer “still contains many of the unfavorable terms and conditions that were in the draft agreements … and twice unanimously rejected by our Board,” Warner Bros. Discovery said.

Warner’s board told Paramount it will “welcome the opportunity to engage” during the seven-day negotiation period.

Paramount has been pursuing the prized assets since last September.

“Every step of the way, we have provided PSKY with clear direction on the deficiencies in their offers and opportunities to address them,” Warner Chief Executive David Zaslav said in a statement. “We are engaging with PSKY now to determine whether they can deliver an actionable, binding proposal that provides superior value and certainty for WBD shareholders.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending