Connect with us

Politics

Column: A land of flaming liberalism? Senate results contradict California stereotype

Published

on

Column: A land of flaming liberalism? Senate results contradict California stereotype

Adam Schiff got the November opponent he wanted.

Steve Garvey was set up to be knocked down.

And by year’s end, California will very likely have a new U.S. senator in the mold of its past one, Dianne Feinstein, whose former seat Democrat Schiff is vying to fill.

The voters spoke Tuesday in the state’s marquee election and what they said was: We’ll stick with what we know.

Advertisement

By choosing Schiff, a Burbank congressman who was the most moderate of the major Democratic candidates — and thus most Feinstein-like — they rejected the leftward swerve promised by two more liberal alternatives, Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland.

By advancing the Republican Garvey to November’s general election, voters set up a conventional match between candidates of opposing parties and philosophies, rather than an atypical Democrat-on-Democrat runoff turning on personal temperament and differences of political degree.

And by elevating Garvey over Porter, they also effectively settled the Senate contest with eight months still to go before the general election.

There are no certainties in life. The same goes for politics.

However, barring an extraordinary set of circumstances, Schiff will be California’s next U.S. senator, taking over for the placeholding Laphonza Butler, who was appointed to replace Feinstein after her death in September.

Advertisement

(A brief refresher: Under California’s election system, the top-two primary finishers advance to November’s general election, regardless of party. The winner will finish Feinstein’s term, ending in January, then begin a full six-year term. Schiff is much happier facing Garvey than Porter, who would have been a much tougher opponent.)

Democrats enjoy a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration advantage in California and all but those blinded by partisanship can see the gulf between Schiff and Garvey when it comes to political experience, knowledge and capability.

Making his first bid for political office, Garvey has proven to be as empty as a vacuum tube. His political positions are paint-by-number, and suggest just as much consideration. The former Dodgers and Padres baseball star didn’t run a campaign so much as stand still and wait for GOP voters to come his way.

His finish shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. Candidates with an “R” by their name can expect roughly 40% support in a general election in California, so it wasn’t difficult to garner enough backing in the primary to move ahead to November, especially with Schiff, Porter, Lee and several others splintering the Democratic vote.

With roughly half the returns counted, Porter was running a distant third, trailing Garvey by nearly double digits in the race for the full, six-year term.

Advertisement

Lee, the most unabashedly liberal of the leading Democrats, never stood much of a chance. Her appeal beyond her uber-progressive Oakland congressional district was always suspect and her age — 77 — didn’t help, particularly after the sad, prolonged decline of Feinstein turned longevity into an issue for many Democrats.

Of course, Garvey, who didn’t sink a penny into TV advertising, benefited enormously from the tens of millions that Schiff and his allies spent promoting his candidacy. Garvey was too MAGA and too conservative for California, Schiff’s ads asserted, which was catnip to the GOP base, which didn’t seem to mind Garvey’s 75-year-old rookie status. The tactic was a way for Schiff, 63, to have a hand in choosing his preferred opponent, which generated a good deal of hand-wringing and commentary.

Much of it was overwrought.

Elections are about winning, within legal and certain moral bounds, not playing by an imaginary set of rules dictating kindness or sportsmanship. Porter fiercely objected when Schiff began featuring Garvey in his ads. Then, when Garvey began moving up in polls, Porter attempted the same tactic, promoting a lesser-known Republican, Eric Early, in hopes of splitting the GOP vote.

So much for holding the high ground.

Advertisement

You can dislike the machinations, but Schiff didn’t manufacture Garvey’s party affiliation or stance on issues. The votes Garvey received were entirely legitimate and reflect the views of a not-insignificant slice of the electorate.

California has 5 million registered Republicans, a number exceeding the population of 28 states. While it’s easy to overlook them— especially for Democrats and their partisans — many GOP faithful are presumably glad to have someone to vote for who represents their party, rather than having to choose a least-bad Democrat.

Would-be successors spent years circling Feinstein’s Senate seat, convinced time would inexorably force her exit. Porter, to her credit, ended the shadow campaigning by declaring her candidacy weeks before Feinstein announced plans to step down after her sixth term. (She died in office seven months later.)

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Porter, 50, was asked about Schiff’s frequent invocation of the late senator, who quite likely would have preferred the more moderate, less confrontational Schiff as her successor.

The Orange County lawmaker’s acerbic response — “Sen. Feinstein, as you know, has passed away, and is not able to endorse from the grave” — is indisputable. Besides, the choice wasn’t Feinstein’s to make, even if she were alive.

Advertisement

The choice was up to California voters and by ushering Schiff to November and an expected victory over Garvey, they showed that Feinstein’s center-left ideology, studious manner and results-oriented approach to governing have not lost their appeal — even if the outcome might contradict the stereotype of the state as a wacky land of flaming liberalism.

The center — or what passes for it in California — prevailed.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

F.A.A. Temporarily Halts Launches of Musk’s Starship After Explosion

Published

on

F.A.A. Temporarily Halts Launches of Musk’s Starship After Explosion

The urgent radio calls by the air traffic controllers at the Federal Aviation Administration office in Puerto Rico started to go out on Thursday evening as a SpaceX test flight exploded and debris began to rain toward the Caribbean.

Flights near Puerto Rico needed to avoid passing through the area — or risk being hit by falling chunks of the Starship, the newest and biggest of Elon Musk’s rockets.

“Space vehicle mishap,” an air traffic controller said over the F.A.A. radio system, as onlookers on islands below and even in some planes flying nearby saw bright streaks of light as parts of the spacecraft tumbled toward the ocean.

Added a second air traffic controller: “We have reports of debris outside of the protected areas so we’re currently going to have to hold you in this airspace.”

The mishap — the Starship spacecraft blew up as it was still climbing into space — led the F.A.A. on Friday to suspend any additional liftoffs by SpaceX’s Starship, the largest and most powerful rocket ever built.

Advertisement

The incident raises new questions about both the safety of the rapidly increasing number of commercial space launches, or at least the air traffic disruption being caused by them.

It also is the latest incident highlighting the conflicts that Elon Musk’s new role in the Trump administration will bring. He will have the remit to recommend changes, and potentially budget cuts, to government agencies including the F.A.A. That tension could hamper investigations like the one announced on Friday.

Mr. Musk, who is preparing to travel to Washington to participate in Mr. Trump’s inauguration, expressed confidence even as of Thursday night that SpaceX would resolve questions about the explosion quickly and restart test flights.

“Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month,” Mr. Musk wrote on his social media site, X.

Mr. Musk also made fun of the spectacle the explosion created, as the debris fell toward Turks and Caicos Islands. “Success is uncertain, but entertainment is guaranteed!” he wrote atop a video of the fiery debris falling toward earth.

Advertisement

The explosion happened after the Starship’s second stage — which is slated to carry cargo or even astronauts on their way to the moon during future missions — separated from the lower Super Heavy booster, and was flying at about 13,250 miles per hour, 90 miles above the Earth.

The Starship had already fired its own rockets to finish the trip into orbit, according to SpaceX’s ship tracking information, suggesting that at the time it blew up, it weighed somewhat more than 100 tons, which is the Starship’s approximate mass without fuel.

SpaceX and F.A.A. officials on Friday did not respond to questions submitted in writing and in interviews by The New York Times as to whether the explosion and falling debris may have represented a threat to any aircraft or people on the ground. It is unclear how much of the spacecraft might have burned up as it fell.

The agency did say there were no reports of injuries but is investigating reports of property damage on Turks and Caicos. It also said that several aircraft that were asked to hold in an area away from the falling debris ended up having to divert and return to other airports because of low fuel.

SpaceX, in a statement about this seventh Starship test flight, said that early data suggested that a fire had started in the rear section of the spacecraft, resulting in the explosion and the landing of debris in an area that SpaceX and the F.A.A. had already identified as liable to such hazards.

Advertisement

Closer to the South Texas launch site, at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico, all flights were already banned at the time of the launch. Starship was about 10 times higher than the altitude of commercial flights when it exploded, meaning there should have been time to warn any planes in the area to steer clear before any remaining debris approached.

SpaceX will be in charge of the mishap investigation, but it will be overseen by the F.A.A., which could allow it to resume test flights even before the investigation is complete, if SpaceX can document that the accident did not create a safety hazard.

Mr. Musk has previously expressed frustration at how long it takes the agency to approve Starship launch licenses. Now he will be a prominent member of the Trump administration, through his perch as a co-leader of an advisory group called the Department of Government Efficiency, with the power to evaluate federal spending and regulations.

“What this new administration might do is push this review to its conclusion faster,” said Todd Harrison, a former space industry executive at America Enterprise Institute.

He added that he expected some at F.A.A. might want to put new demands on SpaceX related to what time future Starship test flights launch, or broader restrictions on flights along more of the flight path.

Advertisement

Tim Farrar, a satellite industry consultant, said the incident showed the complications the United States is going to face as it ramps up space launches, both for the Pentagon as it builds out space warfighting capacity, and major commercial companies like SpaceX and Amazon that are building constellations with thousands of satellites to create global broadband internet access from orbit.

“How much can you realistically increase the tempo of these launches?” Mr. Farrar said.

There were 145 launches reaching orbit last year from the United States, compared with just 21 five years ago. An extraordinary 133 of those orbital launches were by SpaceX, which is now the world’s dominant space company, according to data collected by Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who tracks launches globally.

Most of those SpaceX launches were by the Falcon 9 rocket, which is deploying Starlink communications satellites and Pentagon payloads and was not impacted by Friday’s F.A.A. order.

Blue Origin, the launch company created by Jeff Bezos, had its own rocket test on Thursday, reaching orbit for the first time with its spacecraft called New Glenn. But it launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida at 2:03 a.m., in part because there were fewer planes in the air then.

Advertisement

The surge in launch frequency, even before Thursday, has been generating complaints from airlines, including Qantas, the Australian-based carrier, which told reporters this month that it has had to delay several flights between Johannesburg and Sydney at the last minute because of debris from SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.

“While we try to make any changes to our schedule in advance, the timing of recent launches have moved around at late notice which has meant we’ve had to delay some flights just prior to departure,” the Qantas executive said in a statement.

Hannah Walden, an Airlines for America spokeswoman, said the commercial airlines are tracking this issue closely.

“Safety is the top priority for U.S. airlines, and we are committed to ensuring the safety of all flights amidst the growing number of space launches,” she said in a statement. “We continuously collaborate and coordinate with the federal government and commercial space stakeholders to ensure the U.S. airspace remains safe for all users.”

Bill Nelson, the Biden-era National Aeronautics and Space Administration director, praised the test flight. The space agency has more than $4 billion worth of contracts with SpaceX to twice use Starship to land astronauts on the moon.

Advertisement

“Spaceflight is not easy,” he wrote Thursday night on Mr. Musk’s X platform. “It’s anything but routine. That’s why these tests are so important — each one bringing us closer on our path to the Moon and onward to Mars.”

Mark Walker contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration planning illegal immigrant arrests throughout US on ‘day one’

Published

on

Trump administration planning illegal immigrant arrests throughout US on ‘day one’

The incoming Trump administration is eyeing immigration arrests of illegal immigrants across the country as soon as day one, as top officials say they are ready to “take the handcuffs off” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration is planning a large-scale raid in Chicago on Tuesday, targeting those with criminal backgrounds in particular.

Incoming border czar Tom Homan was asked by Fox News’ Jesse Watters about the media reports of a “big raid” on Tuesday in Chicago, but Homan said ICE will be working across the country.

DEM SENATOR QUIZZES NOEM ON HOW SHE WILL WORK WITH HOMAN: ‘WHO IS IN CHARGE?’

“There’s going to be a big raid across the country. Chicago is just one of many places. We’ve got 24 field offices across the country. On Tuesday, ICE is finally going to go out and do their job. We’re going to take the handcuffs off ICE and let them go arrest criminal aliens, that’s what’s going to happen,” he said.

Advertisement

“What we’re telling ICE, you’re going to enforce the immigration law without apology. You’re going to concentrate on the worst first, public safety threats first, but no one is off the table. If they’re in the country illegally, they got a problem,” he said.

The administration has promised a mass deportation operation, as well as increased border security. Officials have said they intend to target those with criminal histories and convictions, but have also stressed that they will potentially arrest anyone in the U.S. illegally. There are currently more than 7 million individuals on ICE’s non-detained docket.

TRUMP DHS PICK NOEM PLEDGES TO END CONTROVERSIAL APP USED BY MIGRANTS ON ‘DAY ONE’

“The administration has been clear that we’re going to start arresting people on day one, and Chicago’s probably not going to be the only place that arrests are going to be made,” a source familiar told Fox News Digital.

The administration is expected to see significant pushback from “sanctuary” cities that refuse to allow state and local law enforcement to honor ICE detainers – requests that ICE be notified when illegal immigrants in custody are being released.

Advertisement

Some Democratic officials in Chicago, as well as Massachusetts and Arizona have said they will not co-operate with the administration.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS

But New York City Mayor Eric Adams has met with Homan about how they can work together on removing illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent crimes.

DHS nominee Kristi Noem testified to Congress on Friday, and threw her support behind the mass deportation operation and increasing border security. She also said the administration will immediately end the use of the CBP One app, which currently allows migrants to be paroled into the U.S.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court will decide if parents have a religious liberty right to reject LGBTQ+ lessons for their kids

Published

on

Supreme Court will decide if parents have a religious liberty right to reject LGBTQ+ lessons for their kids

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up a culture wars dispute and decide whether parents have a religious liberty right to have their children “opt out” of using school textbooks and lesson plans with LGBTQ+ themes.

The court voted to hear an appeal from a group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents in Montgomery County, Md., who objected to new storybooks for elementary school children that they said “celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four.”

At first, the school board reacted to the complaints by saying parents could have their children excused from the class when the new textbooks were being used or discussed.

But after seeing a “growing number of opt out requests,” the school district reversed course in 2023 and said no opt-outs would be granted “for any reason.”

The parents then sued in federal court, citing the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion.

Advertisement

They were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. After failing to win a court order in favor of the parents, they urged the Supreme Court to hear the case and to give parents an “opt out” right for books that they say offend their religious beliefs.

They argued many of the new “inclusivity” books for students from kindergarten to fifth grade champion a progressive ideology about gender and sexuality.

They cited one book that told 3- and 4-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather.” Another book advocated a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, they said.

Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, welcomed the court’s intervention.

“Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency,” he said in a statement. “The court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.”

Advertisement

Last month, the school district’s lawyers said there was no reason for the justices to take up the case.

“Every court of appeals that has considered the question has held that mere exposure to controversial issues in a public-school curriculum does not burden the free religious exercise of parents or students,” they said. “Parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive.”

The justices are likely to schedule the case of Mahmoud vs. Taylor for arguments in late April.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending