Connect with us

Politics

Column: California isn't sending a Black woman to the Senate. But Barbara Lee won anyway

Published

on

Column: California isn't sending a Black woman to the Senate. But Barbara Lee won anyway

I don’t know what I had expected from Barbara Lee when an aide handed her the phone, but the laughter I heard certainly wasn’t it.

Only a few hours had passed since the longtime congresswoman from Oakland had released a statement conceding the primary election for U.S. Senate and congratulating her Democratic colleague, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank.

Lee came in fourth place, more than a million votes behind Schiff and Republican Steve Garvey, and hundreds of thousands of votes behind Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, who came in third. Ballots are still being counted, but the Senate race was called minutes after the polls closed on Super Tuesday.

It was, by any stretch of the imagination, a crushing defeat.

Especially since Lee, and a committed sisterhood of politicians, activists, academics and lobbyists across California, had spent almost four years working behind the scenes to boost representation for Black women at the highest levels of the federal government.

Advertisement

Now Schiff and Garvey will face each other in the November general election — and Schiff will certainly win in this overwhelmingly Democratic state. He’ll be a senator for years to come.

So I wondered, why was Lee laughing?

“I’ve been persistent, and every step of the way there have been roadblocks and obstacles,” she told me, growing serious. “But again, this is such an example of a Black woman’s life.”

::

It’s worth reflecting on how we got here. At least, that’s what California Secretary of State Shirley Weber has been doing.

Advertisement

“The whole thing started with believing that African Americans deserve to have a seat,” she told me.

It was back in 2020, and Weber was serving in the state Assembly and as leader of the Legislative Black Caucus. Joe Biden had just been elected president, with no small amount of help from Black women, and Kamala Harris had just vacated her Senate seat to become the nation’s first Black and South Asian vice president.

Weber and a long list of Black politicians, activists, academics and lobbyists decided that Black women needed to continue to have representation in the upper chamber. That it would be a loss not having someone with such intersectional life experiences when the state and country are becoming more diverse with each passing year.

“The ability around the nation to recognize and to support Black women in statewide positions is very bleak,” Weber told me in 2020. “You got 100 people in the Senate and you don’t have one Black woman.”

The “Keep the Seat” campaign was born, and the words became a rallying cry. Supporters urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to do just that by picking Lee or then-Rep. Karen Bass, both eminently qualified longtime legislators, as a successor to Harris.

Advertisement

Lee, in Santa Rosa last month, stuck to her progressive stances and “Keep the Seat” message as she campaigned for Senate in cities and counties throughout California.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Newsom ended up selecting then-Secretary of State Alex Padilla instead, Lee stayed in Congress and Bass, of course, became mayor of Los Angeles. But the rallying cry didn’t go silent. Rather, it returned alongside calls for Sen. Dianne Feinstein to step down over concerns about her health, prompting Newsom to promise to appoint a Black woman to her seat if it came to that.

Then Feinstein died last year, setting off a days-long political mess, mostly of the governor’s own making. At issue was an apparent caveat in Newsom’s promise. He said he’d make an “interim appointment” because the campaign for the Senate seat had already been underway for months.

Advertisement

Lee and other Black women — myself included — took umbrage, wondering why were only good enough to be a caretaker for Schiff, who was in the lead even then. Newsom said his words were being misconstrued, and resisted calls to appoint Lee outright.

In the end, the governor appointed his political ally Laphonza Butler, the Black woman who led Emily’s List, and she ultimately decided not to run for a full term.

Given all of that back-and-forth, it came as something of a surprise to Weber that Lee would stick with her campaign for Senate and give up her House seat. This is especially true because, even without Lee, the Senate is likely to get another Black woman in November, as Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland and Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware are running for seats too.

Some people, looking at the polling, had been quietly pressuring Lee to drop out.

“But that’s Barbara, you know? She does what she believes, and you can never question her heart,” Weber told me. “Another one would have been calculating, ‘Well, if I run I and lose, it’s this versus that.’ And then she didn’t calculate like that. She decided that we needed to have a Black woman in that seat.”

Advertisement

::

I doubt Lee will ever admit it, but she had to know she was probably going to lose.

For months, polls consistently showed her trailing her opponents, even after she received a plurality of the delegate vote at the California Democratic Party convention. Many of those delegates, like voters in her Bay Area district, tended to lean more progressive than voters in other parts of the state.

Lee also lacked a statewide profile — unlike Schiff, whose prominence rose by leading the first impeachment of Donald Trump; or Porter with her whiteboard notes during congressional hearings; or even Garvey, with his star turns on the Dodgers and Padres.

Perhaps even more important, Lee didn’t have tens of millions of dollars to buy a statewide profile with a TV advertising blitz. Before deciding to run for Senate, the 77-year-old had never needed a sophisticated fundraising operation, and had fiercely guarded her private life rather than blast it across social media to boost her popularity.

Advertisement

“If you don’t have money coming from all directions,” she acknowledged, “it’s very difficult to introduce yourself to voters.”

So while Lee’s campaign only raised about $5 million, according to the latest Federal Election Commission filings, she was running against two of the most prolific fundraisers in Congress. Both Schiff and Porter amassed war chests closer to $30 million, with Schiff, blessed by the Democratic Party establishment, long in the lead.

Which is why it’s ridiculous that, of all of the candidates, it was Porter — with about as much money left over in her campaign account as Lee had raised throughout her entire campaign — who chose to complain about the influence of money in politics.

“Because of you,” she posted to her followers on X, “we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election.” It was a terrible choice of words because, of course, the election wasn’t “rigged.” No ballots were illegally manipulated.

But it’s true that our political system is “rigged” in the sense that societal biases and structural inequities often work against women and people of color who run for office. This has been borne out in study after study, including a recent one from Pew Research Center.

Advertisement

We don’t have an outsized number of white men in elected office because most white men are political geniuses and most women and people of color are terrible candidates. We do because women of color, in particular, have a consistently harder time raising money because they have less access to high-end donors, and therefore have a harder time getting elected.

“That’s a reality when you’re in a poor community, and you’ve just been a regular campaigner and you work hard in your community and you deliver,” Weber said. “You’re not in a circle that raises $30 million.”

Adam Schiff gestures while speaking as Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Steve Garvey listen, all standing at lecterns onstage

Lee, left, stayed in the race despite issues including systemic fundraising challenges and low polling against her higher-profile rivals, Adam B. Schiff, Katie Porter and Steve Garvey, from left at a January debate.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

But Lee’s decision to run in spite of these challenges is what she said inspired many of the people she met on the campaign trail — including numerous Black women who were putting together fledgling campaigns to run for office.

Advertisement

They would swap stories about the hardships ahead. The racism and sexism embedded in the system.

“So many of them would come up and whisper to me, ‘I know what the deal is.’ It’s a common conversation Black women have,” Lee told me. “When you step out and do something that others didn’t think you should do as a Black woman, then you get a lot of pushback.”

I saw it too. At her campaign events in cities and counties where she’d never before had a reason to spend much time, Black women and people of color would hang on Lee’s every word:

How she summoned the courage to travel to Mexcio to get an abortion as a teenager. How she worked with the Black Panthers. How, as a member of Congress, she was among the first to call for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza and the only one to resist war after 9/11.

Before running for Senate, Lee was an unknown to many. Now she’s an underappreciated hero with a cult-like following.

Advertisement

Therefore, I agree with Weber when she says that Lee’s loss in the primary doesn’t diminish the fight for representation that started with the “Keep the Seat” campaign. Or even the push to get Harris elected to the Senate in the first place.

“Nobody’s saying we shouldn’t do this again. Nobody seems to be saying, ‘Well, we lost our chance. We missed our shot,’” Weber said. “But a lot of women that I’ve talked to more recently have said, ‘You know, when this is over, we’ve got to organize.’”

Raising money will always been an issue. So will racism and sexism. But in the end, the campaign for Senate might have been more important than the election. And, in that way, it’s Lee who is getting the last laugh.

Advertisement
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

Trending