Politics
Column: Watch your step, Democrats. O.C.'s purple shine hides a red underbelly
In 2016, my beloved homeland of Orange County shocked political observers by favoring Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, the first time we went with a Democrat for president since FDR.
In 2018, O.C. voters made history yet again when we sent an all-Democratic congressional delegation to Capitol Hill. The following year, more people in O.C. were registered Democrats than Republicans — another first.
Local and national media outlets tripped over themselves to report on this political earthquake. Orange County — land of Richard Nixon and kooky conservatism, crucible of evangelical Christianity and culture war politics, the place Ronald Reagan repeatedly said was “where the good Republicans go before they die” — now sported a political color never before associated with our suburban sprawl of 3.2 million people:
Purple.
In an era where Trump was ascendant, seeing O.C. turn more liberal offered hope to Democrats nationwide. Because if Orange County — Orange County! — could reject the GOP, it could happen anywhere.
That narrative continued in 2020 as O.C. voters once again rejected Trump, even as Republicans Young Kim and Michelle Steel won congressional seats, and again two years later, even though Republicans won the county in all statewide elections. This year, political pundits are doubling down on the idea that Orange County’s mauve march continues.
Publications from the Guardian to this one now regularly use the color to describe O.C.’s political hue. Longtime political consultant Mike Madrid will host a podcast this summer called “Red County, Blue County, Orange County” (I sat down for an episode), where he’ll argue that the future of American politics is here. The podcast is produced by UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology, which recently released a poll including the cheeky assertion that “Orange is the New Purple.”
In the poll of 804 Orange County adults, President Biden holds a healthy lead among likely voters, most of whom are also going with the Democratic candidate in their congressional districts. The respondents were almost evenly split in their party identifications, with about a third Republican, a third Democrat and a third choosing another option.
UC Irvine’s findings are already getting attention and exciting Democrats. Money will probably flow toward congressional races, because taking out Steel and Kim and keeping the seat currently occupied by Rep. Katie Porter can help flip the House.
But Orange County’s purple revolution reminds me of Jesus’ bitter comment in the Gospels that a prophet is honored everywhere except in his hometown, and among his own family.
While the rise of Democrats in O.C. has made all the headlines, the facts on the ground tell a different story. In terms of local political power, Republicans still rule — and it’s not even close.
They hold every countywide elected position and all the seats on the Orange County Board of Education. While reform-minded sheriffs and district attorneys have won in major metro areas in recent years, O.C.’s top lawmen are proudly regressive Republicans — and voters love it. Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer won his 2022 reelection bid outright in the primary. Sheriff Don Barnes did even better that spring: there was no election because no one bothered to run against him.
There are more Republican Assembly members from O.C. than Democratic ones, and a majority of city councils in the county lean GOP. Democrats do hold all but one state Senate seat, but on the Board of Supervisors, their majority is only putative because Doug Chaffee, who represents northern Orange County, has the pesky habit of siding with his GOP colleagues a bit too much.
Political change is happening here, but to act as if a purple Orange County exists is dangerous for Democrats. It lulls them into believing their own hype — and local history offers a cautionary tale.
In 1990, Republicans held a 22% voter registration advantage over Democrats, and the idea that Democrats could matter outside of Santa Ana and a handful of other cities was never considered, because it was so outlandish.
What did the GOP do with that advantage? They let it erode like the shoreline in San Clemente.
Pundits attribute this development to the exodus of white Republicans to other states, the emergence of the Latino vote and an increase in college-educated voters, who overwhelmingly sided with Biden over Trump in the UC Irvine poll.
No, it was hubris — that grand leveler of the mighty — that did the GOP in. The party alienated Latino voters for a generation by backing the anti-immigrant Prop. 187, and it let a once-vaunted farm system of candidates dry up. Leaders decided to stand athwart a liberalizing Orange County instead of adapt.
Democrats, on the other hand, capitalized on openings — the GOP war on LGBTQ+ and abortion rights, court-mandated district elections, ever-increasing cost-of-living — with two successive party chairs, Fran Sdao and Ada Briceño, who played to win instead of settling for perpetual second-banana status. The historic developments of 2016, 2018 and 2019 all came because of an underdog mentality that assumed nothing.
I hope Orange County Democrats remember this. Their victories have worked like chlorine in the whiny conservative swamp that was Orange County. But thinking we now wade in a purple wonderland proved disastrous in 2022. Besides the reelections of Spitzer and Barnes, the party endorsed a more progressive Democrat to take on Chaffee, only to see Chaffee win decisively.
Even worse was what happened in Huntington Beach. Leading up to the general election, four of the city’s seven council members were Democrats — a once-unthinkable development in MAGA-by-the-Sea. All local liberals had to do was win one of those seats, and they could have created a blue beachside haven akin to HB’s rival for the Surf City nickname, Santa Cruz.
Instead, a bunch of Democrats ran and canceled each other out. Republicans, meanwhile, formed a slate and took over the City Council. This new majority has turned Huntington Beach into a poster child for Trumpism, and they’re not done: another slate of hard-right candidates is taking on the three remaining Democratic council members in November.
Democrats have already staged key victories this year, hinting that they’ve learned their lessons. They beat back a recall of Santa Ana councilmember Jessie Lopez and helped recall two conservative members of the Orange Unified school board. In both cases, they were going up against better-funded opposition and fought as if they lived in the ruby red O.C. of not that long ago.
Leave the thoughts of a purple reign to Prince, O.C. Dems — there’s still a lot of work to do.
Politics
Johnson Installs Crawford on Intelligence Panel, Pulling It Closer to Trump
Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday appointed Representative Rick Crawford of Arkansas as the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a move that was seen as aligning the powerful panel more closely with the agenda of President-elect Donald J. Trump.
The appointment of Mr. Crawford came amid much consternation on Capitol Hill over Mr. Johnson’s sudden and unexpected removal on Wednesday of Representative Michael R. Turner of Ohio, who had served for three years as the top Republican on the panel and had at times been critical of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Turner had been an influential, and increasingly lonely, G.O.P. voice in support of America’s traditional role in intelligence-gathering operations and supporting allies abroad.
But he had voted to certify President Biden’s victory over Mr. Trump in 2020. Mr. Crawford, by contrast, voted to object to the 2020 election results. While Mr. Turner played a pivotal role in the Republican push on Capitol Hill to continue sending aid to Ukraine for its battle against Russian aggression, Mr. Crawford has at times voted against funding Kyiv’s war effort.
And in the wake of his abrupt ouster, Mr. Turner told people that Mr. Johnson had informed him that he was being removed because of “concerns from Mar-a-Lago,” according to two people familiar with the conversations.
Since Mr. Johnson made his move, Democrats and some Republicans have blasted the decision to remove Mr. Turner, who was known for working in a bipartisan manner. Appointment to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is one of the most serious jobs in Congress, and the lawmakers selected for the job are trusted with some of the nation’s most sensitive information.
“Mike Turner has robustly promoted the safety of the American people and the free world, and his unjustified ouster is likely being applauded by our adversaries in Russia and China,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, said on Thursday, calling it “shameful.”
Mr. Turner was not trusted among top aides to Mr. Trump, but was nevertheless blindsided by his defenestration.
The Ohioan was among a group of committee chairmen who visited Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago last weekend, where Trump aides presented Mr. Turner with a birthday cake with a candle. He appeared in a good mood and spoke briefly with Mr. Trump at the event, according to people who observed them.
But beyond the niceties, displeasure with Mr. Turner was brewing. Mr. Trump and his top aides have long viewed members of the intelligence community as adversaries, and some close to Mr. Trump view Mr. Turner as being too close to what they pejoratively call “the deep state.”
According to one person familiar with the matter, the president-elect was “not happy” to hear that Representative Mike Waltz of Florida, a member of the Intelligence Committee who is in line to be his national security adviser, had proposed bringing on a top aide of Mr. Turner’s for his National Security Council staff.
At the same time, members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, with whom Mr. Trump is close, have been angry with Mr. Turner since last year, when they accused him of being “reckless” in raising alarms about a national security threat during debate over the renewal of a key provision in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
But both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Trump’s advisers have been adamant that the president-elect made no direct order to fire Mr. Turner.
Mr. Johnson said the decision to remove Mr. Turner from the panel was his alone and noted that the Ohioan would still serve as the House’s point person to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
“The House Intel Committee will play a pivotal role in this work in the new Congress, and Rick Crawford will provide principled leadership as its chairman,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement announcing Mr. Crawford’s appointment.
A person close to Mr. Johnson said the speaker viewed him as the choice of the former speaker, Kevin McCarthy, and that Mr. Johnson wanted to select his own team.
Mr. Johnson said on Wednesday that the intelligence community and everything related to the panel “needs a fresh start.”
But the change at the top of the intelligence committee was seen as a victory for the so-called America First wing of the party in a long-simmering civil war within the G.O.P.
Mr. Crawford is seen as less reliable in his support of Ukraine aid than Mr. Turner. The two men voted similarly with regards to renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In a statement, Mr. Crawford said he planned to serve as a check on the intelligence community.
“Without aggressive oversight and vigorous protection of Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights, the I.C. is prone to give in to mission creep and skirt U.S. laws,” he said. “In all our work, I pledge to preserve Americans’ constitutional rights even as we work to support the I.C. in doing everything required to collect indispensable information from our foreign adversaries.”
Mr. Johnson started remaking the committee last year to be more aligned with Mr. Trump when he appointed Representatives Ronny Jackson of Texas, Mr. Trump’s former White House physician, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, the former leader of the House Freedom Caucus.
He will soon have more appointments to make. In addition to the departure of Mr. Waltz, Representative Elise Stefanik of New York is also expected to join the Trump administration, creating two more vacancies.
Politics
ICE says it will needs massive funding hike, tens of thousands more beds to implement Laken Riley Act
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is telling lawmakers that the Laken Riley Act, an anti-illegal immigration bill expected to hit President-elect Trump’s desk in the coming weeks, will cost an additional $3 billion due to the agency needing an additional 60,000 detention beds.
ICE responded to questions by Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., on the impact of the Laken Riley Act. The bill passed the House this month and looks likely to pass the Senate. It requires DHS to detain illegal immigrants who have been arrested for theft-related crimes.
It also allows for states to sue DHS for alleged failures in enforcing immigration law. The bill is named after Laken Riley, a Georgia student who was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela last year. It has picked up the support of Republicans as well as a number of Democrats.
BIDEN DHS EXEMPTED THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS FROM TERROR-RELATED ENTRY RESTRICTIONS IN FY 2024
In the letter, obtained by Fox, ICE says it has identified tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who would meet the criteria for arrest both on its detained docket and non-detained docket. It said that its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) has estimated that the number of illegal immigrants on its national docket who meet the criteria would be over 60,000. The letter was first reported by Politico.
“Since the Laken Riley Act requires ERO to immediately detain those noncitizens, ERO would then require, at minimum, 64,000 additional detention beds; however this does not account for other immigration enforcement mandates that may place a need for increased detention capacity.”
SENATE DEMS TO JOIN REPUBLICANS TO ADVANCE ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BILL NAMED AFTER LAKEN RILEY
ICE estimates that increasing that capacity would require a funding increase of approximately $3.2 billion. Additionally, it estimates that it will need 10 new Mobile Crisis Assistance Teams (MCAT) and a HQ law enforcement officer across eight field offices, requiring an additional nearly $15 million along with associated equipment.
Notably, ERO says it currently possesses the authority to fulfill the requirements of the Act and would require no additional authorities.
The agency warned that it may have to release tens of thousands of illegal immigrants if it does not get the additional bedspace.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE
“…[I]f supplemental funding is not received and ICE remains at its current bed capacity, the agency would not have the detention capacity to accommodate the immediate arrest and detention of noncitizens convicted or charged with property crimes,” it says. “ERO anticipates that tens of thousands of noncitizens would need to be released by the end of the fiscal year, resulting in the potential release of public safety threats.”
As challenges to implementation, it cites the challenges of having ICE officers, and also the challenges of sanctuary cities: “A complicating factor is a lack of cooperation from ICE’s state and local law enforcement partners.”
This is not the first alarm that ICE has sounded about its funding levels, noting in its FY 24 report that it is already underfunded with its existing responsibilities.
“Throughout the year, the agency was called on to do more without commensurate funding, working within the confines of strained resources and competing priorities while steadfastly supporting the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies in their efforts to secure the border,” the agency said.
President-elect Trump has promised to launch a mass deportation operation, in which ICE would be the operative agency. In Congress, Republicans are preparing to make significant funding changes via the budget reconciliation process. Border security and interior enforcement would likely be top priorities for Republicans, given the issues’ prominence in the 2024 election.
Politics
Rep. Nancy Pelosi will not attend Trump's inauguration
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) will not attend President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, a spokesman confirmed Thursday.
The spokesperson did not provide a reason for Pelosi’s decision to skip the ceremonial event, which is slated for the U.S. Capitol on Monday. The decision was reported earlier by ABC News.
Pelosi, 84, who has retained political prominence and influence in the Democratic Party — and her seat in the House — despite giving up her longtime leadership role after Republicans won control of the House in 2022, has long had a contentious relationship with Trump.
She also broke her hip and was hospitalized while traveling with a bipartisan congressional delegation in Luxembourg last month — though she has returned to the halls of Congress since, including for the Jan. 6 confirmation of Trump’s electoral victory.
Trump did not attend the inauguration of President Biden after losing to Biden in the 2020 election. He also denied that he lost despite all evidence to the contrary — a lie he maintains to this day. He was the first president to skip the inauguration of his successor since Andrew Johnson did so in 1869.
Pelosi has called Trump “crazy” and unfit for office. Trump has called Pelosi “evil” and an “enemy” of the country. The pair have sparred for years. Pelosi raised eyebrows when she ripped up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union speech behind him in 2020. Trump infuriated the former speaker by mocking a violent attack on her husband at the couple’s San Francisco home.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama has also announced that she will not attend the inauguration, though former President Obama will, according to the Associated Press. The former first lady also has been an outspoken critic of Trump.
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
Science5 days ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
Technology1 week ago
Las Vegas police release ChatGPT logs from the suspect in the Cybertruck explosion
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
‘How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies’ Review: Thai Oscar Entry Is a Disarmingly Sentimental Tear-Jerker
-
News1 week ago
Photos: Pacific Palisades Wildfire Engulfs Homes in an L.A. Neighborhood
-
Business1 week ago
Meta Drops Rules Protecting LGBTQ Community as Part of Content Moderation Overhaul
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump trolls Canada again, shares map with country as part of US: 'Oh Canada!'
-
Education1 week ago
Four Fraternity Members Charged After a Pledge Is Set on Fire