Connect with us

Politics

This Democrat pulled off one of the country's biggest upsets. Can she win again in Trump country?

Published

on

This Democrat pulled off one of the country's biggest upsets. Can she win again in Trump country?

Two years ago, one of the nation’s biggest political upsets took place here amid the radiant greenery of the Pacific Northwest. A new mom, the 34-year-old owner of an auto repair shop, made a run for Congress with zero help from national Democrats and nabbed a seat Republicans had held for more than a decade.

Now that seat is central to the fight for control of the House.

The incumbent, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, is among the least likely Democrats you’ll find in Congress.

She trashes the Biden administration’s record on immigration and won’t endorse Kamala Harris for president. She resides down a gravel road in a house she and her husband built. She exalts those who work with their hands — plumbers, mechanics, electricians — and belittles the highbrows who populate Washington, speaking the put-upon language of people ignored or disdained because of where they live or how they labor.

Advertisement

“It makes my skin crawl,” she told a small gathering at a strip-mall bar and grill, “when I hear a politician get up there and they say, ‘My dad was just a janitor. I’m the first person in my family to go to college.’” What does that sound like to everyone else in the room who didn’t go to college?”

(Her degree in economics from Portland’s prestigious Reed College goes unmentioned.)

Columnist Mark Z. Barabak joins candidates for various offices as they hit the campaign trail in this momentous election year.

Advertisement

Still, Gluesenkamp Perez’s willingness to buck her party and her fluency in grievance politics are the reason she stands a chance in this southwest corner of Washington state, in a district that twice voted for Donald Trump and will surely do so again Nov. 5. She’s one of the few rural Democrats left in Congress and one of just five House Democrats seeking reelection in pro-Trump districts. All are endangered species.

Her Republican opponent, whom Gluesenkamp Perez barely defeated two years ago, is an unreconstructed MAGA warrior, who hangs with the Proud Boys and white nationalists and parrots Trump’s blather about a stolen 2020 election and Jan. 6 martyrs. He moved to the district less than a year before launching his candidacy.

But given the district’s Republican lean, the rematch appears to be a toss-up at a time control of the House may come down to just a handful of seats.

“A bunch of people who didn’t vote in 2022 in the midterm will be voting this time around,” said Mark Stephan, who teaches political science at Washington State University in Vancouver, population roughly 200,000, which is the closest thing the district has to a large city. “Enough that it could go either direction.”

::

Advertisement

With the campaign heading into the homestretch, Gluesenkamp Perez recently embarked on a RV tour of the 3rd Congressional District, down twisting two-lane roads, past farmland and forests daubed with red, yellow and orange. Her husband, Dean, the couple’s 3-year-old son, Ciro, and the family’s German shepherd, Uma Furman, came along for the ride.

Six days, 20 stops, many in wide spots with just a few thousand residents. It’s in those rural reaches the campaign will be decided.

At the end of Day One, after visiting two small taverns for “Pints with Perez” events, it was time for some family fun. So the RV bee-lined to a chainsaw museum in Amboy, where the couple spent nearly an hour browsing the floor-to-ceiling display, eyes wide with delight.

“This is super cool,” exulted Dean, an auto mechanic who does the repair work at the family-run garage.

“Yes, this is amazing,” the congresswoman agreed.

Advertisement
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and her husband, Dean, in a chainsaw museum

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and her husband, Dean, in a chainsaw museum.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

Gluesenkamp Perez was born and raised in Texas, but her family has deep roots in Washington state, going back generations on her mother’s side. (Gluesenkamp Perez’s great-great grandfather helped quarry the stone used to build the state Capitol.) She spent childhood summers with family in Bellingham, playing in the woods and developing an abiding love of nature.

There are no political reds or blues in the forest, she tells audiences.

Gluesenkamp Perez’s father, an immigrant from Mexico, pastored in an evangelical church in Houston. When Perez stopped going to services, her parents stopped paying for college, so she worked three jobs to pay her way through Reed. One was in a factory making iPhone cases.

Advertisement

As she bids for reelection, Gluesenkamp Perez’s main sales pitch is her blue-collar self.

Someone who appreciates hard labor and thrills to the sight of heavy machinery. Who scrounged to build her home and start a small business, struggled to meet a payroll and was forced to deal with clueless bureaucrats. In short, someone who shares her constituents’ skepticism toward big government and antipathy for far-off Washington, D.C.

Recounting an oversight hearing on Capitol Hill, Gluesenkamp Perez describes looking over the witnesses with their fusty manner and fancy pedigrees and wondering if any had ever turned a wrench.

“It’s wild to me to see these D.C. staffer bros in bow ties making decisions,” she said, calling for national codification of abortion rights to nullify the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. “They don’t know what the f—.” Her voice trailed off, the crowd at another saloon stop erupting in laughter at her indecorous F-bomb.

::

Advertisement

Gluesenkamp Perez’s Republican opponent, Joe Kent, is trying to nationalize the race, turning the contest into a ratification of Trump, his pugnacious personality and belligerent policies. She’s trying to rise above party labels — even as national Democrats and their allies pour millions into her campaign — and focus almost entirely on the whys and wherefores of the 3rd District.

The congressional seat can’t be surrendered to “a political hack,” she told a few score at a roadhouse grill in Amboy, done up with cobwebs and skeletons for Halloween. “We have got to have a seat that’s based on local issues … not something that’s imported from a think tank or political action committee, but here. Us. We are the solution.”

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez talks to a constituent while holding her child

Gluesenkamp Perez, holding her son, Ciro, answers questions after a “Pints with Perez” event in Amboy, Wash.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

Her platform is all practicality: making farm loans more accessible; better insulating mobile homes to save energy; giving people the right to choose where to repair broken appliances and the like, rather than having to ship them back to the manufacturer.

Advertisement

Why she asked, should tax-deferred 529 savings accounts only pay for college tuition, books and such? “We needs a tax code that honors the trades,” she said, allowing write-offs for the kinds of equipment used by loggers, plumbers and electricians.

In Washington, Gluesenkamp Perez has had no compunction separating herself from her party. A vote study by CQ Roll Call found her the second-most likely House Democrat to break ranks.

She backed a resolution rebuking Harris for her role in the administration’s border policy and was one of just four Democrats supporting a defense bill that would have limited abortion access, transgender care and diversity training for military personnel. She opposes an assault-weapons ban — though Gluesenkamp Perez would raise the age for purchasing one from 18 to 21 — and was one of just two House Democrats to oppose a student-debt relief plan proposed by the Biden administration.

The latter drew a flood of scathing reviews of the family’s auto repair shop — “Worst car care Ive been to,” one Yelp reviewer wrote online — in a purposeful left-wing campaign of retribution. Much of the trolling came from outside the district.

At home, Democrats like Howard Marshack are more understanding.

Advertisement
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez speaking to voters in Woodland, Wash.

The candidate at a “Pints with Perez” event in Woodland, Wash.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

“She isn’t as liberal as I am,” said Marshack, who was seeing his congresswoman in person for the first time at a Rotary Club luncheon in Vancouver. As he spoke, a steady rain pattered on the promenade facing Portland, just across the Columbia River.

“I can’t help but think that a significant amount of her stances are genuine and possibly some are because she needs to represent her district,” said Marshack, 75, a retired family law attorney “That’s OK, given the options I have … I can’t stand her opponent.”

::

Advertisement

The words “Trump” and “Harris” never pass Gluesenkamp Perez’s lips, if she can possibly manage.

But in this ferociously inflamed political season, discussion of the fight for the White House is unavoidable. Drawn in, Gluesenkamp Perez appears less than sure-footed, pausing and carefully choosing her words, as though verbally picking her way through a political minefield — which she is.

In Longview, the district’s second-largest city (population not quite 40,000), she spoke to a friendly audience of about 50 residents gathered in a curtained-off section of another bar and grill. Several wanted to know her thoughts about the two presidential antagonists.

One woman asked what she should say to Trump-supporting neighbors who fail, she suggested, to realize how he’ll hurt their interests if elected. Gluesenkamp Perez’s roundabout response — about respecting people who do manual labor, building community — petered out in a small sigh. “It’s a wild political climate,” she said.

A man wondered what the congresswoman thought of Harris’ proposal for a $25,000 tax credit for first-time home-buyers. Another long and winding answer followed — about affordability, regulations, building her own home, the virtues of shop class — before Gluesenkamp Perez finally expressed concern the proposal could merely end up boosting housing costs.

Advertisement

The refusal to embrace Harris in a district the Democrat seems destined to lose is hardly surprising. “What I say is not going to change anyone’s vote in my community,” she said as she left the Shamrock grill and prepared to roll to her next stop.

At least not in the presidential race. But it could make a big difference in her coin-flip race for reelection.

Gluesenkamp Perez may be a freshman member of Congress — and an improbable one, at that. But she’s no political naif.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

Published

on

Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

transcript

transcript

Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.

“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”

Advertisement
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 4, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission

Published

on

Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday. 

The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country. 

Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.

Advertisement

The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)

REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.

House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”

Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure. 

Advertisement

Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”

“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.

Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah. 

“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)

Advertisement

RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH

The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.

A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.

The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.

Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.

Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Published

on

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s .8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

Advertisement

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

Advertisement

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

Advertisement

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Advertisement

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

Advertisement

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending