Connect with us

Politics

Who Will Run for Mitch McConnell’s Senate Seat in Kentucky?

Published

on

Who Will Run for Mitch McConnell’s Senate Seat in Kentucky?

The jockeying began almost immediately after Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, announced on Thursday, his 83rd birthday, that he would not seek re-election for the seat that he has held for seven terms.

Around noon on Thursday, shortly after Mr. McConnell made his announcement, Daniel Cameron, the former attorney general for Kentucky and a Republican, said that he would be running for the seat in 2026. Andy Barr, a Republican representing central Kentucky in the House, posted around the same time that he was “considering running for Senate because Kentucky deserves a Senator who will fight for President Trump and the America First Agenda.” Mr. Barr said that his decision would come soon.

Others had indicated that they were considering running even before the announcement from Mr. McConnell, a pivotal player in obstructing major Democratic agenda items and stacking federal courts with conservatives.

Nate Morris, a Kentucky businessman and a Republican, said in a video posted on Feb. 11 that he was “seriously considering” running for either the Senate or for governor of Kentucky. Mr. Morris doubled down on his interest in the Senate in a video on Thursday.

“The candidates that are looking at this race, Andy Barr and Daniel Cameron, have refused to call out Mitch McConnell for the sabotage of President Trump’s agenda,” said Mr. Morris.

Advertisement

Several potential candidates also removed themselves from consideration on Thursday. Two top state Democrats, Gov. Andy Beshear and Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman, will not be in the race, according to Mr. Beshear’s campaign manager and a spokesman for Ms. Coleman. Representative James Comer, a Republican, is not running in 2026 “but is strongly considering a run for governor in 2027,” according to his spokesman, Austin Hacker.

In the state’s last governor’s race, in 2023, Mr. Beshear, the incumbent, defeated Mr. Cameron. Stephen Voss, an associate professor at the University of Kentucky’s Department of Political Science, said that Mr. Cameron’s gubernatorial campaign would give him the most name recognition early on in the race for Mr. McConnell’s seat. But Mr. Voss also noted that Mr. Barr had “good fund-raising capabilities” and that Mr. Morris, who founded Rubicon, a software-based waste management company, would “be able to draw on his own resources to jump-start a campaign.”

On the Democrats’ side, Pamela Stevenson, a state representative, said that she would formally announce her intent to run for the Senate seat in a few weeks. Mr. Voss speculated that other high-ranking Democrats would also step into the race.

“We’re going to have an open Senate race early enough for the full democratic process to play out,” Mr. Voss said, adding that even people who are on the sidelines may enter the race. “Beshear might come under more external pressure from national Democrats.”

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

On Minnesota’s Iron Range, Trump’s Tariffs Could Be Boom or Bust

Published

on

On Minnesota’s Iron Range, Trump’s Tariffs Could Be Boom or Bust

Once a week, most weeks, the ground in Chisholm, Minn., shudders underfoot.

“When they blast over here, we can feel it in town over there,” Jed Holewa, a City Council member, explained as he looked out over the pit of the Hibbing Taconite mine, a machine-made canyon of flint-colored earth extending to the hills just southwest of town.

The low rumble of controlled explosions is reassuring in an area where few livelihoods are more than a couple of degrees removed from the mines. But this month the ground beneath the Iron Range has begun to shift in a very different way.

The sedimentary rock known as taconite, found in abundance in northern Minnesota, yields most of the United States’ iron ore, which in turn is made into steel used by the American auto industry. Thus the seismic effects of President Trump’s March 26 announcement of a 25 percent tariff on all cars and auto parts imported into the United States. The measure is meant to benefit the domestic auto industry, and has earned praise from labor leaders. But analysts predict it will most likely throw that industry into near-term turmoil, and several domestic automakers saw their stock fall last week after Mr. Trump’s announcement.

The tariff announcement comes amid a brewing trade war between the United States and Canada prompted by Mr. Trump’s earlier threats to impose broad tariffs on America’s northern neighbor and its longstanding ally and trading partner. Canada has responded with its own tariffs.

Advertisement

At the same time, Cleveland-Cliffs, the steel conglomerate that controls Hibbing Taconite and other nearby mines, has announced plans to idle production lines and lay off more than 600 mine workers in the region, citing a softening of demand for cars. Mr. Holewa, a diesel mechanic at Hibbing Taconite, was among those waiting to hear his fate.

The son and grandson of miners, Mr. Holewa is well acquainted with both the fortunes and misfortunes of the industry, in which substantial union salaries go hand in hand with risk and uncertainty. His maternal grandfather was killed on the job, crushed by a haul truck. His father was laid off from a mine in Eveleth, Minn., in the 1980s, during the industry’s darkest period. The high points of its uneven recovery were memorialized in the model years of the Fords his family bought when he was growing up: a 1988 Tempo, a 1994 F-150.

Mr. Holewa, a Republican, is also indicative of the shifting politics of the Iron Range, where Mr. Trump made dramatic gains over previous Republican candidates in 2016 — the beginning of a collapse of a onetime rural Democratic stronghold where Republicans have since claimed most of the region’s seats in the State Legislature.

Mr. Holewa, who knocked on doors for Mr. Trump, was quick to note that the conditions that caused the layoffs preceded Mr. Trump’s tariff announcements.

“This has nothing to do with the tariffs,” he said. “Look at the price of vehicles right now. Sales are down. Lots are full.”

Advertisement

But a representative of Cleveland-Cliffs, whose chief executive has vocally supported Mr. Trump’s trade policy, has told local officials that the tariffs could potentially prolong the layoffs, according to Larry Cuffe Jr., the mayor of Virginia, Minn., another Iron Range town. The company did not respond to requests for comment.

And observers of Minnesota industry say the layoffs — the most serious non-Covid-related job cuts the Iron Range’s mines have experienced in a decade — are a reminder of how uniquely exposed the region is to Mr. Trump’s radical trade experiments: how much it stands to gain or lose — or both — from the shocks the president hopes to deliver to the system.

“It’s throwing a big uncertainty into the supply chain,” said Bob Kill, the chief executive of Enterprise Minnesota, an organization that assists manufacturers in the state. “You see it at the Iron Range happening with raw material.”

The range should in theory benefit from the expanded tariffs on imported steel that Mr. Trump announced in February. But it is also sensitive to shifts and uncertainty in the auto market, as this month’s layoffs have shown. And a trade war with Canada could upend many businesses in the region, which is closer to the Canadian border than to Minneapolis, and raise the price of an array of goods and services, including electricity and dairy products.

“We’re going to ride it out and see,” said Mike Jugovich, a county commissioner and a retired Hibbing Taconite miner in St. Louis County, which encompasses most of the Iron Range. “We don’t have a real choice in the matter. We’re joined at the hip to the tariffs.”

Advertisement

Most of America’s domestically produced iron has come from northern Minnesota since the turn of the 20th century, when steam shovels backed by Rockefeller and Carnegie money transformed miles of boreal forest into a muddy, sooty sprawl of hard-living frontier camps.

In those years, the mines drew thousands of immigrants from Finland and Croatia and everywhere in between, producing a boomtown culture both wild and cosmopolitan — a place where “the Babel of more than 30 different alien tongues mingles with the crash and clank of machinery,” as a federal immigration agent wrote in a 1912 report.

More than a century later, the Iron Range remains culturally distinct from the rest of the state. In towns like Chisholm, onion-domed churches punctuate residential neighborhoods, red-sauce Italian restaurants line the main drags and bars keep dusty bottles of pelinkovac, a Balkan wormwood liqueur, on the top shelf for the old-timers.

Many go back generations in the mines, their family trees intertwined with histories of corporate consolidations and labor strikes, of booms and, more often, busts.

“Anybody who’s lived on the range understands that these are the cycles that occur,” said Pete Hyduke, the mayor of Hibbing, just south of Chisholm, who went into government after he was laid off from his mining job in the 1980s.

Advertisement

Fewer than half as many miners are now employed on the Iron Range as were at the beginning of the ’80s, when jobs fell victim to technological improvements and to the decline of the domestic steel industry, undercut by cheaper imports and the migration of manufacturing away from the United States.

Today, the range’s fortunes turn largely on trade policy, the push and pull of free-trade agreements and tariffs. This became starkly evident in the 2010s, when China, whose steel production had grown to eclipse every other country’s, began flooding the international market, cutting global prices in half by 2015 and prompting thousands of layoffs at Minnesota’s mines. Since then, “the Iron Range has known that tariffs are important for our domestic production and survival,” said Cal Warwas, a Republican state representative and a steelworker from Clinton Township.

The Obama administration eventually imposed stiff anti-dumping tariffs on China, but the episode exacerbated local discontent with the Democratic Party. Iron Rangers’ fiercely pro-union politics had for decades made the region the great rural redoubt of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Minnesota’s variant on the Democratic Party. But in a socially conservative area whose fortunes rest on resource extraction, many found themselves dissenting from the D.F.L. on environmental protection and social issues, and convinced that an increasingly urban and suburban party was insufficiently attentive to the range’s economic concerns.

“They’ve become way too woke for me,” said Mr. Cuffe, the Virginia mayor, who left the D.F.L. and endorsed Mr. Trump in 2016.

Mr. Trump outperformed previous Republican candidates in the region in 2016, and endeared himself further by imposing 25 percent tariffs on Chinese steel during his first term. Today, the region’s delegation to the State Legislature is entirely Republican save for one state senator.

Advertisement

Tariffs on China are broadly supported by Republicans and Democrats alike on the Iron Range. But Mr. Trump’s promises to levy 25 percent tariffs on Canada and similar penalties on cars and car parts imported to the United States have raised alarm.

“I’m very supportive of protectionist policies on industries that matter to our national defense,” said Grant Hauschild, a state senator from Minnesota’s Canada-bordering Third District, and the one remaining Democrat in the Iron Range’s legislative delegation. “However, haphazard, across-the-board tariffs on everything, everywhere, all at once, on allies as well as adversaries, is not the best policy.”

A core issue, manufacturing experts say, is that even the domestic industries Mr. Trump wants to bolster now rely on complex supply chains that run back and forth across borders with regional trading partners, which are difficult to untangle in places like the Great Lakes region.

This is particularly true of the American auto industry, which “is highly dependent on a robust North American supply chain that often involves cross-border trade,” said Matteo Fini, an analyst at S&P Global. American-made catalytic converters are shipped to Canada for installation in exhaust systems that are then shipped back to the United States. American lithium is made into cathodes in Canada, which are assembled into battery packs in the United States and then sent north again for vehicle production.

Jolts to this system may well be felt on the Iron Range, and broader tariffs on Canada, as well as any reciprocal tariffs Canada imposes, will affect the region in other ways. Minnesota utilities buy Canadian hydropower. Paper mills run on Canadian wood pulp. Tourism and Great Lakes shipping, other mainstays of the regional economy, rely on easy border transit.

Advertisement

The local implications of a trade war are severe enough that some of Mr. Trump’s supporters on the range have concluded that despite his years of tariff evangelism, the president’s recent threats must be a bluff.

“I think it’s just a negotiating tactic to try to get some compromise,” said Mr. Cuffe. He paused. “I’m hoping that’s the case.”

For local Democrats, however, Mr. Trump’s antagonism of their northern neighbors has added confusion to their discontent with the president.

“All this stuff about Canada — I mean, where did it come from?” said Mary Beth Perreira, a retired public health nurse in Hibbing. “If you have a brain, you know that we’re going to pay for it all.”

But others have begun to come around to Mr. Trump’s vision.

Advertisement

“I don’t mind them hitting Canada,” said Tim Simpson, a retired truck driver from Hibbing.

Mr. Simpson moved away from the region for a time in the 1980s, after losing his job at a local taconite mine. A political independent, he voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 but not in 2024.

Still, he said the president’s trade-war bluster might be good for the Iron Range.

“I hope it straightens a lot of stuff out, and we do get a lot of them jobs back,” he said. “We’ve been losing them since the ’60s, since I was a kid.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump admin’s Signal leak shows ‘profound’ risk of uncontrolled communications: former intelligence official

Published

on

Trump admin’s Signal leak shows ‘profound’ risk of uncontrolled communications: former intelligence official

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

The Trump administration’s Signal chat leak represents the “profound” risk of “uncontrolled communication,” which could have implications on future operations, a former national intelligence official said Sunday.

Sue Gordon, the former principal deputy national intelligence director during President Donald Trump’s first term, reacted to the leak during an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Advertisement

“I’m glad the operation was successful,” Gordon said, referring to the U.S. military strikes on Houthi terrorist targets. “Now we need to deal with the fact that this should not have happened, there is consequence when it does and you can’t be sure that there’s no persistent risk that follows it.”

Gordon said that while there have been errors in the past concerning the protection of a partner’s information, this leak is different due to the Trump administration’s reaction of “there was nothing to see here.”

TRUMP ADMIN’S ‘SLOPPY’ SIGNAL LEAK PUT DEMOCRATS BACK ON OFFENSE, SEN WARNER SAYS

Former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon on Sunday said that Trump administration officials should never have been communicating about military operations on the Signal app. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“I don’t think we should rest on the fact that nothing bad happened this time,” Gordon said. “We don’t know whether that communications path has been penetrated, so we don’t know whether state actors that have lots of resources are just sitting and lurking now knowing we do important things on [Signal].”

Advertisement

Signal, an encrypted messaging app, is now under the spotlight after it was revealed that top national security leaders had been in a group chat discussing plans to strike terrorists in Yemen, which also included The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. The chat was made public by a first-hand account of the group chat published by Goldberg in an article Monday. 

DEMS HAVE LONG HISTORY OF SUPPORTING ENCRYPTED SIGNAL APP AHEAD OF TRUMP CHAT LEAK

The Trump administration has maintained that no classified information was shared in the chat, doubling down on Wednesday that The Atlantic’s story was a “hoax” after Goldberg published specific texts from the chat. 

The messages included Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth outlining that combat aircraft were set to take off and strike drones were ready for the operation, which were accompanied by timestamps. 

Ret. Gen. Frank McKenzie, former CENTCOM commander, also appeared on the program Sunday, saying that while he was “surprised” at the communications leak, he believed the “larger story” was how the U.S. had “finally begun to strike the Houthis hard,” at a speed “that, frankly, eluded the previous administration.”

Advertisement

McKenzie said he “wouldn’t take anything off the table” about how the U.S. would confront the Iranian-backed terror group.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I think we have the capability — actually, right now, in Iran’s weakened state — to threaten them very strongly,” the retired general said.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: America has gotten ruder. Starting at the very top

Published

on

Commentary: America has gotten ruder. Starting at the very top

If you’ve driven on the freeway in recent years, been to the grocery store, attended a movie or a live performance — heck, if you’ve been at all sentient — the findings of a new poll will startle you about as much as the sun rising at dawn and setting at dusk.

America has gotten ruder.

At least, that’s how a plurality of Americans perceive the tetchy state of our union.

A poll released this month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that five years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic many of those surveyed believe public behavior in the United States has changed for the worse.

Our politics surely have.

Advertisement

“Everything’s a war. Everything’s a battle. There’s no collaboration, no coordination, no civic pride,” said Don Sipple, a veteran communications strategist who helped shape campaign messages for George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, among many others.

“Civic duty is just warfare,” Sipple continued. “And since Donald Trump entered the [presidential] race in 2015, it’s only gotten more corrosive and caustic.”

That’s what happens when you have a president with no filter, no conscience and a flamethrower where his mouth should be.

More on that in a moment.

The pandemic seems a good starting point to measure the foundering of America’s p’s and q’s, seeing as how it produced the equivalent of a national nervous breakdown and pried a deeply divided country even further apart.

Advertisement

The Pew survey found that just under half of U.S. adults polled — 47% — said the way people behave in public these days is ruder than before the pandemic. Two in 10 said today’s behavior is a lot ruder.

Some 44% of adults said public behavior is about the same; 9% said people are behaving a lot or a little more politely in public.

Those latter respondents have presumably been anesthetized, never set foot in the real world or live in a permanent, chemically induced stupor.

How do you — or, rather, how did the Pew researchers — measure rudeness? The behaviors they tested involved, among various trespasses, smoking, swearing and the use of technology around other people.

Of the eight actions mentioned in the survey, two drew the widest disapproval: 77% said it’s rarely or never acceptable to smoke around others and 74% said the same about taking a photo or video of someone without their permission.

Advertisement

About two-thirds of adults said it is rarely or never acceptable to bring a child to an adult venue, such as a bar or upscale restaurant; to visibly display swear words, such as on a T-shirt or sign; or to curse out loud in public.

Smaller majorities say it’s rarely or never acceptable to play music out loud or to wear headphones or earbuds while talking to someone. In both instances, a sizable number said it depends: Roughly a third said it’s sometimes OK to play music out loud, and about a quarter said that about wearing headphones while talking to someone.

The poll found the largest gap in perceived rudeness was between those of different ages.

Older adults were more likely than younger adults to consider it impolite to curse out loud, visibly display profanity or wear headphones or earbuds while talking to someone in person.

Strikingly, in an age when everything seems politicized there were not major differences in viewpoints based on respondents’ partisan affiliations. At the very least, Democrats and Republicans agree that wafting cigarette smoke in someone’s face and capturing their reaction on video — without first asking — is untoward.

Advertisement

Maybe there’s hope for the republic yet.

Not that you’d want to model the behavior of our boorish, foul-mouthed chief executive.

It seemed scandalous — and highly indecorous — back in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush referred to his Democratic rivals, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, as “two bozos.”

Bush felt obliged to apologize, as did his son George W., when he was seeking the White House eight years later and a hot mic caught him referring to one of the New York Times’ political correspondents as “a major league a—.”

It’s worth noting that indiscretion, however heartfelt, became public by accident. Bush didn’t bellow it out at a campaign rally.

Advertisement

Compare that with Trump’s casual profanity and the insults — “fat,” “ugly,” “scum,” “stupid,” “sleazebag,” “pencil neck,” “son of a bitch” — he regularly spews at opponents.

When he descended upon the Justice Department earlier this month to whine about the serial criminal cases he once faced, arguably the least shocking thing about Trump’s extraordinary, browbeating appearance was the presidential use of the profanity “bulls—” while in public.

“Donald Trump has been at the leading edge of changing the discourse norms of leadership in the presidency,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania expert on political communication and the author of extensive works on the subject. “I mean, he’s broken barriers never before broken.”

It’s hard to parse the degree to which politics shape culture and how much culture shapes our politics. As Jamieson noted, “We’re influenced by what we see around us. If I hear a lot of what we would traditionally mark off as uncivil discourse, it seems normal to me.”

Is it any surprise, then, that America has gotten ruder? Especially with the crassness and vulgarity routinely emanating from the nation’s ill-mannered chief executive?

Advertisement

Andrew Breitbart, the late conservative website publisher, famously suggested “politics is downstream from culture.” But it seems these days the waters have commingled, creating a pool that’s increasingly foul-smelling and polluted.

Like a fish, America’s manners have rotted from the top down. So, too, our political dialogue.

No wonder people hold their nose — and refuse to take their earbuds out.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending