Crockett, Mfume plow ahead with House Oversight bids
'I believe in deference & frankly, the institution, but I recognize that the walls of this institution are collapsing around us and we are living in EXTRAORDINARY times, which call for an extraordinary response which is why I will seek the position of ranker for the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform,' the Texas Democrat wrote to lawmakers. 'I am asking for your consideration because I possess the merit to serve in THIS moment.'
Crockett told POLITICO last week she was rethinking whether to seek the top job after Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) ramped up his own quiet outreach for the position. She cited seniority concerns and the potential that the Congressional Black Caucus could be divided.
Advertisement
Mfume is also reaching out to colleagues about his interest in the slot. In those messages, he invoked late Oversight Chair Elijah Cummings, a civil rights legend and fellow Baltimorean who led the committee during President Donald Trump's first term, according to a copy of the message obtained by POLITICO.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Arizona Democrats are having an identity crisis. Do they need a party or a hug?
Arizona Democrats have held the spotlight this month with two very different votes. On July 15, blue voters nominated Adelita Grijalva to fill the congressional seat her father held for more than 22 years. The primary election for Congressional District 7 was widely predictable and a bit of a landslide win for the former Pima County supervisor. Her opponents, former state Rep. Daniel Hernandez and social media strategist Deja Foxx, turned it into a high-profile race, but ultimately, southern Arizona voters decided they wanted the legacy candidate. A second vote came the day after the election, this time from the Democratic Party's state committee members. In a 476-56 vote, after an hours-long meeting, Robert Branscomb was ousted from his position as chair of the state party after only six months in office. Many of the votes against Branscomb came from members who helped him win. Arizona Democrats are riddled with political infighting after losing the presidential election in 2024, and soon the party will need to come together for midterm campaigns, including the re-election of Gov. Katie Hobbs. The question remains: will they be able to unite, find strong challengers, raise money and bring in new votes in just a year or so? This week on The Gaggle, a politics podcast by The Arizona Republic and hosts Ron Hansen and Mary Jo Pitzl are joined by Stacy Pearson. She is a Democratic political strategist and co-founder of Lumen Strategies. Pearson joins the show to give a status update on the party and what these two votes indicate for the future. Listen to the episode The best way to listen is to subscribe to The Gaggle on your favorite podcast app, but you can also stream the full episode below. Note: The Gaggle is intended to be heard. But we also offer an AI transcript of the episode script. There may be slight deviations from the podcast audio. Listen to The Gaggle : Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher Have a question or comment about Arizona politics? You can share your thoughts with us at 602-444-0804 or via email here. Reach the producer Amanda Luberto at aluberto@ Follow her on X, formerly Twitter @amandaluberto and on Bluesky @amandaluberto. Catch up on previous Gaggle episodes here: This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona Democrats divided after leadership, primary shakeups
Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Palestinians' ‘right to self-determination' needs to be considered too
To the editor: Guest contributor Mark Brilliant makes his opinions clear but fails to convince ('Anti-Zionism is antisemitism — university leaders settle the question,' July 21). His assertion regarding the House testimony ignores how the Trump administration has punished students and researchers at schools that failed to toe its line. Brilliant claims anti-Zionism is 'denying to the Jewish people the right to self-determination.' Here is the question he should ask: Is Zionism a denial of the Palestinians' right to self-determination? Further, were the Palestinian people treated fairly by the partition of their land? Should we continue to support Israel's 70 years of gradual seizure of more Palestinian land in the West Bank, its intention in the long run to prevent the Palestinians from ever having a state of their own and the violence that has ensued as both side's extremists fight for their 'rights'? Is the revulsion many of us feel about how Israel is slaughtering civilians in Gaza 'anti-Zionism' or human decency? Few Americans question Israel's right to exist, but many question the senseless violence of its government in response to the senseless violence of Hamas. Michael Snare, San Diego .. To the editor: Brilliant takes an affirmative response to a gotcha question ('Is denying the Jewish people their rights to self-determination … antisemitism? Yes or no?') and leaps to his desired conclusion: that the university officials agreed that anti-Zionism is antisemitic. But he is wrong when he says that the Jewish right to self-determination is the textbook definition of Zionism. In fact, Zionism is the movement to establish a Jewish state in biblical Israel. I believe everyone has a right to self-determination, so I might have answered the gotcha question affirmatively too. But no one has the 'right' to occupy land where others live just as no one has a right to seize homes and orchards, to tell people where they must live and that they can't leave or to deny others their right to self-determination by basing democratic rights such as the right to vote or the right to travel on one's ethnicity. And, of course, no one has a 'right' to bomb hospitals and starve children. It is not antisemitic of me to say so. Clyde Leland, Berkeley .. To the editor: In response to Brilliant's op-ed that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, I would like to point out that people who criticize Zionism probably don't object to Jewish rights to self-determination or statehood. The problem is real estate. The Bible may have promised the land of Israel to the Jews, but if you look at things from a strictly historical perspective, a lot more non-Jews have lived on the land in question than Jews. Many of the people who established the state of Israel came from Europe (for admittedly good reasons) and pushed the native Arab population into refugee camps where it's lived for the last 70-odd years. Now government officials in Israel and the U.S. are talking openly about completely removing this population. That's ethnic cleansing, and as uncomfortable as it is for many to admit, it's hard to see that ethnic cleansing is not intrinsic to Zionism. You can't establish a Jewish state in a place where other people already live without kicking those people out. That's what people don't like about Zionism. If you could take away the mandatory Arab eviction part, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it. William Griffith, Oxnard
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Emmer confident Senate will pass crypto market structure bill
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said at an Axios News Shapers event Wednesday that he's confident the Senate will take up a sweeping market structure bill. Why it matters: Emmer has been one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for the crypto industry and has been pushing the Senate to take up House-passed crypto bills. "This is a non-partisan issue," Emmer told Axios' Hans Nichols. Catch up quick: The House passed three major cryptocurrency bills as part of "Crypto Week" earlier this month, including Emmer's Anti- CBDC bill. The Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday released its own draft version of the crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, that also passed the House this month. What's next: Emmer said he leaves it up to Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on how the Senate will pass the CLARITY Act, but he sees "no reason" why the bill can't pass on it's own.
