Gov. Beshear weighing 2028 Democratic bid for presidency
"Your name frequently comes up as a contender for the 2028 Democratic primary for president. You said you'll think about it after next year," CNN host Dana Bash told Beshar. "What will make you decide that that's going to be a yes, you'll run for president?"
"My primary obligation and what I'm putting all my energy towards is to be the best governor of Kentucky that I can be. Next year, I'll also be the head of the Democratic Governors Association, and I think especially in these rural states where Republican governors have not spoken up whatsoever to stop this devastating bill, we're going to have strong candidates. We're going to win a lot of elections," Beshear said.
Beshear also criticized the GOP's "Big, Beautiful Bill" during the interview, calling it a Republican "attack on rural America."
Game On: Republicans, Democrats, Trade Fire Over Big, Beautiful Bill
Beshear said he hoped the list of potential Democratic leaders would grow.
Read On The Fox News App
"If you asked me this question a couple of years ago, I would have said no. My family's been through a lot, but I do not want to leave a broken country to my kids or anyone else's. So, what I think is most important for 2028 is a candidate that can heal this country, that can bring people back together. So, when I sit down, I'm going to think about whether I'm that candidate or whether someone else is that candidate," Beshear added.
The Democratic governor said he was going to make sure to put the country first.
Dem Governor Says Newsom Shouldn't Have Hosted Bannon On Podcast
These Are The Democrats Who May Run For The White House In 2028
"I'm going to make sure we're putting the country first, because my kids deserve to grow up in a country where they don't have to turn on the news every morning, even when they're on vacation and say, what the heck happened last night?" he said.
Other Democrats, including Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, JB Pritzker and Gavin Newsom, are also seen as potential 2028 nominees.
Some senators are wary of a potential Harris run, according to a May report from The Hill.
A Democratic senator who remained anonymous bluntly told The Hill, "No," when asked if Harris should run again in 2028. The senator told the outlet that Harris had her chance in 2024 before losing to President Donald Trump in November.Original article source: Gov. Beshear weighing 2028 Democratic bid for presidency
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Lutnick Steps in After Trump Appears Clueless on Latest Tariff Drama
President Donald Trump's commerce secretary had to step in after he appeared lost on the latest development in his sprawling trade war. Speaking to reporters in New Jersey on Sunday, Trump announced that the administration would be sending out about a dozen letters throughout the week warning other countries that tariffs will be reinstated if they don't close a trade deal soon. Treasury Scott Bessent said earlier in the day that the tariffs would come back into effect on Aug. 1, effectively extending the original July 9 deadline. When a reporter asked Trump when the tariff rates would change—if at all—the president didn't seem to have a clue. 'What are you talking about?' he said, prompting the reporter to repeat herself. 'They're going to be tariffs. The tariffs are going to be the tariffs. I think we'll have most countries done by July 9, either a letter or a deal.' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick then swooped in to clarify: 'Tariffs go into effect Aug. 1, but the president is setting the rates and the deals right now.' The administration's 90-day pause on its tariff rollout is set to expire on Wednesday, meaning that countries may soon face levies of 10 to 70 percent, as announced in April. Bessent told CNN's State of the Union, however, that it remains to be seen what happens next. 'President Trump is going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on Aug. 1st, you will be boomerang back to your April 2nd tariff level,' he said. 'I think we're gonna see a lot of deals very quickly.' The announcement postpones the original July 9 deadline, but Bessent refused to call it an extension. 'It's not a new deadline,' he argued. 'We are saying this is when it's happening. If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to go back to the old rate, that's your choice.' Asked whether the administration was expecting to sign any deals this week, Lutnick played it vague. 'Well, the president is right in the midst of discussing all sorts of deals with all sorts of countries,' he said. 'And I'm going to be with him when he makes that decision.' The first batch of letters is set to go out at noon Eastern Time on Monday, Trump said in a Truth Social post. The president also issued a veiled threat against any country that cozies up to BRICS, a group of countries composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. 'Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy,' Trump wrote, without offering any further details. The on-again, off-again tariff rollout has earned the president a moniker among Wall Street brokers: TACO, which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. The nickname angered Trump, who countered that 'it's called negotiation.' But an unnamed White House insider told Politico that the tariff chaos is all just part of a show. 'Trump knows the most interesting part of his presidency is the tariff conversation,' the insider said. 'It's all fake. There's no deadline. It's a self-imposed landmark in this theatrical show, and that's where we are.'
Fast Company
31 minutes ago
- Fast Company
America's historic preservation funding takes a major hit under Trump
President Donald Trump 's proposed fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget is called a 'skinny budget' because it's short on line-by-line details. But historic preservation efforts in the U.S. did get a mention—and they might as well be skinned to the bone. Trump has proposed to slash funding for the federal Historic Preservation Fund to only $11 million, which is $158 million less than the fund's previous reauthorization in 2024. The presidential discretionary budget, however, always heads to Congress for appropriation. And Congress always makes changes. That said, the Trump administration hasn't even released the $188 million that Congress appropriated for the fund for the 2025 fiscal year, essentially impounding the funding stream that Congress created in 1976 for historic preservation activities across the nation. I'm a scholar of historic preservation who's worked to secure historic designations for buildings and entire neighborhoods. I've worked on projects that range from making distressed neighborhoods in St. Louis eligible for historic tax credits to surveying Cold War-era hangars and buildings on seven U.S. Air Force bases. I've seen the ways in which the Historic Preservation Fund helps local communities maintain and rehabilitate their rich architectural history, sparing it from deterioration, the wrecking ball, or the pressures of the private market. A rare, deficit-neutral funding model Most Americans probably don't realize that the task of historic preservation largely falls to individual states and Native American tribes. The National Historic Preservation Act that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law in 1966 requires states and tribes to handle everything from identifying potential historic sites to reviewing the impact of interstate highway projects on archaeological sites and historic buildings. States and tribes are also responsible for reviewing nominations of sites in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation's official list of properties deemed worthy of preservation. However, many states and tribes didn't have the capacity to adequately tackle the mandates of the 1966 act. So the Historic Preservation Fund was formed a decade later to alleviate these costs by funneling federal resources into these efforts. The fund is actually the product of a conservative, limited-government approach. Created during Gerald Ford's administration, it has a revenue-neutral model, meaning that no tax dollars pay for the program. Instead, it's funded by private lease royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas reserves. Most of these reserves are located in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. Private companies that receive a permit to extract from them must agree to a lease with the federal government. Royalties from their oil and gas sales accrue in federally controlled accounts under the terms of these leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue then directs 1.5% of the total royalties to the Historic Preservation Fund. Congress must continually reauthorize the amount of funding reserved for the Historic Preservation Fund, or it goes unfunded. Despite bipartisan support, the fund has been threatened in the past. President Ronald Reagan attempted to do exactly what Trump is doing now by making no request for funding at all in his 1983 budget. Yet the fund has nonetheless been reauthorized six times since its inception, with terms ranging from five to 10 years. The program is a crucial source of funding, particularly in small towns and rural America, where privately raised cultural heritage funds are harder to come by. It provides grants for the preservation of buildings and geographical areas that hold historical, cultural, or spiritual significance in underrepresented communities. And it's even involved in projects tied to the nation's 250th birthday in 2026, such as the rehabilitation of the home in New Jersey where George Washington was stationed during the winter of 1778–79 and the restoration of Rhode Island's Old State House. Filling financial gaps I've witnessed the fund's impact firsthand in small communities across the nation. Edwardsville, Illinois, a suburb of St. Louis, is home to the Leclaire Historic District. In the 1970s, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The national designation recognized the historic significance of the district, protecting it against any adverse impacts from federal infrastructure funding. It also made tax credits available to the town. Edwardsville then designated Leclaire a local historic district so that it could legally protect the indelible architectural features of its homes, from original decorative details to the layouts of front porches. Despite the designation, however, there was no clear inventory of the hundreds of houses in the district. A few paid staffers and a volunteer citizen commission not only had to review proposed renovations and demolitions, but they also had to figure out which buildings even contributed to Leclaire's significance and which ones did not—and thus did not need to be tied up in red tape. Edwardsville was able to secure a grant through the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office thanks to a funding match enabled by money disbursed to Illinois via the Historic Preservation Fund. In 2013, my team created an updated inventory of the historic district, making it easier for the local commission to determine which houses should be reviewed carefully and which ones don't need to be reviewed at all. Oil money better than no money The historic preservation field, not surprisingly, has come out strongly against Trump's proposal to defund the Historic Preservation Fund. Nonetheless, there have been debates within the field over the fund's dependence on the fossil fuel industry, which was the trade-off that preservationists made decades ago when they crafted the funding model. In the 1970s, amid the national energy crisis, conservation of existing buildings was seen as a worthy ecological goal, since demolition and new construction required fossil fuels. To preservationists, diverting federal carbon royalties seemed like a power play. But with the effects of climate change becoming impossible to ignore, some preservationists are starting to more openly critique both the ethics and the wisdom of tapping into a pool of money created through the profits of the oil and gas industry. I've recently wondered myself if continued depletion of fossil fuels means that preservationists won't be able to count on the Historic Preservation Fund as a long-term source of funding. That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find a preservationist who thinks that destroying the Historic Preservation Fund would be a good first step in shaping a more visionary policy. For now, Trump's administration has only sown chaos in the field of historic preservation. Already, Ohio has laid off one-third of the staffers in its State Historic Preservation Office due to the impoundment of federal funds. More state preservation offices may follow suit. The National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers predicts that states soon could be unable to perform their federally mandated duties. learning the hard way just what the Historic Preservation Fund does.
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Tesla Is More a Musk Dream Stock Than a Meme Stock
As a stock, Tesla Inc.'s relationship with what are called the 'fundamentals' is similar to Elon Musk's with President Donald Trump: That is, wayward, troubled and unconvincing. So is Tesla a meme stock? Think of it more as a 'dream' stock. The sort of bad news or numbers that nudge ordinary stocks off a cliff can weirdly lend Tesla wings. Take those dreadful sales figures it just reported, which somehow sent the stock up 5% in a flat market. The ostensible reason was that, while they missed the consensus forecast, it was only by a little and a relief rally kicked in. It's a handy rationale let down only by its glaring logical inconsistencies. The forecast had already dropped by 23% since the start of the year. Moreover, during that time, Tesla's triple-digit earnings multiple had actually increased further — a prerequisite for relief is some angst beforehand, surely?
