Lawler mocks potential Maloney comeback campaign
'I'm sure Democrats are excited about the prospects of Sean Patrick Maloney making a come back — because it worked out so well the last time,' Lawler wrote on X.
Maloney served five terms in Congress before being unseated by Lawler in an expensive 2022 race. His loss for the 17th Congressional District seat was all the more stunning because he was the head of the campaign arm for House Democrats at the time.
Axios reported Monday that Maloney is weighing whether to challenge Lawler, but would likely not make a decision until the fall. He is also reportedly considering a run for governor.
In his post about Maloney, Lawler included a video edit of him posing with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) set to the Dr. Dre song 'The Next Episode,' wearing meme sunglasses and a gold chain.
At least six Democrats are already vying for the seat, seen by many in the party as a prime pickup opportunity for the 2026 midterms. NY-17 is one of three GOP-represented districts that voted for former Vice President Harris for president.
Republicans will seek to defend their 220-212 majority, which allowed them to muscle the 'big, beautiful bill' through Congress and to President Trump's desk. Democrats, meanwhile, are hoping that opposition to Trump and backlash to the bill's cuts to social services and tax breaks favoring the rich will enable them to flip key districts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tudor Dixon: Politicians Shouldn't Be Able To Personally Profit From The Office And Abandon Their State By Doing It
Former Michigan GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon joins Fox Across America With guest host Todd Piro to share her thoughts on retiring actor Michael Douglas saying that people now enter politics in the U.S. in order to make money. 'I think he thinks that this is a one-sided issue. Let's talk about Andrew Cuomo, who wrote a book about the pandemic and then resigns and gets this big advance and spends all this money, but he shouldn't have actually gotten the money. It turns out what he did in the pandemic was not what he said he was doing. But come to find out that during the pandemic, he has many staff members writing this book, so he's distracted from public service. To me, that is a critical issue. Gretchen Whitmer, the same thing. She writes a book because I believe she sees the writing on the wall that Joe Biden is not gonna be the nominee. So quick, she gets this like, I mean, it was a very slim book that came out, maybe she announced in February, it comes out in July right before the election. But then she leaves the state of Michigan for months for a nationwide book tour. And I think that's wrong. I do not think politicians should be allowed to personally profit and leave the state by doing it. I mean the fact that she can write a memoir and then travel around the country while the state, it would be one thing if the state of Michigan were in great shape, we're 40th in infrastructure, 40th an education, our manufacturing is dying, and the governor's AWOL because she's making megabucks off of a book that she's getting a huge advance on. And I will say locally, we have the same issue in Michigan. So when I say I agree with him, I'll say even a Republican who is running for office in the state of Michigan had a leadership position in state government, left and became a lobbyist, which means you are using your connections in government to make money for companies who are paying you to do it. And then, now he is still a lobbyists, goes back and decides he's going to run for an even higher office. So you go from office to making money lobbying off of your relationships to back to office and having the people that you lobbied for make money off of government. I think that your priorities are to make money and you shouldn't be running for office.' Listen to the podcast to hear the full discussion!
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court lets Trump's ‘wrecking ball' federal job cuts proceed while legal fight continues
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to move forward, at least for now, with plans to implement large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, issuing a stay that lifts a lower court's injunction against the administration's executive order. In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court. The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to "streamline government and eliminate waste." Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal APPEALS COURT THROWS ROADBLOCK AT TRUMP'S EDUCATION REFORM AGENDA A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself."Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application," the Court wrote. "We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court." The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court's unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is "likely to succeed" in defending the legality of the order. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that "this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation." She warned that the executive action represents a "structural overhaul that usurps Congress's policymaking prerogatives" and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts. "This unilateral decision to 'transform' the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court," she wrote. "The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed "non-critical" or "not statutorily mandated." The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain "thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service... is not in the government and public interest." Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The court's ruling is not a final judgment on the legality of the executive order. It only determines that implementation may proceed temporarily while appeals continue. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the injunction or the Supreme Court declines to take up the case later, the order could again be American Federal Government Employees Union had a forceful response: "Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution. While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees."Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration," wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. "It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President's constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government."
Politico
9 minutes ago
- Politico
Musk wants to create a third party. It won't be so easy.
Here are five challenges Musk will face in creating the aspirational 'America Party,' according to leaders of third parties and the operatives who have worked for them. Getting on the ballot is, by far, the biggest hurdle that experts identified. Third parties have to navigate a set of complex laws, each of which differ by state, to simply obtain a place on the ballot. Then they have to work to keep it. The process entails amassing a large number of signatures from voters who back your party in a short amount of time — and, to make matters more complicated, some deadlines overlap in different states. 'Stepping in as a third party is difficult and it's not just difficult due to name recognition and everything else. It's mostly due to ballot access,' said Steven Nekhaila, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. 'Ballot access is something that takes decades to accrue because you need the state party infrastructure to facilitate it, you need to get tens of thousands of signatures to meet the thresholds, and oftentimes you only have a few months to do it.' Musk is going to get sued and sued some more. Larry Otter, an election law attorney who advised Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 2024 campaign, said Musk's party will 'definitely be viewed as a spoiler' by Republicans and that they will work hard to prevent him from winning a line on the ballot. Musk should be prepared to have the signatures his team collects challenged to the hilt, Otter said. Looking at just one state, Pennsylvania, he said, there is typically a '30 percent error rate' there in petitions for ballot access. Recruiting candidates and building party infrastructure takes time. As the richest man in the world, Musk could easily fund a wide-ranging party operation in 50 states. But will he stay interested in his new cause for long enough to see it through? 'The greatest challenge for him is not money but finding petitioners, finding people and fighting lawsuits,' Nekhaila said. 'It's more time that's going to be a precious resource than money.' Musk has floated the possibility of initially zeroing in on 'just 2 or 3 Senate seats' and '8 to 10 House districts' in the 2026 midterm elections. Narrowing his focus would make it a 'totally different strategy,' and more doable, Nekhaila said. Few experts are familiar with starting a new party — and some less-than-professional characters abound in the third-party strategist world. 'One of the things that independents rely on are professional circulators,' said Otter, referring to operatives who are paid to collect signatures. 'I've seen stuff go really bad with those people.' Sometimes, circulating companies bring in inexperienced workers and people from out of state who are unfamiliar with local laws, he said. And then there's Musk. First Musk torched his reputation with Democratic (and Tesla-buying) voters. Now that he's feuding with Trump, he's frustrating many in the GOP. Will candidates want to associate themselves with his party? Will staff — especially those who want to stay involved in the Republican Party? Musk could keep a distance by funding independent candidates through a super PAC, but does he have the discipline to not get personally involved? Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government newsletter.
