A lesson from RFK to Gov. Mills to run against Senator Collins
Governor Janet Mills, on the other hand, has
Mills, however, misses RFK's real lesson: The best way to change national policies is to seek national office like Kennedy did in 1964, when he challenged a middle-of-the-road US Senate incumbent much like Collins. So how about it, governor: Will you run against Collins next year if she continues to waffle about standing up to Trump?
Crossing swords with the president is hardly easy, of course. Trump has demonstrated his readiness to eviscerate his opponents, even ones from his own party. But it wasn't easy for Smith to go up against McCarthy at the start of his red-baiting crusade in 1950, when no other Republican would. What's more, she was the Senate's only woman. It would be her proudest moment in the chamber, and one for which she would pay dearly.
Advertisement
On June 1, 1950, Smith
It was a 15-minute act of sheer courage, one that McCarthy listened to silently from his desk two rows behind Smith's. The counterattack was as fast as it was furious. Columnist and McCarthy friend Westbrook Pegler derided Smith as 'a Moses in nylons' who 'took advantage … of her sex.' Others suggested that she and McCarthy had been romantically involved, or she'd wanted to be, and that the speech was personal revenge. McCarthy had the most belittling quip, dismissing Smith and the half-dozen Republican co-signatories to her Declaration of Conscience as 'Snow White and the Six Dwarfs.' His words were reinforced by splenetic action. Using his authority as ranking Republican, in 1951 he dumped Smith from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that he'd named her to, replacing her with the more hawklike Richard Nixon.
Advertisement
Kennedy's challenge in taking on Senator Kenneth Keating of New York was even more daunting. The silver-haired incumbent, a born and bred New Yorker, had won all seven elections he had contested. Kennedy, a carpetbagger from Massachusetts, sent a young aide across the state to assess his chances, and the news wasn't good: Keating would trounce Kennedy by 650,000 votes.
Yet on Aug. 25, 1964, the US attorney general announced to New York and the world that he was running and meant to win. 'There may be some who believe that where a candidate voted in the past is more important than his capacity to serve the state,'
Even with his family money and connections, it wasn't easy for RFK. Through early October it looked like he might lose, but that prospect propelled him to break out of his shell, let the public see his wit and spunk and focus on issues that mattered, like ending poverty and the war in Vietnam. In the end he won by 719,693 votes, the biggest margin a New York Democrat had managed, for senator or governor, since 1934.
Are you listening, Governor Mills?
At 77, and after 35 years of public service, you might be too tired to run for Senate even if it would help your fellow Democrats retake that chamber and restrain the president. But as you recently wrote in a Globe Opinion essay, channeling RFK's call to arms 60 years earlier, 'Each of us can send forth that tiny ripple of hope; we can restore the rule of law, we can revive our rights, recharge our nation, and rewrite the history of our world.'
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Senate has passed a significant expansion to the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), more than tripling the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025. Senators voted 50-50 on President Donald Trump's broad tax and spending bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The increased SALT deduction cap would phase out for those earning above $500,000 and increase 1 percent annually until 2029, then revert to the current $10,000 limit in 2030. Why It Matters The move marks a dramatic reversal in policy on SALT deductions, one of the most contentious features of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and has implications for millions of taxpayers, especially those living in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California where property and income taxes often far exceed the old $10,000 cap. Analysts have said the provision will most likely benefit wealthier Americans who have high property taxes, as taxes paid on income and property ownership are typically the largest for those who itemize their taxes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald... Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald Trump's signature bill of big tax breaks and spending cuts, at the Capitol in Washington on July 1, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know Prior to 2017, taxpayers who itemized deductions could fully subtract the amount paid in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxable income. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 cap on these deductions, a limit that mostly affected residents of states with higher tax rates. Along with raising the cap to $40,000 until 2029, the Senate bill also increases a tax break for pass-through businesses to 23 percent while clamping down on a frequently used tax loophole for certain pass-through businesses. The House bill had proposed the same higher limit and $500,000 income phaseout but for a longer period of time, rising 1 percent each year from 2026 to 2033. The House also blocked certain white-collar professionals from being able to use a popular SALT deduction workaround. While the Senate version appears to be cheaper for the federal government, given its shorter time frame, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said that "it's actually far more generous." The CRFB said the Senate's direct SALT relief is "roughly 10 percent larger than the House," adding that it estimated the Senate changes would cost $325 billion while the House bill would cost roughly $200 billion. Affluent homeowners and high-income individuals stand to benefit the most from the expanded cap, according to the Tax Foundation's May analysis. The Tax Foundation also warned that the Senate's provisions would cost about $320 billion more than an extension of the existing cap, and cost $150 billion more than a $30,000 cap. "The bill is already suffering from a math problem," Tax Foundation analysts wrote. "This is a recipe for worsening deficits at a time when Congress needs to be more concerned about the country's fiscal outlook." What People Are Saying Owen Zidar, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, told Newsweek: "The broader bill and the SALT cap increase are a boon for high-income taxpayers, especially high-income private business owners who got a special loophole that lets them avoid the SALT caps. Millions are estimated to lose health insurance coverage. The bill is very irresponsible fiscally. It's mortgaging our future for our children. "The increase in the deficits will put pressure on interest rates and crowd out productive investment, hurting economic growth." What Happens Next After being passed by the Senate, the GOP tax bill will now head to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences between the Senate and House.
Miami Herald
25 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
No taxpayer-funded hate in the arts in Florida
A new law banning public funding for organizations that promote hate, including antisemitism, passed the Florida Legislature and was signed into law last week by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Sponsored. by Sen. Tom Leek (R-Ormond Beach) and Rep. Hillary Cassel (R-Fort Lauderdale), House Bill 1519 and Senate Bill 1678 will stop taxpayer money from going to people or organizations that boycott Israel. It also expands Florida's existing anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or 'BDS' law, by including academic boycotts, mandating divestment from boycotting entities. Florida will no longer allow public funds to support museums, schools or other cultural and educational institutions that promote hate speech in any form. Institutions that continue to allow or promote hate may see their public funding rescinded — for up to 10 years. As a Florida resident for more than 25 years, I have always stood up for gay rights, free speech and especially for the arts. But as a Jew — like too many of my fellow Jews — I was not fully aware of how rampant antisemitism had become in creative spaces. Since the brutal Oct. 7 attacks against Israelis, antisemitism has surged in the United States, including physical assaults and online attacks aimed at Jews and Zionists. For the first time in their lives, my children experienced antisemitism — being singled out in public as Jews and subjected to Holocaust jokes from classmates. This ancient hatred has found its way into artistic institutions, often denying Jewish and Zionist artists the opportunity to perform, exhibit, or share their work with the public. Many of these rejections come under the guise of neutrality: 'We just don't want to be part of the controversy,' they say — even when the art itself has no political content. But what they are really saying is, 'Because you're Jewish, we're holding you accountable for what is happening in the Middle East.' Worse still, some institutions actively lend their platforms to artists who use their voices to promote hatred toward Jews. Artists have the right to free speech. This is the United States, and freedom of speech is enshrined in our Constitution. But that right does not extend to taxpayer funding. No one is entitled to public dollars to promote hate or discrimination. This new law makes that distinction clear — with consequences, especially financial ones. Since Oct. 7, 2003, hate crimes in Florida targeting Jews have doubled. That's why I, along with other activists, support this law. We believe the majority of Florida taxpayers do not support hate, and certainly do not want their money used to fund it. This law sends a simple message: no taxpayer-funded hate in Florida. It also expands the protections Florida has put in place since 2016 and again in 2024 to fight antisemitic discrimination and crime. Now, taxpayer money — whether through grants, contracts, or tax-exempt status — cannot be used to support programs or institutions that traffic in hate speech, including antisemitism. I call on our cultural and educational institutions to embrace this law and lead with integrity. Reject hate in museums, performing arts centers, and public universities. These are institutions that have long stood up for artists of every race, ethnicity, gender, and orientation. It's time to show the same commitment to Jews. I'm not asking for political loyalty or positions on global conflicts. I'm asking for consistency — stand against hate, no matter who it targets. Use your platform to speak for the marginalized and to reject discrimination in all forms. This new bipartisan law is a good step forward. It affirms that Florida taxpayers will not be forced to fund antisemitism or hate of any kind. George Lindemann Jr. is an investor, art collector and philanthropist. He is president of the board of trustees for The Bass museum on Miami Beach.
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Suffers Double Legal Deportation Setback Within Hours
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration suffered two deportation-related legal defeats in New York and Virginia on Tuesday. A New York judge blocked a proposal to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protections, and judges in Virginia rejected a bid to place Georgetown University academic Badar Khan Suri into immigration detention for a second time. Why It Matters President Donald Trump has made cracking down on immigration a policy priority for his second administration, deporting migrants living in the U.S. illegally and revoking the temporary protected status of migrants residing in the U.S. legally. The president recently said there were no illegal crossings into the U.S. via its southern border in May. As Republicans control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, the courts have become one of the main impediments to the Trump administration's decisions. What To Know On Tuesday, a court blocked an attempt by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to remove temporary protected status, which allows eligible nationals to live and work in the U.S., from hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants. The Eastern District of New York's Judge Brian Cogan ruled that Noem did "not have statutory or inherent authority" to remove the protections, which the Biden administration extended to February 2026. Cogan said Noem would have to wait on the "statutorily prescribed procedures Congress has enacted," preventing her from ending the protections before February. The Obama administration first issued temporary protected status for Haitian migrants in 2010 and repeatedly extended the protections. The first Trump administration attempted to end the designation in 2017, but court delays meant nothing happened until Biden took office in 2021 and continued the status. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters on Air Force One on July 1. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters on Air Force One on July 1. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/GETTY Haiti descended into anarchy following the assassination of its president in 2021, and large swaths of the country are controlled by feuding criminal gangs. During a presidential election debate in September, Trump repeated the false claim that Haitian migrants were stealing and eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, which local authorities denied. In a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday, judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia also rejected the Trump administration's attempt to take Khan Suri into immigration custody for a second time, following his initial arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in March. Khan Suri was held at a Texas detention facility, but U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles ordered his release in May. In their majority decision, Judges James Wynn and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin said taking Khan Suri into detention again would be a violation of habeas corpus, which prevents arrests without due legal process. The Department of Homeland Security said that while at Georgetown, Khan Suri was involved in "spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media." Khan Suri has strongly denied these claims. What People Are Saying Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, told Newsweek: "This ruling delays justice and seeks to kneecap the President's constitutionally vested powers under Article II [of the Constitution]. Haiti's TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago, it was never intended to be a de facto asylum program, yet that's how previous administrations have used it for decades. The Trump administration is restoring integrity to our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe, and we expect a higher court to vindicate us in this. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side." Judges James Wynn and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin wrote in their majority opinion in Badar Khan Suri's case: "The government chose to move Suri without informing his wife or attorney of his location or custodian. If not for our conclusion that jurisdiction lies in the Eastern District of Virginia, that deliberate choice would have deprived the petitioner of any meaningful opportunity to contest his detention prior to removal to a distant jurisdiction." Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in dissent: "The district court found that he presents neither a danger to the community nor a risk of flight, which are both important considerations in rulings on pretrial release and bond pending appeal. Yet the government's jurisdictional arguments with regard to the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] are not without considerable force." What Happens Next It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will appeal either or both of Tuesday's rulings. On June 27, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling curbing the power of lower courts to obstruct the Trump administration's policy in response to a birthright citizenship case.
