Latest news with #PeteWilson
Los Angeles Times
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
As the Senate loses luster, more members run for governor. Is there a takeaway for Kamala Harris?
Decades ago, Pete Wilson did something unusual. The U.S. senator came home to run for California governor. The path to power typically goes the opposite direction, with governors trading the statehouse for the (perceived) influence and prestige of being one of just 100 members of a club that fancies itself — not so humbly or precisely — as 'the world's greatest deliberative body.' Wilson bucked that sentiment. 'It is a much more difficult role,' he said of being governor, and one he came to much prefer over his position on Capitol Hill. It turns out that Wilson, a Republican who narrowly prevailed in a fierce 1990 contest against Democrat Dianne Feinstein, was onto something. Since, then five other lawmakers have left the Senate to become their state's governor. Several more tried and failed. Although it's still more common for a governor to run for Senate than vice versa, in 2026 as many as three sitting U.S. senators may run for governor, the most in at least 90 years, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Clearly, the U.S. Senate has lost some of its luster. There have always been those who found the place, with its pretentious airs, dilatory pacing and stultifying rules of order, a frustrating environment to work in, much less thrive. The late Wendell Ford, who served a term as Kentucky governor before spending the next 24 years in the Senate, used to say 'the unhappiest members of the Senate were the former governors,' recalled Charlie Cook, founder of the eponymous political newsletter. 'They were used to getting things done.' And that, as Cook noted, 'was when the Senate did a lot more than it does now.' What's more, the Senate used to be a more dignified, less partisan place — especially when compared with the fractious House. An apocryphal story has George Washington breakfasting with Thomas Jefferson and referring to the Senate as a saucer intended to cool the passions of the intemperate lower chamber. (It helps to picture a teacup filled with scalding brew.) These days, both chambers are bubbling cauldrons of animosity and partisan backbiting. Worse, there's not a whole lot of advising going in the Senate, which reflexively consents to pretty much whatever it is that President Trump asks of the prostrated Republican majority. 'The Senate has become an employment agency where we just have vote after vote after vote to confirm nominees that are are going to pass, generally, 53 to 47, with very rare exceptions,' said Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat who's running to be governor of his home state. The other announced gubernatorial hopeful is Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican who's made no secret of his distaste for Washington after a single term. Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn, a fellow Republican fresh off reelection, is also expected to run for governor in her state. Bennet arrived in the Senate 16 years ago and since then, he said, it's been 'really a one-way ratchet down.' 'You think about the fact that we're really down to a couple [of] bills a year,' he said this week between votes on Capitol Hill. 'One is a continuing resolution that isn't even a real appropriations bill ... it's just cementing the budget decisions that were made last year, and then the defense bill.' Despite all that, Bennet said he's not running for governor 'because I'm worn out. It's not because I'm frustrated or bored or irritated or aggravated' with life in the Senate, 'though the Senate can be a very aggravating place to work.' Rather, working beneath the golden dome in Denver would offer a better opportunity 'to push back and to fight Trumpism,' he said, by offering voters a practical and affirmative Democratic alternative. Try that as one of 47 straitjacketed senators. When Wilson took office in January 1991, he succeeded the term-limited George Deukmejian, a fellow Republican. He immediately faced a massive budget deficit, which he closed through a package of tax hikes and spending cuts facilitated by his negotiating partner, Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Their agreement managed to antagonize Democrats and Republicans alike. Wilson didn't much care. After serving in the Legislature, as San Diego mayor and a U.S. senator, he often said being California governor was the best job he ever had. There are legislators to wrangle, agencies to oversee, natural disasters to address, interest groups to fend off — all while trying to stay in the good graces of millions of often cranky, impatient voters. 'Not everybody enjoys it,' Wilson said when asked about the prospect of Kamala Harris serving as governor, 'and not everyone is good at it.' Harris, who served four years in the Senate before ascending to the vice presidency, has given herself the summer to decide whether to run for governor, try again for the White House or retire from politics altogether. California's next governor will probably have to take some 'very painful steps,' Wilson said, given the dicey economic outlook and the likelihood of federal budget cuts and other hostile moves by the Trump administration. That will make a lot of people unhappy, including many of Harris' fellow Democrats. How would she feel about returning to Sacramento's small stage, wrestling with intractable issues such as the budget and homelessness, and dealing with the inevitable political heat? We won't know until and unless Harris runs.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A message to Trump protesters in California: Put down the Mexican flags
As thousands of demonstrators take to the streets of Los Angeles protesting immigration enforcement operations, images of Mexican flags waving alongside burning cars and clashes with federal agents are once again dominating news coverage. While the passion and commitment of these protesters are undeniable, they are making a critical strategic error that could undermine their cause and harm the very communities they seek to protect. They are ignoring an important lesson from history on how prominently displaying this flag can backfire with the broader public. More than 30 years ago, Californians were facing intense economic insecurity as the state was crawling out of a recession amid a dramatic influx of immigrants, trends eerily similar to today. It led to a public backlash against immigration led by then-Gov. Pete Wilson. The political centerpiece of the movement in 1994 was Proposition 187. The measure called for denying public services to undocumented immigrants. Latino students and activists organized massive protests across the state. Like today's demonstrations, these protests featured prominent displays of Mexican flags. One demonstration at Los Angeles City Hall drew an estimated 70,000 protesters, one of the largest protests in city history. But it only served to inflame a distressed public. Proposition 187 passed decisively with 59% of the vote. Post-election analysis revealed that the Mexican flag imagery had become a powerful weapon in the hands of the measure's supporters. Harold Ezell, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service Director who helped author Prop. 187, later declared that the 'biggest mistake the opposition made was waving those green and white flags with the snake on it. They should have been waving the American flag.' Technically, opponents of the measure eventually would win. Courts ruled that Prop. 187 was unconstitutional. But the political damage for supporters of immigrants would extend far beyond that single election. Prop. 187's passage, aided by the visual narrative of foreign flags at protests, helped transform California politics for a generation—but not necessarily in the way protesters intended. While an entirely new generation of Latino political activism was stirred by the heated passion of that campaign, so too was an anti-immigrant fervor that consumed California politics for a generation. Rather than just building sympathy for immigrants and a show of ethnic solidarity when the community was under attack, the imagery reinforced opponents' framing of immigration as a question of national loyalty rather than human and constitutional rights. Today, protesters in Los Angeles risk repeating this strategic blunder. The Mexican flag being waved amid destruction, violent interaction with law enforcement, and burning vehicles allows opponents to shift the narrative away from legitimate concerns about immigration enforcement tactics and toward questions of patriotism, lawlessness, and national identity. It transforms what should be a debate about American constitutional rights and due process into a conversation about foreign loyalty and cultural assimilation. It highlights division and, at least optically, prioritizes foreign loyalty over American loyalty. This messaging problem is particularly acute given how Latino political attitudes have evolved since 1994. Research shows that today's Latino voters, especially younger generations, are increasingly assimilated and respond differently to ethnic appeals than their predecessors. Millennial and Generation Z Latinos are more motivated by intersectional movements that promote equality for all Americans rather than country-of-origin symbolism. For these assimilated voters, substantive policy discussions prove more influential than ethnic appeals tied to ancestral homelands. Pew Research Center shows that more than half of all Hispanics view themselves as 'typical Americans.' That number grows to 80 percent in younger Latinos. The Mexican flag imagery also alienates more than just Latinos. It also turns off potential allies who should be natural coalition partners. The 1994 protests should have included not just Latinos but also far more whites, Asian Americans, and African Americans who opposed Prop. 187 on civil rights grounds. In the end, Prop. 187 lost only among Latinos but was supported by white, Black, and Asian voters due, at least in some part, to the ethnic polarization Latino activists were imparting to rally their communities. Similarly, today's immigration enforcement concerns affect diverse communities across Los Angeles. But when protests are visually dominated by Mexican flags, these broader coalitions understandably feel excluded from what should be an American civil rights movement. Perhaps most damaging, the flag imagery provides opponents with exactly the ammunition they need to dismiss legitimate grievances. This is how immigration activists lose the message to Donald Trump. Using the flag of a foreign nation undermines the moral high ground of this position. Moreover, it cedes the American flag to the rising extremism we're witnessing on the American right. Latinos are Americans concerned about American issues like economic opportunity, public safety, and constitutional rights. Treating them as a monolithic bloc defined by ancestral nationality not only misreads their political priorities but also reinforces stereotypes that opponents can exploit. Put away the Mexican flags. Embrace American symbols and American values. Frame the debate in terms of constitutional rights and due process rather than ethnic identity. The stakes are too high, and the lessons of history too clear, to repeat the strategic errors that helped doom the fight against Prop. 187. American protesters fighting for American rights should carry American flags. Mike Madrid is a political analyst and a special correspondent for McClatchy Media.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law
The use of the military to quell protests is something associated with dictators in foreign countries, and as of Saturday night, with a president of the United States. When President Trump federalized 2,000 members of the California National Guard, deploying them because of protests against federal immigration authorities, he sent a chilling signal about his willingness to use the military against demonstrators. There are two relevant aspects of federal law: One allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard and the other permits the president to use the military in domestic situations. Neither, at this point, provides legal authority for Saturday's action. As for the former, a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. section 12406, authorizes the president to take over a state's National Guard if 'the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' This is the statutory provision Trump has invoked. But it is highly questionable that the protests against ICE agents rise to the level of a 'rebellion against the authority of the Government.' This statute does not give the president the authority to use the troops. Another law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the military from being used within the United States. The 2,000 National Guard troops are only deployed to protect ICE officers. However, even this is legally questionable unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates a basis for using the military in domestic situations and an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. On Sunday, Trump said he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows a president to deploy troops domestically in three situations. One is if a governor or state legislature asks for the deployment to put down an insurrection. The last time this occurred was in 1992, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to use the National Guard to stop the riots that occurred after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. With Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing the federalizing of the National Guard, this isn't the case in Los Angeles today. A second part of the Insurrection Act allows deployment in order to 'enforce the laws' of the United States or to 'suppress rebellion' whenever 'unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law by the 'ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Since no one disputes the courts are fully functioning, this provision has no relevance. It is the third part of the Insurrection Act that is more likely to be cited by the Trump administration. It allows the president to use military troops in a state to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. President Eisenhower used this power to send federal troops to help desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., public schools when the governor defied federal court orders. This section of the law has additional language: The president may deploy troops in a state that 'opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.' This broad language is what I would expect Trump to invoke to use the troops directly against the anti-ICE protests. The Insurrection Act does not define crucial terms such as 'insurrection,' 'rebellion' or 'domestic violence.' In 1827, in Martin vs. Mott, the Supreme Court said that 'the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.' There have been many calls over the years to modify the expansive language of the Insurrection Act. But since presidents have rarely used it, and not in a very long time, reform efforts seemed unnecessary. The broad presidential authority under the Insurrection Act thus has remained on the books as a loaded weapon. There is a strong set of norms that has restrained presidents from using federal troops in domestic situations, especially absent a request from a state governor. But Trump shows no respect for norms. Any use of the military in domestic situations should be regarded as a last resort in the United States. The readiness of the administration to quickly invoke any aspect of this authority is frightening, a message about the willingness of a remade federal government to quell demonstrations. The protests in Los Angeles do not rise to the conditions that warrant the federalization of the National Guard. This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests have turned violent. However, they have been limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them absent military force. But the statutes Trump can invoke give presidents broad powers. In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration, nationalizing the California National Guard should make us even more afraid. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law
The use of the military to quell protests is something associated with dictators in foreign countries, and as of Saturday night, with a president of the United States. When President Trump federalized 2,000 members of the California National Guard, deploying them because of protests against federal immigration authorities, he sent a chilling signal about his willingness to use the military against demonstrators. There are two relevant aspects of federal law: One allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard and the other permits the president to use the military in domestic situations. Neither, at this point, provides legal authority for Saturday's action. As for the former, a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. section 12406, authorizes the president to take over a state's National Guard if 'the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' This is the statutory provision Trump has invoked. But it is highly questionable that the protests against ICE agents rise to the level of a 'rebellion against the authority of the Government.' This statute does not give the president the authority to use the troops. Another law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the military from being used within the United States. The 2,000 National Guard troops are only deployed to protect ICE officers. However, even this is legally questionable unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates a basis for using the military in domestic situations and an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. On Sunday, Trump said he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows a president to deploy troops domestically in three situations. One is if a governor or state legislature asks for the deployment to put down an insurrection. The last time this occurred was in 1992, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to use the National Guard to stop the riots that occurred after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. With Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing the federalizing of the National Guard, this isn't the case in Los Angeles today. A second part of the Insurrection Act allows deployment in order to 'enforce the laws' of the United States or to 'suppress rebellion' whenever 'unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law by the 'ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Since no one disputes the courts are fully functioning, this provision has no relevance. It is the third part of the Insurrection Act that is more likely to be cited by the Trump administration. It allows the president to use military troops in a state to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. President Eisenhower used this power to send federal troops to help desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., public schools when the governor defied federal court orders. This section of the law has additional language: The president may deploy troops in a state that 'opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.' This broad language is what I would expect Trump to invoke to use the troops directly against the anti-ICE protests. The Insurrection Act does not define crucial terms such as 'insurrection,' 'rebellion' or 'domestic violence.' In 1827, in Martin vs. Mott, the Supreme Court said that 'the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.' There have been many calls over the years to modify the expansive language of the Insurrection Act. But since presidents have rarely used it, and not in a very long time, reform efforts seemed unnecessary. The broad presidential authority under the Insurrection Act thus has remained on the books as a loaded weapon. There is a strong set of norms that has restrained presidents from using federal troops in domestic situations, especially absent a request from a state governor. But Trump shows no respect for norms. Any use of the military in domestic situations should be regarded as a last resort in the United States. The readiness of the administration to quickly invoke any aspect of this authority is frightening, a message about the willingness of a remade federal government to quell demonstrations. The protests in Los Angeles do not rise to the conditions that warrant the federalization of the National Guard. This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests have turned violent. However, they have been limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them absent military force. But the statutes Trump can invoke give presidents broad powers. In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration, nationalizing the California National Guard should make us even more afraid. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer.
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lisbon bridge project almost complete
LISBON, Ohio (WKBN) — The Grant Street Bridge project in Lisbon is almost finished, and the barrels are almost ready to be removed, according to Mayor Pete Wilson. New guardrails are up, and the second lane has been paved. Some areas of the cement bed still need to be smoothed and covered with a protective seal. The project costs about $3.6 million, with most money coming from grants. Tino DiCenso contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
