Red Face ? |
Friday, September 20, 2019
Kennedy mystique could factor into Massachusetts Senate race
BOSTON
(AP) — When Edward M. Kennedy was running for the U.S. Senate for the
first time in 1962, his Democratic primary opponent turned to him during
a debate and said if his last name was Moore — Kennedy’s middle name —
his “candidacy would be a joke.”
Fortunately
for Kennedy, he shared a last name with his brother John F. Kennedy —
then the U.S. president — and went on to win the Senate seat he held for
the next 47 years.
More than half a century
later another Kennedy — U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy III — is testing the
staying power of his family’s political mystique in a state that’s
nearly synonymous with the Kennedy clan as he prepares to launch a
Democratic primary challenge against incumbent U.S. Sen. Edward Markey.
Kennedy is expected to formally announce his decision Saturday morning in Boston. If successful, he would be the fourth member of the Kennedy family to win a seat in the Senate.
It’s
a battle that assesses not only the post-Camelot strength of the
Kennedys but also whether the 38-year-old congressman can join the ranks
of a changing Democratic party that has rewarded younger politicians
like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley of
Massachusetts for successfully challenging incumbent Democratic members
of the U.S. House.
Last year, underscoring
how Kennedy’s star has been rising, he was tapped to deliver the
Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union
address.
While his name is undoubtedly an
asset — he’s the grandson of Robert F. Kennedy and son of former U.S.
Rep. Joe Kennedy II — many of those watching the budding contest say
Kennedy, who has served in Congress since 2013, still needs to make a
convincing case to voters.
“Of course people
in Massachusetts know the Kennedy name, but it’s largely historical at
this point,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist in
Massachusetts. Marsh noted that Edward Kennedy died a decade ago.
Marsh
credited the younger Kennedy for working hard to win his House seat —
shaking hands, traveling throughout the district and listening to voters
— and said that work appears to be paying off as he weighed a run for
Senate, noting two recent polls that showed Kennedy ahead of the
73-year-old Markey.
Marsh also said the
single biggest goal Democrats have in the coming election — defeating
Trump and undoing his legacy — may play to Kennedy’s perceived strengths
if he can bring a sense of urgency to the race. That message may be a
tougher sell from Markey, she said.
“This
election cycle is so different. The test isn’t what your name is and
where you come from but what you can do to stop Donald Trump,” Marsh
said. “For Markey, the good news is that he has a long record over 40
years, and the bad news is that he has a long record over 40 years and
he’s still working on some of those issues.”
Others see a tighter contest between the two, despite the Kennedy legacy.
Erin
O’Brien, an associate professor of political science at the University
of Massachusetts-Boston, cautions against counting Markey out, pointing
to what she said is a generational split among the electorate. Older
voters may have an emotional connection to the Kennedy clan that younger
voters don’t share.
“Younger Democrats care
more about the environment and climate change,” she said. “At least
initially they’re rallying around Ed Markey.”
O’Brien
said that Kennedy — unlike U.S. Reps. Seth Moulton and Pressley, who
also defeated Democratic incumbents in Massachusetts — has yet to come
up with a strong argument about why voters should dump Markey.
“He
is trying to capitalize on squad energy when he has no authenticity to
be a member of the squad,” she said, referring to a group of four
Democratic members of the U.S. House including Rashida Tlaib of
Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Pressley and Ocasio-Cortez.
By
challenging Markey directly rather than waiting for an open seat,
Kennedy also avoids having to run in a crowded primary, which could
include other members of the state’s congressional delegation.
Unlike
Kennedy, Markey didn’t inherit a famous political name. His father
drove a milk truck and he was the first in his family to get a college
degree.
He had been trying to shore up his
political support before Kennedy’s announcement. Markey has been quick
to point to the endorsement of his campaign by fellow Sen. Elizabeth
Warren. Warren, who taught Kennedy at Harvard Law School, endorsed
Markey in February. She’s spoken highly of both candidates.
Equally
important for Markey as he tries to woo younger and more liberal
Democrats may be his endorsement by Ocasio-Cortez, who teamed up with
Markey early on to push the “Green New Deal” climate change initiative.
It’s
unusual for an incumbent senator to have a serious primary challenge,
and most recently, it’s happened far more to Republicans.
Markey
already faces two lesser-known candidates: Shannon Liss-Riordan, a
workers’ rights lawyer, and Steve Pemberton, a former senior executive
at Walgreens.
Given that there are few
strong ideological divides between the two candidates, voters may end up
choosing sides quickly, said John Cluverius, associate director of the
UMass Lowell Center for Public Opinion.
“This
primary isn’t about substance or even style, really. It’s shaping up to
be a ‘Seinfeld’ primary: In most ways, it’s about nothing, but it’s
going to deeply divide people strongly attached to one side or the
other,” he said.
Google plans to invest 3 billion euros in Europe
COPENHAGEN,
Denmark (AP) — Google’s top boss said Friday the tech giant is planning
to invest 3 billion euros to expand its data centers across Europe in
the next two years.
Chief executive Sundar
Pichai says it will bring the company’s total investments in the
continent’s internet infrastructure to 15 billion euros since 2007.
Pichai
met with Finnish Prime Minister Antii Rinne on Friday in Helsinki and
said the investments will support 13,000 full-time jobs in the European
Union every year.
He also noted that Google
is investing heavily in renewable energy, an initiative announced ahead
of global rallies calling for action to guard against climate change.
Employees at Google and other big U.S. tech companies such as Amazon and
Microsoft planned to participate in the “global climate strike” Friday.
The
Google project will include the construction of more than 1 billion
euros in new energy infrastructure in the EU, among them a new offshore
wind project in Belgium, five solar energy projects in Denmark, and two
wind energy projects in each Sweden and Finland. There are also projects
in the U.S. and South America.
Pichai said
that once these projects come online, Google’s carbon-free energy
portfolio will produce more electricity than places like Washington D.C.
or entire countries like Lithuania or Uruguay use each year.
Iraq’s stability on the line as US, Iran tensions soar
BAGHDAD
(AP) — As the United States and Israel escalate their push to contain
Iranian influence in the Middle East, countries in Tehran’s orbit are
feeling the heat.
Pro-Iranian militias
across Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are being targeted, both with economic
sanctions and precision airstrikes hitting their bases and
infrastructure. This is putting the governments that host them in the
crosshairs of an escalating confrontation and raising the prospect of
open conflict.
Nowhere is that being felt
more than in Iraq. It is wedged between Saudi Arabia to the south and
Iran to the east and hosts thousands of U.S. troops on its soil. At the
same time, powerful Shiite paramilitary forces linked to Iran pose a
growing challenge to the authority of the central government.
As
the pressure mounts, divisions within Iraq’s pro-Iranian factions have
burst into the open, threatening to collapse a fragile government
coalition and end a rare reprieve from the violence that has plagued the
country for years.
“Regional challenges
facing Iraq will make it even more difficult for Adel Abdel-Mahdi to
bring the (militias) under control,” said Randa Slim, a senior fellow at
the Washington-based Middle East Institute, referring to Iraq’s prime
minister.
The divisions among Iran’s Shiite
allies in Iraq have been spurred by a spate of airstrikes blamed on
Israel that have hit weapons depots and bases belonging to the
Iran-backed militias, known collectively as the Popular Mobilization
Forces, or PMF.
There have been at least
nine strikes since July both inside Iraq and across the border in Syria,
sparking outrage among PMF leaders. They blame Israel and by extension
its U.S. ally, which maintains more than 5,000 troops in Iraq.
Israel
has not confirmed its involvement in the attacks, and U.S. officials
have said Israel was behind at least one strike inside Iraq.
The
attacks have fueled calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal by hard-line
anti-American groups in the country that have strong ties to Iran.
“The
Americans are hostage here ... If war breaks out, they will all be
hostages of the resistance factions,” said Abu Alaa al-Walae, secretary
general of the Sayyed al-Shuhada Brigades, one of the prominent militia
factions with strong ties to Iran. He spoke in a televised interview
this week.
Such bellicose talk is deeply
embarrassing for Iraq’s prime minister, who has struggled to balance his
country’s alliance with both the U.S., which was invited back by the
Baghdad government to help fight the Islamic State group, and Iran,
which is Iraq’s most important trading partner. As the crisis over
Tehran’s unraveling nuclear deal with world powers has escalated over
the past months, that position is becoming increasingly untenable.
This
week, there was a sense of foreboding following an attack by drones and
cruise missiles on key Saudi Arabian oil installations. Yemen’s Houthi
rebels claimed it was in response to the yearslong Saudi-led war there,
but U.S. and Saudi officials said it was launched from the north. Iran
and Iraq lie to the north of Saudi Arabia, while Yemen is in the south.
Iraq’s
government was quick to deny that the attack originated from Iraqi
territory, a claim that was later said to have been confirmed by
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a phone call with Abdel-Mahdi.
The
episode, however, demonstrated the Iraqi government’s tentative hold
over the militias and raised questions about what they might do if the
U.S. starts bombing Iran, for instance. Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s
elite Quds Force and the architect of its regional entrenchment, met
this week with Iraqi Shiite politicians and PMF leaders in Baghdad,
apparently to discuss scenarios.
A directive
issued by Iraq’s prime minister in July integrating and placing
Iranian-backed militias under the command of the state’s security
apparatus forces by July 31 has so far not been implemented.
Instead,
PMF billboards reading “Death to America” have popped up between lanes
of traffic in central Baghdad, following allegations of Israeli
involvement in the series of airstrikes. One poster bears a picture of
what looks like the ghost of the Statue of Liberty wearing a black hood.
“America is the reason for insecurity and instability in the region,”
it reads.
Meanwhile, divisions within the
PMF’s leadership have surfaced in public, which is likely to exacerbate
tensions. The head of the PMF, Faleh al-Fayyadh, has twice clashed with
his deputy, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, in the past month, including when he
walked back a statement by al-Muhandis in which he held the U.S.
responsible for the spate of attacks on PMF bases.
The
PMF is headed by al-Fayyadh but practically run by al-Muhandis, a
military commander who has been designated a terrorist by Washington.
Both men are firmly in Iran’s camp. Soleimani met with both men this
week, a senior politician told The Associated Press.
Earlier
this month, a document attributed to al-Muhandis was circulated in
which he ordered the formation of a PMF air force directorate and the
appointment of Salah Mahdi Hantous, who’s been on a U.S. sanctions list
since 2012, as its chief. In a statement published on its website, the
PMF later denied the report.
The document
nonetheless angered Shiite politicians including the powerful cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr, who tweeted that a PMF air force would spell the end of
the Iraqi government and turn Iraq into a “rogue state.” Days later, he
flew to Iran and held a meeting with Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei.
Iraq’s top Shiite cleric,
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose 2014 religious decree calling for
volunteer fighters against the Islamic State gave rise to the PMF, views
these militias’ growing political and economic influence with suspicion
and has pushed for Abdel-Mahdi’s directive to be implemented.
In
surprisingly blunt comments, al-Sistani’s representative in Beirut,
Hamid al-Khafaf, said progress in Iraq hinges on bringing all arms under
state control.
Political analyst Hisham
al-Hashemi said the current power struggle among Iraq’s Shiite militias
is between PMF factions that support the state, and those whose loyalty
rests more with Iran.
He questioned the government’s ability to impose its authority on PMF factions.
Referring
to the removal earlier this year of blast walls that snaked through the
city to protect from suicide car bombs, he said: “The Iraqi government,
which removed the concrete blocks from around Baghdad, is unable to
remove the signs of ‘death to Israel and America.’”
___
Karam reported from Beirut.
US military to present Trump with several options on Iran
WASHINGTON
(AP) — The Pentagon will present a broad range of military options to
President Donald Trump on Friday as he considers how to respond to what
administration officials say was an unprecedented Iranian attack on
Saudi Arabia’s oil industry.
In a White
House meeting, the Republican president will be presented with a list of
potential airstrike targets inside Iran, among other possible
responses, and he will be warned that military action against the
Islamic Republic could escalate into war, according to U.S. officials
familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The
national security meeting will likely be the first opportunity for a
decision on how the U.S. should respond to the attack on a key Middle
East ally. Any decision may depend on what kind of evidence the U.S. and
Saudi investigators are able to provide proving that the cruise missile
and drone strike was launched by Iran, as a number of officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have asserted.
Iran has denied involvement and warned the U.S. that any attack will spark an “all-out war” with immediate retaliation from Tehran.
Pompeo
and Vice President Mike Pence have condemned the attack on Saudi oil
facilities as “an act of war.” Pence said Trump will “review the facts,
and he’ll make a decision about next steps. But the American people can
be confident that the United States of America is going to defend our
interest in the region, and we’re going to stand with our allies.”
The
U.S. response could involve military, political and economic actions,
and the military options could range from no action at all to airstrikes
or less visible moves such as cyberattacks. One likely move would be
for the U.S. to provide additional military support to help Saudi Arabia
defend itself from attacks from the north, since most of its defenses
have focused on threats from Houthis in Yemen to the south.
Gen.
Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emphasized to a
small number of journalists traveling with him Monday that the question
of whether the U.S. responds is a “political judgment” and not for the
military.
“It is my job to provide military options to the president should he decide to respond with military force,” Dunford said.
Trump
will want “a full range of options,” he said. “In the Middle East, of
course, we have military forces there and we do a lot of planning and we
have a lot of options.”
U.S.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said in an interview Thursday that if
Trump “chooses an option that involves a significant military strike on
Iran that, given the current climate between the U.S. and Iran, there is
a possibility that it could escalate into a medium to large-scale war, I
believe the president should come to Congress.”
Slotkin,
a former top Middle East policy adviser for the Pentagon, said she
hopes Trump considers a broad range of options, including the most basic
choice, which would be to place more forces and defensive military
equipment in and around Saudi Arabia to help increase security.
A
forensic team from U.S. Central Command is pouring over evidence from
cruise missile and drone debris, but the Pentagon said the assessment is
not finished. Officials are trying to determine if they can get
navigational information from the debris that could provide hard
evidence that the strikes came from Iran.
Pentagon
spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said Thursday that the U.S. has a high level
of confidence that officials will be able to accurately determine
exactly who launched the attacks last weekend.
U.S.
officials were unwilling to predict what kind of response Trump will
choose. In June, after Iran shot down an American surveillance drone,
Trump initially endorsed a retaliatory military strike then abruptly
called it off because he said it would have killed dozens of Iranians.
The decision underscores the president’s long-held reluctance to embroil
the country in another war in the Middle East.
Instead,
Trump opted to have U.S. military cyber forces carry out a strike
against military computer systems used by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to
control rocket and missile launchers, according to U.S. officials.
The
Pentagon said the U.S. military is working with Saudi Arabia to find
ways to provide more protection for the northern part of the country.
Air
Force Col. Pat Ryder, spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told
Pentagon reporters Wednesday that U.S. Central Command is talking with
the Saudis about ways to mitigate future attacks. He would not speculate
on what types of support could be provided.
Other
U.S. officials have said adding Patriot missile batteries and enhanced
radar systems could be options, but no decisions have been made.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
California looks for ways to preserve environmental clout
SACRAMENTO,
Calif. (AP) — In eliminating California’s authority to set its own
emission standards for cars and trucks, the Trump administration would
take away leverage the state needs to convince the world’s largest
automakers to make more environmentally friendly vehicles.
But
one California lawmaker is already working on a way to preserve at
least some of the state’s environmental muscle: rebates for electric
cars.
California residents who buy or lease a
zero-emission vehicle can get up to $7,000 from the state. A bill by
Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting would mean people could only get that
money if they buy a car from a company that has agreed to follow
California’s emission standards.
The
proposal comes as the Trump administration on Wednesday announced it
was revoking California’s authority to set its own auto emission
standards — authority it has had for decades under a waiver from the
federal Clean Air Act.
California has 35
million registered vehicles, giving it outsized influence with the auto
industry. That heft was on display in July, when Democratic Gov. Gavin
Newsom announced four automakers — Ford, BMW, Honda and Volkswagen —
agreed to follow California’s standards, bypassing the Trump
administration, which had been working on new rules.
California
officials have been negotiating with other automakers to follow suit,
but those talks stalled Wednesday when Trump announced, via Twitter,
that he was revoking California’s authority to set its own emission
standards.
But Ting’s proposal, first
reported by CalMatters, shows California has other ways it could entice
automakers to follow its environmental lead. David Vogel, a professor
emeritus of business ethics at the Haas School of Business of the
University of California-Berkeley, noted California could accomplish its
goals through various tax changes, which the federal government could
not stop.
“Even if the Trump administration
would win on this, California could use taxes to accomplish much of the
same goals,” Vogel said. “The federal government would have less of an
ability to challenge, because states can pretty much tax who they want.”
The
California Legislature adjourned for the year last week. But before
they left, they amended Assembly Bill 40 to include the new language so
they could debate it when they return to work in January.
State
officials could use the tactic to aid negotiations with Toyota and
General Motors, two manufacturers that make electric cars but have so
far not agreed to California’s emission standards. It’s unclear how
effective the law would be as California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project
has a waiting list.
A Toyota spokesman declined to comment.
Ting, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment. But he is scheduled to speak with reporters about the issue on Thursday.
Asked
about the proposal on Wednesday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he
would make an announcement by Friday, but he did not elaborate.
In
a tweet, Trump said his action to revoke California’s authority to set
its own emission standards would result in less expensive, safer cars.
He also predicted Americans would purchase more new cars, which would
result in cleaner air as older models are taken off the roads.
“Many
more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning
significantly more JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Automakers should seize this
opportunity because without this alternative to California, you will be
out of business,” Trump tweeted.
U.S.
automakers contend that without year-over-year increases in fuel
efficiency that align with global market realities their vehicles could
be less competitive, potentially resulting in job losses. However, most
of the industry favors increases in standards that are less than the
Obama-era requirements, saying their consumers are gravitating to SUVs
and trucks rather than buying more efficient cars.
Top
California officials and environmental groups pledged legal action on
Wednesday to stop the rollback, potentially tying up the issue for years
in federal courts. The U.S. transportation sector is the nation’s
biggest single source of greenhouse gasses.
Trump’s
claim that his proposal would result in a cleaner environment is
contrary to his own administration’s estimate that by freezing economy
standards, U.S. fuel consumption would increase by about 500,000 barrels
per day, a 2% to 3% increase. Environmental groups predict even more
fuel consumed, resulting in higher pollution.
The
administration argues that lower-cost vehicles would allow more people
to buy new ones that are safer, cutting roadway deaths by 12,700 lives
through the 2029 model year. But The Associated Press reported last year
that internal EPA emails show senior career officials privately
questioned the administration’s calculations, saying the proposed freeze
would actually modestly increase highway fatalities, by about 17 deaths
annually.
Israelis contend with prospect of third poll days after vote
JERUSALEM
(AP) — Israelis were contending with the prospect of a third election
on Thursday, two days after an unprecedented repeat election left the
country’s two main political parties deadlocked, with neither Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor his rivals holding a clear path to a
coalition government.
While weeks of
negotiations to form a coalition government lay ahead, conditions set by
the parties could hobble the task within the allotted time, prompting a
never-before held third election.
With
nearly all votes counted Thursday, the centrist Blue and White party
stood at 33 seats in Israel’s 120-seat parliament. Netanyahu’s
conservative Likud stood at 31 seats.
“Everyone
will need to get off their high horse to prevent elections for the
third time,” Likud lawmaker David Bitan told Israeli Army Radio. “Blue
and White’s desire for a unity government under their terms will not
work.”
Neither party can form a government
without the support of the election’s apparent kingmaker, Avigdor
Lieberman of the Yisrael Beitenu party. His insistence on a secular
government would force out Netanyahu’s traditional allies, the country’s
two ultra-Orthodox parties and another nationalist-religious party.
Benny
Gantz’s Blue and White has pledged not to sit in the same government as
Netanyahu, as the long-serving Israeli leader is expected to face
indictment in a slew of corruption scandals. The fiercely loyal Likud is
unlikely to oust Netanyahu.
After meeting with his traditional allies Wednesday, Netanyahu on Thursday called on Gantz to join him in a unity government.
“Throughout
the campaign I called for a right-wing government, but unfortunately
the election results show that’s not possible,” Netanyahu said in a
video statement. “Therefore there is no choice but to form a broad unity
government.”
“We cannot and there is no reason to go to third elections,” he added.
Both
parties were meeting with allies in the vote’s aftermath and the focus
will soon shift to President Reuven Rivlin, who will consult with all
parties in the coming days and select the candidate who he believes has
the best chance of putting together a stable coalition.
The
candidate has 42 days to do so and, if he fails, the president can give
another candidate 28 days to form a coalition. If that fails, the
president can assign another parliament member the task of building a
government, or he can call new elections, something that has never
happened. Rivlin has promised he will do everything in his power to
prevent a third election.
The
deadlock follows the second Israeli elections this year, which were
called because Netanyahu failed to cobble together a coalition following
the April vote. Israelis endured a caustic campaign that saw a
combative Netanyahu fighting for his political survival amid the
recommendation by Israel’s attorney general to indict him on charges of
bribery, breach of trust and fraud pending a hearing in early October.
Netanyahu
had sought an outright majority with his allies in hopes of passing
legislation to give him immunity from the expected indictment, which
would otherwise increase the pressure on Netanyahu to step aside.
The
vote was largely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu, who this summer
surpassed Israel’s founding prime minister to become the country’s
longest-serving leader. During the campaign Netanyahu cast himself as a
seasoned statesman who was the only candidate able to steer Israel
through a sea of challenges.
His challenger,
Blue and White’s Benny Gantz, a former army chief, tried to paint
Netanyahu as divisive and scandal-plagued, offering himself as a calming
influence and honest alternative.
Despite
the scorched earth campaign that saw Netanyahu thrash institutions like
the media, the police and the electoral committee — and which was tinged
with anti-Arab rhetoric — the longtime leader failed to secure the
resounding victory he needed to guarantee his political survival and
perhaps save himself from a formal indictment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...