Learn not to burn, Dems must take border issue seriously and other commentary
'The radicals on our side are so stupid,' fumes Cenk Uygur on X. The LA protesters damaging property 'are not hurting ICE or Trump, they're hurting their own side.' 'Why do you need to burn Waymos and American flags? What does that prove, other than what Trump wants to prove, that you are against America, violent and dangerous?' And 'how does it help the community or immigrants?' While most people 'are legitimately and peacefully protesting,' the rioters 'have needlessly cost us support, even at home in LA.' 'Rule #1 of protesting: Win the crowd — at home. Win hearts and minds. Win the American people over. That's what serious people who want to win and protect our communities do.'
Liberal: Dems Must Take Border Issue Seriously
Advertisement
'Democrats have gotten the border issue so wrong, for so long, that it amounts to political malpractice,' mourns The Washington Post's David Ignatius. In response to pressure from its open-borders activists, party leaders 'acted as if maintaining a well-controlled border was somehow morally wrong' and 'border enforcement doesn't matter.' Even when Homeland Security Secretary 'Alejandro Mayorkas wanted tougher border policies,' the White House 'resisted strong measures.' For Dems, 'taking border issues seriously means more immigration courts and more border-control people and facilities.' Until bipartisan immigration reform passes, 'Democrats need to oppose violence, by anyone — and to help enforce immigration policies that begin with a recognition that it isn't immoral to have a border.'
Conservative: Self-Deportations Will Be Crucial
The 'Los Angeles riots may encourage illegal immigrants to self-deport,' muses the Washington Examiner's Michael Barone. Team Trump 'cannot expect that it can, logistically, remove all the untold millions of illegal immigrants' that poured in during the Biden years. 'But splashy raids and deportations can get hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of illegal immigrants thinking about what Mitt Romney in 2012 called 'self-deportation.'' And that's likely 'happening thanks to what has been happening in Los Angeles.' Proof lies in the drop of foreign-born workers since March. Estimates range from 'three-quarters of a million to a million — those numbers dwarf the number of annual deportations,' suggesting that 'self-deportation, together perhaps with the Department of Homeland Security's $1,000 travel stipend, is looking like a good option' — 'one that may be taken up by many more than are legally deported.'
Advertisement
From the Right: DOGE Bares Dem's Waste
Thanks to DOGE 'we not only know the Democrats couldn't care less about waste, they revel in it,' roars the Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough. Election-denier Stacey Abrams' organization was set to receive '$2 billion for people to buy electric stoves,' and the feds 'awarded $3.7 billion climate change grants' and were 'handing out millions to a loyal Democratic Party support class: the LGBTQ+ movement.' Above all, USAID became 'a money-laden office to siphon off taxpayer funds for Democrats': '$2 million on transgender surgeries and hormone therapy,' millions to Ukrainian 'social media influencers' and much, much more. Elon 'Musk is gone. But DOGE lives on' to keep exposing 'how Democrats rip us off for their good.'
Libertarian: Kill the Dept. of Education
Advertisement
'Killing' the Department of Education, as President Trump ordered, 'requires congressional approval,' admits Reason's Emma Camp, but if even if it were abolished, it 'would not necessarily mean abolishing its functions.' DOE 'directs a wide range of federal programs and commanded a budget of more than $200 billion last year.' Yet if it were ditched, most of its functions would simply move to other agencies. Too bad: 'Almost everything the Department of Education does is unconstitutional,' argues Neal McCluskey, of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, 'so almost all the spending and activities should go away.' Still, scrapping it would end 'a direct conduit to the president for education special interests,' he adds — and send a message 'that education is not a federal responsibility.'
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
10 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Nexstar Media Group buying Tegna in deal worth $6.2 billion
Nexstar Media Group is buying broadcast rival Tegna for $6.2 billion, which will help strengthen its local news offerings. The transaction, if approved, will bring together two major players in U.S. television and the country's local news landscape. Nexstar oversees more than 200 owned and partner stations in 116 markets nationwide today and also runs networks like The CW and NewsNation. Meanwhile, Tegna owns 64 news stations across 51 markets. 'The initiatives being pursued by the Trump administration offer local broadcasters the opportunity to expand reach, level the playing field, and compete more effectively with the Big Tech and legacy Big Media companies that have unchecked reach and vast financial resources,' Nexstar Chairman and CEO Perry Sook said in a statement on Tuesday. 'We believe Tegna represents the best option for Nexstar to act on this opportunity.' Nexstar said Tuesday that the deal will also help it give advertisers a bigger variety of local and national broadcast and digital advertising options. Nexstar will pay $22 in cash for each share of Tegna's outstanding stock. The deal could potentially help kick off even further consolidation in America's broadcast industry. Nexstar, founded in 1996, has itself grow substantially with acquisitions over the latest two decades, becoming the biggest operator of local TV stations in the U.S. after it purchased Tribune Media back in 2019. Nexstar's purchase of Tegna also arrives amid wider regulatory shifts. Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chairman the Federal Communications Commission, which will need to give the transaction the green light, has long advocated for loosening industry restrictions. On Aug. 7, the FCC announced that it would be repealing 98 broadcast rules and requirements that it identified as 'obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary.' Some of those rules date back nearly 50 years, the FCC said, and apply to 'old technology that is no longer used.' Carr maintained that such provisions no longer serve public interest. In late July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit also vacated the FCC's 'top four' rule, which has long prohibited ownership of more than one of the top four stations in a single market. The ruling is still subject to a monthslong assessment by the FCC, but could significantly clear the way for future mergers in the industry. In company earnings calls held in early August, before Tegna and Nexstar publicly confirmed merger talks, both Tegna CEO Michael Steib and Nexstar's Sook pointed directly to this ruling, and applauded Carr's deregulation agenda as a whole. 'We believe that deregulation is necessary, important and coming,' Steib said in Tegna's Aug. 7 call, noting that local broadcasters are 'up against big tech competitors who have absolutely no encumbrances in how they compete.' Beyond their core broadcast TV businesses, both Nexstar and Tegna also boast digital news, mobile app and streaming offerings, all of which have played key roles for the industry as consumers change the way they consume news and other entertainment. Broadcast TV has been hit particularly hard by 'cord-cutting,' with more and more households trading their cable or satellite subscriptions into content they can get via the internet. The deal is expected to close by the second half of 2026. It still needs approval from Tegna shareholders. Shares of Nexstar jumped 7.6% in premarket trading, and Tegna's rose 4.3%.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump offers assurance of no US boots on the ground in Ukraine
President Trump on Tuesday offered his assurances that U.S. boots would not be on the ground to defend the Ukraine-Russia border as part of any security assurances for Kyiv to end the war. 'What kind of assurances do you feel like you have that going forward, and past this Trump administration, it won't be American boots on the ground defending that border?' 'Fox & Friends' co-host Charles Hurt asked Trump during a phone interview. 'Well, you have my assurance — and I'm president. I'm just trying to stop people from being killed,' Trump responded. The president earlier in the interview had indicated European nations may put boots on the ground. It's unclear if Russia would agree to that as part of any peace agreement. 'We've got the European nations, and they'll front load it, and they'll have, some of them…they want to have, you know, boots on the ground,' Trump said. 'I don't think it's going to be a problem to be honest with you. I think Putin is tired, I think they're all tired of it. But, you never know.' Trump called into 'Fox & Friends' the day after he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and top European leaders at the White House for talks on how to end the war in Ukraine, which has been raging since Russian forces invaded in 2022. Trump and European officials discussed potential security assurances for Ukraine as part of a peace deal that would prevent future Russian aggression, though the specifics remain murky. Zelensky said he hoped those details would be ironed out in the next 10 days. Trump has definitively ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine as part of any peace deal.
