Former congressional candidate enters Alabama governor race
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Former congressional candidate Ken McFeeters announced Tuesday that he is running for governor of Alabama next year, casting himself as a political outsider and accusing his opponent U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of being a 'part of the establishment.'
Tuberville announced his highly anticipated candidacy for governor a week earlier. Tuberville is expected to be a strong candidate in the race to replace Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who cannot run again because of term limits.
McFeeters is the second Republican candidate to enter the race. He ran for congress in 2024, winning 6% of the vote in the Republican primary, according to AL.com.
McFeeters runs an insurance agency just outside of Birmingham that he founded in 1981 and was the president of the mid-Alabama Republican Club, he said in his announcement. He said he plans to hire military personnel for Alabama schools, take steps to protect family farms, and prioritize independent production of medicine and energy.
McFeeters immediately tried to distance himself from Tuberville, a famed football coach of Auburn University who became a U.S. senator in 2020 after casting himself as a political outsider closely aligned with President Donald Trump.
'Alabama deserves better than a puppet of the globalists,' McFeeters said. 'We need a governor who will fight for the people, not for the money.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Democrats Can Stop Alienating Young Men: Some Unsolicited Advice
Last November, Donald Trump soundly defeated Kamala Harris among young men 18 to 29 years old, racking up about 56% of their votes according to the Associated Press. That represents a huge decline from 2008, the climax of the Barack Obama coalition, when the Democratic candidate won 62% of the young male vote against GOP challenger John McCain. Clearly, Democrats have a young man problem—and they've vowed to do something about it. Accordingly, the party is spending $20 million on a special multiyear effort called "Speaking With American Men: A Strategic Plan." The project, The New York Times recently reported, will "study the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces." Yes, really. Hold your laughter. It's true that leading Democratic figures could use some help on the "syntax" and "language" fronts. They might begin to right the ship, on that score, by ditching the infamous gobbledygook "gaffes" of Joe Biden and the "unburdened by what has been" word salads of Harris. But the rubber will meet the road for Democrats when it comes to the critical, elusive third category of concern for their new young male outreach effort: content. To paraphrase a venerable saying, one can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig, at the end of the day, is still a pig. And something big has to change for the Democrats. Nor is their problem limited to young men; the party's overall favorability ratings, in recent months, have hit record lows in public polling. Here, Democrats, is some (entirely) unsolicited advice on steps you might consider taking to become less catastrophically unpopular with young men—and many other Americans too. On the issue of sexuality and the human person, you might consider beginning your vaunted young male outreach efforts by deigning to properly define what exactly a "man" is—and, by extension, what a "woman" is as well. Indeed, your party's most recent Supreme Court nominee publicly struggled to crack this case. It is probably best, before attempting to devise pro-young-man public policy ideas, to familiarize yourselves with your target audience. The definition of "man" as it has existed since the Garden of Eden is a pretty good place to start. A 2021 Marist poll has found that more Americans find the Democratic Party to be a bigger threat to democracy than the Republican Party. Here, a donkey, the animal mascot of the Democratic Party, can... A 2021 Marist poll has found that more Americans find the Democratic Party to be a bigger threat to democracy than the Republican Party. Here, a donkey, the animal mascot of the Democratic Party, can be seen. More Leigh Vogel/Getty After successfully defining "man" and "woman," you might consider not indulging recurring grievances levied against so-called toxic masculinity. It is generally a good idea, in political outreach, to not hold in dripping disdain the demographic group you are trying to reach. Sure, men have been killing each other since Cain slew Abel, but many of them have also been doing some pretty good things for humanity since around that same time period. One key to publicly rejecting misandry will be ditching support for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" initiatives, which, along with also now being illegal, invariably take a pretty dim view of the heterogametic sex. On the issue of immigration, you might consider not opening up America's borders to, well, pretty much the whole world—but especially young males in search of economic opportunity in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Democrats might not have gotten this impression from the Harvard faculty lounge, but over half of Americans these days live paycheck to paycheck. Far too many young men struggle to provide for their families; indeed, many delay marriage in the first place because of finances. Flooding the zone with more wage competition may please the wokerati, but it won't help you regain credibility with American breadwinners. On the issue of environmentalism, you might consider not so conspicuously sacrificing American energy on the altar of climate alarmism. The young male voter simply wants a fair shot to make a decent living and provide safety and security for his family. The ham-handed restriction of hydrocarbon extraction does more than anything else to spike the price of every good or service. You might think that Trump's tariffs are a threat to price stability, but you'd be wrong—at least so far. The real threat to the fiscal well-being of the median American comes from the price of energy, from which all other prices flow. Maybe, just maybe, don't sacrifice all that on the altar of "Mother Earth"? The good news for Democrats is that there is a lot of potential upside from their efforts to reach young men. The bad news for Democrats is the same: There's so much to gain precisely because of how unpopular they currently are with that cohort. Josh Hammer is Newsweek senior editor-at-large, host of "The Josh Hammer Show," senior counsel for the Article III Project, a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation, and author of the new book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West (Radius Book Group). Subscribe to "The Josh Hammer Report," a Newsweek newsletter. X: @josh_hammer. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
