logo
Louisiana state lawmaker challenging Cassidy in GOP primary

Louisiana state lawmaker challenging Cassidy in GOP primary

Yahoo11 hours ago

Louisiana state Sen. Blake Miguez (R) has launched a primary bid challenging Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) ahead of 2026, adding to a growing field of Republicans vying to unseat the two-term senator.
Miguez in his launch video on Tuesday declared Cassidy 'sucks' and prominently features footage of the GOP senator saying he voted to convict President Trump in 2021. The state lawmaker casts himself as a more conservative alternative.
'Do you want a senator you know will have Trump's back? A straight shooter who doesn't flinch when it's time to fight?' Miguez says in the ad, picking up a rifle. 'I'm you're guy. We're done being fooled by weak Republicans.'
'Bill Cassidy had his shot. He missed. I won't,' Miguez adds, firing his gun, which sets off an explosion in the ad.
Cassidy's campaign shrugged off Miguez's announcement, saying it wouldn't impact the result of the race.
'Anyone can join this race, but it won't change the outcome — Senator Cassidy will win,' said Cassidy campaign spokeswoman Ashley Bosch in a statement.
'He's a proven conservative fighting alongside President Trump to secure our southern border, unleash American energy, and put America First. Senator Cassidy is fighting to protect our values and delivering real results for Louisiana.'
A handful of Republicans are looking to beat Cassidy in next year's elections; among the names running, Treasurer John Fleming and Miguez are among the most notable.
Both Fleming and Miguez have positioned themselves as the Trump-aligned, hardline conservative candidate and both are hammering the Louisiana senator for his vote to convict Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack — a vulnerability for the senator in his red state.
The president was ultimately acquitted in the Senate.
Cassidy, meanwhile, has sought to align himself with Trump, including helping get some of the president's more controversial nominees, like Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., confirmed.
He's also aligned himself with Trump's priorities, suggesting, for example, that he's in favor of shutting down the Education Department.
Cassidy is also contending with a different primary system this time around, where he'll have to compete in a Republican primary first before the general election; previously Senate elections used an open primary system where all candidates running for an office ran under one ballot.
If no one candidate outright received a majority of the vote, the top two vote-getters would head to a run-off.
Louisiana still holds some of its elections using the 'jungle' primary system while other offices, including Senate, go through a closed primary process.
Multiple hardline candidates, however, could benefit Cassidy, splitting the vote among more conservative voters and offering Cassidy a potentially easier path to winning the GOP primary.
Updated: 10:01 a.m. ET
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

New York Post

time20 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store