logo
The Democratic Party has ‘collapsed': Victor Davis Hanson

The Democratic Party has ‘collapsed': Victor Davis Hanson

Fox News2 days ago
Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson discusses the candidates rising up in the Democratic Party that have more radical tendencies on 'Life, Liberty, Levin.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What policies would state Sen. Omar Fateh support if elected Minneapolis mayor?
What policies would state Sen. Omar Fateh support if elected Minneapolis mayor?

CBS News

timean hour ago

  • CBS News

What policies would state Sen. Omar Fateh support if elected Minneapolis mayor?

Early voting in local municipal and school board elections around the state begins Aug. 25. That includes the mayor's race in Minneapolis. Fifteen candidates have filed to run for mayor of Minneapolis, including incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey, who is running for a third term. Rising to the top of his challengers: Minnesota state Sen. Omar Fateh, who last month beat Frey to win the Minneapolis DFL endorsement. Fundraising figures for the race show Frey has raised $647,000, Fateh $268,000 dollars, DeWayne Davis has $174,000 and Jazz Hampton has $77,000. Fateh is a Democratic Socialist, part of a surging progressive wing of the Democratic Party both in Minnesota and nationwide. Fateh was a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning at 10:30 a.m. "Yes, they want to make it seem that our campaign is a long shot, but it's really not," Fateh said. "We got the DFL endorsement because we had a broad coalition of folks." One of the policies Fateh supports is an additional income tax on "wealthy" Minneapolis residents. "I would say if someone makes a million dollars or above, they would be considered wealthy," Fateh said. "We want to come up with a way the wealthy pay their fair share." Fateh also supports rent stabilization, a $20 minimum wage, 24-hour bus lanes on Hennepin Avenue and in 2022 supported a losing charter amendment that critics say would have defunded the police. "The city's own report showed that 47% of 911 calls can be diverted away from police officers and I think that drives really well with what we heard at the Capitol with law enforcement officers saying we can't respond to every call you need," Fateh said. Fateh and other progressives have been critical of the Minneapolis Police Department's role in a chaotic federal search warrant in June on Lake Street. Immigration and Customs Enforcement participated in the search warrant. Minneapolis police say they had no advance notice of the federal raid and showed up only as it was happening to try and provide crowd control. An audit cleared Minneapolis police of accusations they violated the city's regulation against participating in immigration proceedings. WCCO has invited and is expecting Frey to be a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning after the State Fair. You can watch WCCO Sunday Morning with Esme Murphy and Adam Del Rosso every Sunday at 6 a.m. and 10:30 a.m.

Eric Swalwell rejects Michelle Obama's 'when they go low, we go high' message, vows to 'bury' Republicans
Eric Swalwell rejects Michelle Obama's 'when they go low, we go high' message, vows to 'bury' Republicans

Fox News

time5 hours ago

  • Fox News

Eric Swalwell rejects Michelle Obama's 'when they go low, we go high' message, vows to 'bury' Republicans

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., dismissed former First Lady Michelle Obama's famous "when they go low, we go high" mantra on Saturday, instead threatening to "bury" Republicans "below the Capitol" during a redistricting fight. On "CNN Newsroom," host Omar Jimenez brought up Obama's old mantra after asking the congressman whether there were concerns that "fighting fire with fire" in redrawing congressional maps could backfire on the Democratic Party. "No, when they go low, we're going to bury them below the Capitol," Swalwell said. "That's what we're going to do, because this is about protecting democracy. And right now, as you see, D.C. has been militarized, and we were weak as Democrats." Swalwell called recent efforts by Texas Republicans to redraw the state's congressional districts a "grab for power" by President Donald Trump to make sure Democrats lose in the upcoming midterm elections. He argued that fighting fire with fire was the only way "to protect the most vulnerable" and defend democracy. "We have paid the price for our weakness in the past, and we can't be so weak next time we have power," Swalwell said. "Gavin Newsom is making Donald Trump react to him with the lawsuits with this new map to match what's happening in Texas. And the way I see it is, either we're on our heels, and the most vulnerable are on their heels reacting to Donald Trump, or he's on his heels reacting to us." Newsom has proposed a controversial initiative that would allow for mid-decade redistricting, aiming to eliminate five Republican-held seats in response to GOP-led map changes in Texas. However, such changes are currently prohibited by the California state constitution, which mandates nonpartisan redistricting through an independent commission. Newsom and California Democrats are pushing for a special election later this year to obtain voter approval to bypass the constitution. Swalwell didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Swalwell is the latest in a long line of Democrats who have appeared to abandon the "when they go low, we go high" mantra in favor of harsher and sometimes violent rhetoric. Michelle Obama also amended the phrase in a 2020 DNC speech. "Let's be clear: going high does not mean putting on a smile and saying nice things when confronted by viciousness and cruelty," Obama said in 2020. "Going high means taking the harder path. It means scraping and clawing our way to that mountain top. Going high means standing fierce against hatred while remembering that we are one nation under God, and if we want to survive, we've got to find a way to live together and work together across our differences."

Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'
Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'

Yahoo

time8 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'

A key senator on the Foreign Relations committee called Donald Trump's Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin a 'disaster' Sunday and blamed the U.S. president for legitimizing his Russian opponent in front of the world. 'It was an embarrassment for the United States. It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted,' said Chris Murphy, the ranking Democratic member of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on European security cooperation. Murphy told NBC's Meet the Press that Trump was forced to abandon his main commitment — a call for a ceasefire — during the meeting and was similarly unable to convince Putin to drop demands for Ukraine to cede more territory, something the senator from Connecticut said was 'stunning' to see a U.S. president consider. 'He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world. He was invited to the United States — war criminals are not normally invited to the United States of America,' Murphy said. Trump 'walked out of that meeting saying, 'I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions,'' the senator continued. 'And so Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made, and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia.' Murphy's comments to NBC come as two top Trump officials who traveled with the president to Alaska for the summit Friday, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, did the rounds on separate Sunday morning programs defending the outcome of the president's meeting with Putin. The optics of the meeting are being endlessly scrutinized in the mainstream press, partly due to the few specifics released so far about what the two men discussed. Among those moments been picked apart by analysts included the arrival of the Russian president, which was preceded by U.S. troops, in uniform, rolling out a red carpet on the tarmac. On Sunday, Witkoff told CNN'S State of the Union that the U.S. secured what he claimed was a 'game-changing' development in the discussions: Putin's willingness to consider accepting a U.S. security agreement protecting the future sovereignty of Ukraine's borders. This was the first time negotiators were able to gain ground on the issue, he explained. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO," he said. Witkoff wouldn't specify whether the security guarantee could lead to what Trump and his followers have long opposed — a promise to directly engage U.S. troops in defense of Ukraine should Russia continue crossing Trump's red lines. Murphy, on Sunday, seemed to imply that such a guarantee would be the bare minimum standard necessary for any peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. 'That [security guarantee] is an essential element of a peace agreement because any commitment that Vladimir Putin makes to not invade Ukraine again isn't worth the paper that it's written on,' said the senator. 'He's made that commitment many times. So yes, there has to be a guarantee that if Putin were to enter Ukraine after a peace settlement, that there would be some force there, a U.S. force, a U.S.-European force there to defend Ukraine.' He would go on to hammer Trump over reports that Witkoff wouldn't confirm when pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper, which revealed that Trump had signaled his own willingness to accept Russian demands for Ukraine to cede the entire occupied Donbas region as part of a potential agreement. Murphy said that the reported development was 'another sense that Putin is just in charge of these negotiations.' Chris Van Hollen, another Democrat on the Foreign Relations panel, was equally critical of Trump's meeting with the Russian president during an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz on This Week. Heading into Friday's summit, Trump warned of 'severe consequences' if Russia continued to oppose peace efforts and said that he was working towards an immediate ceasefire. Afterwards, he claimed in a Truth Social post that "It was determined by all [in attendance] that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' Van Hollen called this news a 'setback' for the U.S.'s European allies and Ukraine, while accusing Trump of being 'flattered' by Putin. 'There's no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and Zelensky,' said Van Hollen. Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to the Biden administration, agreed. "President Trump's stated goals were very simple, get an immediate ceasefire, and in the absence of a ceasefire, impose what he called severe consequences," Sullivan said. "Well, the summit has come and gone. There is no ceasefire. There are no consequences.' Trump is now scheduled to meet Monday with European leaders including Finnish president Alexander Stubb, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron and the UK's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Stubb is known for his personal relationship with Trump, and is poised to be on-hand to quell any disputes between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, who will also be in attendance. Zelensky is reported to be wholly opposed to any demand to recognize Russian occupation of the Donbas as legitimate.

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