The week the Democrats' gerontocracy problem came home to roost
The sun rose literally and metaphorically for House Republicans on Thursday when they finally mustered the votes to pass President Donald Trump's ' One, Big, Beautiful Bill.'
The vote came under the tightest of margins, with 215 Republicans voting for the bill. Two Republicans, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, opposed it and Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, voted 'present.' While two Republicans, Dave Schweikert of Arizona and Andrew Garbarino of New York, fell asleep.
All 212 Democrats voted against the bill, meaning that the final vote tally was 215-214. But had Gerry Connolly, the Virginia Democratic representative, not died of esophageal cancer earlier this week, the bill would have been deadlocked and failed on the floor. Not only that, but Connolly is the third Democratic member of Congress to die this year.
It served as a bitter bookend to the week that began with former president Joe Biden announcing that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer: Democratic leadership has an age problem and not only does it prevent them from winning re-election, it prevents them from stopping Republicans.
The week was always likely to be a painful reminder about Biden's age and the role it played in the 2024 election, given that Axios's Alex Thompson and CNN's Jake Tapper released their book Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.
But Biden's cancer diagnosis put the former president's decision to run for re-election despite being 81 into even starker relief
It showed his hubris in thinking that he could be up for a full-fledged White House campaign again when he even showed signs of aging in his 2020 presidential run that did not demand the rigor of a cross-country blitz due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Biden family and his defenders have taken to attacking Tapper and Thompson. But Biden's disastrous debate performance only cemented what people already felt: that Biden's age and frailty disqualified him from the most difficult job in the world.
And Connolly's death shows this is not a one-off problem for the Democratic Party. It further solidifies how much Democratic elders refuse to hand over the reins of power to the next generation.
Last year, when Jamie Raskin bumped New York Democrat Jerry Nadler to become the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threw her hat in the ring to replace him. Ocasio-Cortez had occasionally led House Democrats when Raskin underwent treatment for cancer.
She had some of the toughest questions for witnesses in the Oversight Committee and is known to have one of the most professional staffs on Capitol Hill.
But she was passed over for Connolly largely because it was 'his turn.' Connolly had been consistently leapfrogged to lead the committee, but Democrats have long adhered to the idea that Democrats earn chairmanships based on whose 'turn' it is.
This creates a bottleneck where members can wait for years on end to earn leadership spots, only to be advanced in age when they obtain these coveted positions, thereby repeating the cycle.
This was also compounded by the fact that earlier this year, two other House Democrats died. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona died of cancer, while Sylvester Turner of Texas died the day after Trump's joint address to Congress.
Grijalva, who had undergone cancer treatment and missed most votes last year, was among those who told Biden he should step aside. Turner, who was 70 and had survived cancer, won his seat in Congress after Sheila Jackson Lee died in office last year.
Had all three Democrats not run for office last year or had younger Democrats run for their seats, the bill likely would have been unsuccessful.
More than that, in 2024, Democratic Reps. Bill Pascrell, 87, and Donald Payne of New Jersey both died. The House Democratic caucus's age problem no longer just means that the party looks out of date: it actively prevents Democrats from doing their job.
Republicans' hands are, of course, not entirely clean on this. Trump will turn 79 next month and Mitch McConnell, 83, clung to power until last year.
But so far, it has not prevented them from winning elections or passing legislation.
Democrats don't lack young talent either in the House. They have both the youngest representative, Maxwell Frost of Florida, and the youngest senator, Jon Ossoff of Georgia. They also enjoy a bevy of young Democratic governors like Wes Moore of Maryland, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. They have no reason to continue to rely on older leaders.
The Democratic Party has taken to saying they are the vanguards of democracy and the one thing preventing the rise of authoritarianism in America. But their refusal to change their leadership means they do not take the threat entirely seriously. So why should anyone else?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Attorneys in NCAA antitrust case to share $475M in fees, with potential to reach $725M
The attorneys who shepherded the blockbuster antitrust lawsuit to fruition for hundreds of thousands of college athletes will share in just over $475 million in fees, and the figure could rise to more than $725 million over the next 10 years. The request for plaintiff legal fees in the House vs. NCAA case, outlined in a December court filing and approved Friday night, struck experts in class-action litigation as reasonable. Co-lead counsels Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler asked for $475.2 million, or 18.3% of the cash common funds of $2.596 billion. They also asked for an additional $250 million, for a total of $725.2 million, based on a widely accepted estimate of an additional $20 billion in direct benefits to athletes over the 10-year settlement term. That would be 3.2% of what would then be a $22.596 billion settlement. 'Class Counsel have represented classes of student-athletes in multiple litigations challenging NCAA restraints on student-athlete compensation, and they have achieved extraordinary results. Class Counsel's representation of the settlement class members here is no exception,' U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote. University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew, who researched about 1,300 antitrust class-action settlements from 2005-22 for a book she authored, told The Associated Press the request for attorneys' fees could have been considered a bit low given the difficulty of the case, which dates back five years. She said it is not uncommon for plaintiffs' attorneys to be granted as much as 30% of the common funds. Attorneys' fees generally are calculated by multiplying an hourly rate by the number of hours spent working on a case. In class-action lawsuits, though, plaintiffs' attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they get paid at the end of the case only if the class wins a financial settlement. 'Initially, you look at it and think this is a big number,' Bartholomew said. 'When you look at how contingency litigation works generally, and then you think about how this fits into the class-action landscape, this is not a particularly unusual request.' The original lawsuit was filed in June 2020 and it took until November 2023 for Wilken to grant class certification, meaning she thought the case had enough merit to proceed. Elon University law professor Catherine Dunham said gaining class certification is challenging in any case, but especially a complicated one like this. 'If a law firm takes on a case like this where you have thousands of plaintiffs and how many depositions and documents, what that means is the law firm can't do other work while they're working on the case and they are taking on the risk they won't get paid,' Dunham said. 'If the case doesn't certify as a class, they won't get paid.' In the request for fees, the firm of Hagens Berman said it had dedicated 33,952 staff hours to the case through mid-December 2024. Berman, whose rate is $1,350 per hour, tallied 1,116.5 hours. Kessler, of Winston & Strawn, said he worked 1,624 hours on the case at a rate of $1,980 per hour. The case was exhaustive. Hundreds of thousands of documents totaling millions of pages were produced by the defendants — the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC — as part of the discovery process. Berman and Kessler wrote the 'plaintiffs had to litigate against six well-resourced defendants and their high-powered law firms who fought every battle tooth and nail. To fend off these efforts, counsel conducted extensive written discovery and depositions, and submitted voluminous expert submissions and lengthy briefing. In addition, class counsel also had to bear the risk of perpetual legislative efforts to kill these cases.' Antitrust class-action cases are handled by the federal court system and have been harder to win since 2005, when the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act was passed, according to Bartholomew. 'Defendants bring motion after motion and there's more of a pro-defendant viewpoint in federal court than there had been in state court,' she said. 'As a result, you would not be surprised that courts, when cases do get through to fruition, are pretty supportive of applications for attorneys' fees because there's great risk that comes from bringing these cases fiscally for the firms who, if the case gets tossed early, never gets compensated for the work they've done.' ___
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet during Theo Von interview
Vice President JD Vance's first reaction to Elon Musk 's Trump-Epstein tweet was caught Thursday on Theo Von's podcast. On the 'This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von,' episode released Saturday, Von showed Vance one of the most viral tweets from the pair's feud, in which the Tesla CEO claimed, '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' 'Ok, wow. I haven't even seen this one,' Vance said, explaining he was on a plane amid Musk and Trump 's online exchanges. 'First of all, absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein,' Vance said. 'Whatever the Democrats and the media says about him, that's totally BS.' The social media exchange came just a week after Musk left his DOGE role in the Trump Administration. Vance chalked Musk's online outbursts up to him 'being new to politics' and frustrations that his 'businesses are being attacked non-stop' since he joined the White House. Musk's departure followed a Wall Street Journal report citing insiders who claimed that even Trump was getting frustrated with Musk and was doubtful whether his goals within DOGE could be reached. Musk has since spoken out about his disapproval of the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes various policy changes, including tax cuts, welfare reform, and infrastructure investments. 'Elon is entitled to his opinion,' Vance told Von on the podcast. 'I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying. I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man — I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — to be at war with the world's most powerful man, who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody in my lifetime.' Vance added, 'I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, 'yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue.' But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so.' Despite Musk going 'so nuclear' online, Vance is hopeful that he can 'come back into the fold' within politics. 'I know the president was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon,' Vance said. 'But I think it has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk. And I actually think that if Elon chilled out a little bit everything would be fine.'
BBC News
40 minutes ago
- BBC News
As World Pride starts in Washington, some foreigners stay away
Across Washington, large rainbow flags are flying next to the stars and stripes as the city plays host to World Pride, a global celebration of LGBTQ culture and getting the world to come has proved challenging this year. Some international travellers are choosing to skip the biennial event over travel fears, while others are protesting President Donald Trump's Siregar, a Montreal-based data analyst who is transgender, had planned to attend. But travelling to the US at the moment was unthinkable, she told the BBC."It is a risk to now come over and especially as a trans woman," she US capital won the bid to host World Pride years before Trump's re-election. In January, the event's organisers had projected the celebration, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of Washington's first Pride march, would attract three million visitors and contribute nearly $800 million to the local economy. But their expectations have now dropped to about a third of their previous estimates. Hotel occupancy rates are also down compared to last year. Ms Siregar, 30, holds both Canadian and US citizenship but says she has been unable to renew her US passport because of new rules implemented by the Trump administration that prevents transgender Americans from changing their gender on official documents. The White House says it is defending "the biological reality of sex".She could travel south with her Canadian passport, but she is worried border agents may not accept her gender, which is listed as female on her Canadian documents. Reports of other foreign travellers being detained and taken into custody have raised her concerns, she said."It's too dangerous to risk it," she said.A spokesperson for US Customs and Border Protection said that a person's gender identity does not make them inadmissible. "A foreign traveller's gender as indicated on their passport and their personal beliefs about sexuality do not render a person inadmissible," the spokesperson told the BBC in a statement. "Claims to the contrary are false."But Ms Siregar is not alone in her concerns. Several European governments including Germany, Finland, and Denmark have issued travel advisories for transgender and non-binary citizens travelling to the US. Equality Australia, an advocacy group, also issued a travel alert for gender non-conforming people and those with a history of LGBTQ Canada, one of the country's largest LGBTQ charities, said it was not participating in World Pride because of concerns for the safety of their transgender and non-binary staff. Egale Canada has previously participated in World Pride events in London, Sydney and at home in Toronto."We are very concerned about the general tone and hostility towards domestic LGBTI people in the US, but also to those who may be visiting the US from other jurisdictions," its executive director Helen Kennedy repeated comments about making Canada the 51st US state was also a factor, she added. Ms Kennedy said the organisation wasn't boycotting World Pride itself, but protesting against Trump's policies on LGBTQ issues. Since coming into office, Trump has rolled back some LGBTQ protections, including revoking a Biden-era executive order on preventing discrimination "on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation". He has also banned diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in federal agencies. Supporters say those policies help correct injustices, but others, including Trump, say they are themselves discriminatory. His administration has also banned transgender people from serving in the military and banned federal funding for gender care for transgender youth. It has also threatened to suspend funding for states that allow transgender athletes to compete. Trump has defended his actions, saying trans women in sports is "demeaning for women and it's very bad for our country".Some of these policies are currently being challenged in week, US media reported plans by the navy to rename a ship that had been christened to honour Harvey Milk. The former Navy sailor and activist was the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, in former President Joe Biden held a Pride month event on the White House lawn in 2023 and issued a proclomation in support of the community last year, Mr Trump has not spoken in recent days about the celebration. Asked about the president's position on World Pride, a spokesman for the White House told the New York Times that Trump was "fostering a sense of national pride that should be celebrated daily" and that he was "honoured to serve all Americans." Capital Pride Alliance, the organisation running this year's World Pride in DC, told the BBC it has recieved "an unordinary amount of questions and concerns"."Our celebration is quite literally in the footsteps of the Capitol Building and a block away from the White House, something that a lot of people are conscious of," Sahand Miraminy, Capital Pride Alliance's director of operations, the first time, Pride in DC will have an enclosed perimeter and weapons detectors, he said, in part because this year's event will draw larger crowds than usual. World Pride events will also see an elevated presence of the Metropolitan Police Department's LGBTQ+ liaison unit that will be "first priority" to respond to emergencies, Mr Miraminy Mayor Muriel Bowser acknowledged that visitors "feel scared that an environment is developing that is anti-LGBTQ". But "we can't live in fear, we have to live our lives [and] be as best prepared as we can," she Laczko, the co-owner of Her Diner in DuPont Circle, one of DC's most vibrant LGBTQ neighbourhoods, said she's also increased security for the weekend."I feel like normally with Pride we are ready for the celebration," she said. "And obviously the current administration has put a big damper on that." Although she will not be in Washington, Ms Siregar said she hopes others do visit."I do think that people in the US should attend and be safe in attending," she said. "It's important that people stand up more than ever now."Ms Laczko agrees. "Even joy can be an act of defiance," she said.
