Colombian senator Miguel Uribe injured in armed attack on campaign event
Colombian senator Miguel Uribe, of the right-wing Democratic Center party, was wounded in an armed attack on Saturday while attending a campaign event in Bogota.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chabria: Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated "R" for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, "I have a [expletive deleted] dream." Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Read more: Barabak: Yelling, finger-pointing and cursing galore as California Democrats gather near Disneyland Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand "toxic." Walz told his fellow Dems: "We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing." It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: "A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study." Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Read more: Chabria: California isn't backing down on healthcare for immigrants, despite Trump threats Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers "win elections because their opponents were unpopular," Levin wrote, "and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular." It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy "maybe" period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Read more: Barabak: Gavin Newsom has lots to say. Is it worth listening? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Musk and Trump are over. Silicon Valley is just getting started.
It would have been another banner day for Silicon Valley's blossoming alliance with Washington — if only President Donald Trump and Elon Musk hadn't been attacking each other online. While the two men traded barbs on their respective social networks, a cryptocurrency company whose business had been hamstrung by the Biden administration went public on the New York Stock Exchange, its share price popping 200 percent. An artificial intelligence company heralded a new product designed to help the national security establishment. And the defense tech start-up Anduril raised $2.5 billion to expand its efforts to get Pentagon contracts. The spate of business deals from companies looking to curry goodwill in Washington helps explains why many in Silicon Valley say they intend to stay quiet and stick by him for now. Even as ideological differences strain the political coalition of the tech right and MAGA, the Trump administration thus far has been good for Silicon Valley's bottom line. Musk had tried and failed to enact systemic change across the entire government. Many tech executives and investors who support Trump have narrower goals that focus on creating a regulatory climate favorable to the industry. At that, they appear to be succeeding: Over the past year, a broad group of influential figures in the tech world has built deep ties, independent of Musk, to the White House and to federal agencies. Those alliances have cemented the industry's positions on cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and defense and laid the groundwork for a wave of changes in government policy that will benefit tech companies for years to come. The group has installed allies in key positions, including former Uber executive Emil Michael, who was recently confirmed to a top Pentagon position, and tech investor and podcaster David Sacks, who serves as the White House's cryptocurrency and AI czar. Their future may be shakier without Musk, but both men remain close to the president and Vice President JD Vance, said people familiar with the dynamic, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe personal relationships. And the cryptocurrency industry, which showered Trump and congressional Republicans with campaign donations, has grown closer to Trump as his family has pursued its own lucrative crypto ventures. Even as Musk's crusade to rein in government spending flamed out, other tech figures are seeing their investment in Washington pay off: Palantir, the data analysis company co-founded by Peter Thiel, who was a mentor to Vance, raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in new contracts, including with the Pentagon. In May, the Trump administration brokered billions of dollars in deals for artificial intelligence companies in the Middle East. Trump repealed President Joe Biden's executive order that placed guardrails on AI, a move heralded by Trump supporters in tech. The Trump-Musk breakup and the future of the industry's alliance with the White House remain tricky subjects for industry figures, most of whom have avoided speaking publicly about it. The popular industry podcast All In announced an emergency show Thursday, then never posted a show, with one of the hosts saying, 'I've decided to take a beat & not comment on the Trump & Elon donnybrook.' Speaking on the condition of anonymity, however, Silicon Valley figures mostly say they were not surprised by the sudden breakup between the two combative egos, and some add that they aren't worried either. 'The [fallout between the men] was inevitable, but I didn't think it would be this fast or this spicy,' said a tech executive who operates in Washington and works in the aerospace arena, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak about personal relationships. But the person said he doubted the acrimony would have an influence on the broader agenda. 'Most of the tech right is a better politician than Elon,' he said. Some who had backed Musk's crusade, however, said they were torn about the future of the coalition. 'Musk being in the room meant a lot to me, as a voter and as a believer,' said another technology executive and Musk friend, who also spoke on that condition of anonymity to share his views freely. The political coalition uniting the populist MAGA movement with the world's richest tech executives has always been tenuous. The alliance began to show cracks just before Trump's inauguration with a fight over H1B visas. 'Immigration — that was the first time we saw a split between the MAGA right and tech right,' said Sheel Mohnot, co-founder of Better Tomorrow Ventures, a financial tech investment firm in San Francisco. But the fissure was at least temporarily resolved when Trump sided with Musk and the tech industry, a sign of the strength of the Musk-Trump relationship at the time. In recent months, new fault lines have surfaced as Trump administration policies on student visas and cuts to government grants for science have imperiled the pipeline for tech talent and innovation. A further gap opened over Trump's tariffs. 'There was a marked shift around Liberation Day,' Trump's label for April 2, when he announced his sweeping tariff hike, said a well-known tech investor. 'It was very hard to get these folks to say anything negative about Trump. Then it was the opposite,' said the investor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation. Musk served as an avatar for these frustrations, vocally criticizing the president's tariffs on X, where he has 220 million followers, and personally lobbying Trump behind the scenes. Ultimately, Trump created a temporary exemption to the tariff plan for semiconductors and other electronics — a concession to the industry. But the lack of broader changes was a sign of Musk's waning influence in a White House where he was already unpopular. Around the same time, tech figures began to emphasize their own agendas and distance themselves from Musk. The U.S. DOGE Service was only referenced in passing at May's Hill and Valley Forum, a conference for technology executives seeking military and space contracts. Senators and other politicians came to the conference to herald a new chapter in the relationship between the tech world and Washington, even as Musk was on his way out. As cracks have appeared in the tech-MAGA coalition, tech figures have understood that they have much to gain from staying in the fold, said Mohnot. 'They were willing to go along with a lot of the [expletive] from the MAGA right because they thought they were getting all this other stuff,' he said. A tech executive who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said it had been useless to try to persuade Musk to elevate specific issues with Trump, because he was entirely focused on his crusade to discover fraud and abuse in government spending. 'People [in Silicon Valley] understood that you have to work within a framework, and Musk just has no interest in working in any type of framework,' the person said. 'With whatever he is doing, he is just in his own universe.' For the time being, some tech leaders said, staying quiet is not only safe, but relatively easy. 'We're not in the middle of elections. There's so much less pressure to pick a side. No one's asking you, 'Who are you voting for?'' said John Coogan, a former entrepreneur-in-residence at Thiel's Founders Fund, and co-host of the industry's favorite new podcast, Technology Brothers Podcast Network (TBPN). 'There's just so many outs, I would be surprised if we see people take a really strong side.' And the tech world is aware that loyalty matters in Trump's universe. The tech right 'likely has plans for what comes after Trump,' said a cryptocurrency executive, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive topic. 'And I think they know that to continue to build a coalition, you need MAGA.'
Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Democrats, divided on trans issues, struggle to speak in one voice
Prominent Democrats are pushing their party to rethink its approach to transgender issues, particularly when it comes to women's sports, at times warning they have fallen out of step with the public and try to recalibrate for future elections. Some elected officials and strategists have urged Democrats to embrace restrictions on trans athletes. Many others want to strike a more sympathetic tone toward those who oppose trans competitors' participation after an election in which President Donald Trump and other Republicans used the issue to cast Democrats as out-of-touch.
