Cowboy State Republican who mounted gubernatorial bid 'isn't conservative enough,' Freedom Caucus chair says
"Eric Barlow is running for Governor because he believes Wyoming deserves strong, respectful leadership rooted in service, not politics," his campaign website states.
Barlow has served in the state Senate since 2023, and previously served multiple terms in the state House.
State Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, who chairs the conservative Wyoming Freedom Caucus, blasted Barlow in a statement that she emailed to Fox News Digital, claiming that he is not "conservative enough for" the state.
"If the last two election cycles in Wyoming have taught us anything, it's that Wyomingites want real, conservative leadership. Senator Barlow isn't conservative enough for Wyoming, and the Wyoming Freedom Caucus is confident that come 2026, the people will elect a true conservative for governor," she asserted, referring to Barlow as "a liberal Republican who loves big government."
"During his tenure in the Wyoming Legislature, Barlow made it a priority to fight against conservative principles. He's consistently fought for ever-growing state spending, votes against state sovereignty, sponsors woke legislation, and as Speaker of the House, presided over a special session during Gordon's COVID lockdowns that failed to protect the rights of the people of Wyoming," she asserted.
Fox News Digital has also reached out to Barlow and his campaign to request comment from the state senator.
Wyoming's gubernatorial contest will take place next year.
The state's current Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, has served in the role since 2019.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
42 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Is House size the solution to the gerrymandering problem?
Plymouth Advertisement To be truly representative, why not expand House to 10,000 members? Jeff Jacoby's suggestion to enlarge the House of Representatives as a way to end the gerrymandering wars was a good idea but did not go far enough. Today's data and data processing capabilities would still make gerrymandering possible, even if the United States tripled the number of members of the House, and districts would still be too large. Large districts enable the wealthy and special interests to make our representatives beholden to them, and enable outside money to influence what our country's Founders meant to be local elections. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Technology is distorting our electoral processes. Why not use technology to support the democracy the Founders envisioned? Why not expand the House to 10,000 members, with each member representing approximately 34,000 constituents? That's close to the same number when the country was founded, 30,000. We should also end the requirement that all members be physically present and use more video conferencing and other technology to support the actions needed for the House to govern. This would make the 'people's chamber' once again the people's chamber, reduce the cost of elections, make representatives more accessible, and truly eliminate gerrymandering. Advertisement Richard Amster Cambridge Gerrymandering isn't the only problem with the House I stand in complete agreement with both Jeff Jacoby's analysis of the gerrymandering problem and his fitting solution. Our Framers intended Article 1 of the US Constitution, which establishes Congress, to be the most significant. They wanted House members to be close to the average citizen. They anticipated this body increasing in size with our nation's increasing population, to accurately reflect the views and needs of the people. Capping the number of representatives at 435 in 1929 was wrong — and so is the historic practice of gerrymandering, famously done in Massachusetts in 1812 and repeated often since then in virtually every state. But our nation's lawmaking body is also undermined by two related factors — the use of seniority in committee assignments and the lack of term limits. Partly as a result, representatives spend too much time on political pandering, fund-raising, and trying to manage age-related infirmities. Instead of giving committee assignments to the longest serving members, who have been waiting in the wings and feel entitled to the role, grant them to members with practical experience in the work of that committee. And while we're in the mood for change, let's allow representatives only four terms. This should be sufficient time for each to make substantive contributions, especially in smaller districts more 'in touch' with their constituents. Advertisement Peter Vangsness Medway Small districts aren't enough: We need good government initiatives Jeff Jacoby proposes enlarging the House of Representatives as a solution to political gerrymandering. But it's important to note that the term 'gerrymander' goes back to Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, who signed a state redistricting plan into law in 1812. Wags referred to one tortuous, lizard-shaped, North Shore district as a 'Gerry-mander.' The congressional districts at the time had about 35,000 constituents each, and digital computers were still more than a century from their birth. So you do not need large congressional districts, or computers, to engage in gerrymandering. To point out something that should be obvious, running an honest government requires bipartisan support for fair districting practices, honest ethics oversight, and effective protection against foreign government interference. Donald Segretti, Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and others have for decades used dirty tricks to win elections — and many of these dirty tricksters have been Republicans. At the same time, the purging of voter rolls has often disproportionately affected Democratic voters. This contrasts with a decades-long effort by Democrats to improve voting access and integrity, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the post-Watergate campaign-finance reforms. The disparity is stark between the Republicans, who are backing away from bipartisanship and good government initiatives, and the Democrats, who remain committed to them. Stuart Gallant Belmont
an hour ago
Woman pleads guilty to assault for spitting on top DC prosecutor during interview
WASHINGTON -- A woman who spit on the top federal prosecutor for the nation's capital during a videotaped interview pleaded guilty on Thursday to assault charges. Emily Gabriella Sommer, 32, of Washington, D.C., is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 10 for assaulting then-acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin Jr. and two law-enforcement officers who arrested her several days after she spit on Martin. Sommer pleaded guilty to three counts of assaulting public officials, according to U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office. A trial for Sommer had been scheduled to start next Monday. Instead, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb accepted Sommer's guilty plea and will sentence her. On May 8, a Newsmax reporter was interviewing Martin on a sidewalk outside his office when Sommer approached him. 'Are you Ed Martin? You are Ed Martin,' Sommer said before lunging at him and spitting on his left shoulder, according to prosecutors. As she walked away, Sommer swore at Martin and called him 'a disgusting man.' "My name is Emily Gabriella Sommer, and you are served,' she said. Sommer later took credit for the spitting incident in a message replying to a social media post by Martin. The encounter occurred on the same day that President Donald Trump pulled Martin's nomination to remain U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin faced bipartisan opposition in the Senate after a turbulent stint in the nation's largest U.S. Attorney's office. A key Republican senator said he could not support Martin for the job due to his support for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Martin roiled the office with a series of unorthodox moves, such as firing and demoting subordinates who worked on politically sensitive cases. Trump replaced Martin with former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, who was confirmed by the Senate on Aug. 2. When U.S. Marshals Service deputies went to arrest Sommer at her apartment on May 22, she spit in a deputy's face and kicked him, prosecutors said. 'How is that spit? Taste good? I was just getting over a cold sore. I hope I gave you herpes,' Sommer told the deputy, according to prosecutors. Sommer also kicked a second deputy during her arrest and told another deputy, 'I would put a bullet in you if I had it. I would put a bullet in every one of you right now,' prosecutors said. During her initial court appearance in May, Sommer repeatedly disrupted the hearing with outbursts. Deputies picked her up and carried her out of the courtroom after one of her interruptions prompted a magistrate to suspend the hearing. Sommer later apologized to the magistrate for her courtroom conduct.
an hour ago
Judge strikes down key parts of Florida law that led to book removal from libraries
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A federal judge has struck down key parts of a Florida law that helped parents get books they found objectionable removed from public school libraries and classrooms. It is a victory for publishers and authors who had sued after their books were removed. U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza in Orlando said in Wednesday's ruling that the statute's prohibition on material that described sexual conduct was overbroad. Mendoza, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also said that the state's interpretation of the 2023 law was unconstitutional. Among the books that had been removed from central Florida schools were classics like Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale,' Richard Wright's 'Native Son' and Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse-Five.' 'Historically, librarians curate their collections based on their sound discretion not based on decrees from on high,' the judge said. 'There is also evidence that the statute has swept up more non-obscene books than just the ones referenced here." After the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed the law, school officials worried that any sexual content was questionable, a belief that was enforced by new state training that urged librarians to err on the side of caution. Last year, Florida led the nation with 4,500 removals of school books. Under the judge's ruling, schools should revert back to a U.S. Supreme Court precedent in which the test is whether an average person would find the work prurient as a whole; whether it depicts sexual content in an offensive way; and whether the work lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The lawsuit was brought by some of the nation's largest book publishers and some of the authors whose books had been removed from central Florida school libraries, as well as the parents of schoolchildren who tried to access books that were removed. The author plaintiffs included Angie Thomas, author of 'The Hate U Give"; Jodi Picoult, author of 'My Sister's Keeper"; John Green, author of 'The Fault in Our Stars"; and Julia Alvarez, author of 'How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents.' The publisher plaintiffs included Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishing and Simon and Schuster.
