COLUMBIA, S.C. — Annie Andrews says, “Democrats have failed on the border.” She says, “I don’t support Medicare for All.” Asked which national Democrat she would want campaigning with her, she didn’t name one.

Days before Election Day, Andrews is tied with Republican Sen. Darline Graham, in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate in almost 30 years. A New York Times/Siena poll released Wednesday puts both candidates at 48%, with 3% undecided.

Andrews, a pediatrician who has never held public office, is running as a centrist, criticizing her own party on some issues and praising the Trump administration on others.

While moderate messaging is little surprise from a Democrat in ruby-red South Carolina, what stands out is how much distance she has put between herself and the national Democratic brand.

Her lines on the border and Medicare for All came at a debate this month where she also hit back at Graham for calling her a “socialist” and trying to brand her “Bernie Ocasio Mamdani.”

On the campaign trail, she has expressed support for no taxes on tips or Social Security, a key provision from the GOP’s reconciliation bill, and likes reminding voters that she was “raised in a Republican household.” But she has also criticized the Iran war, called President Donald Trump’s attacks on her “not presidential” and slammed his tariffs as “unconstitutional.”

For Andrews, the moderate modus operandi is a no-brainer.

“It’s common sense, because I believe all those things,” she told MS NOW of her strategy during an interview in Columbia. “Democrats have failed on the border, and I am not, in fact, a socialist.”

Andrews compared tailoring her message to developing a treatment plan for a patient.

“You can’t make a diagnosis if you don’t listen, and then coming up with a plan to fix it,” she said. “That’s what I’ve been doing in every corner of the state and that’s what people are responding to.”

The poll suggests the approach is resonating. Andrews wins 97% of Democrats, but she also draws 59% of independents and 22% of Republicans, according to the new poll — a remarkable share of GOP voters in a state as conservative as South Carolina.

Andrews is pitching directly to that coalition.

“Whether you voted for Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, or anyone else, if you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” Andrews said in a statement reacting to the poll. “That’s why independents and Republicans are joining this campaign, and that’s why we’re going to win.”

Andrews’ message reflects the mood on the ground.

Ryan Manuelsmith, a 29-year-old substitute teacher from Columbia, is a lifelong Republican who plans to vote for Andrews. It will be the first time he has voted for a Democrat. He told MS NOW he was “disillusioned” with the Republican Party and was drawn to Andrews’ middle-of-the-road approach.

“I looked at Dr. Andrews’ platform and positions, and I don’t agree with all of them, but overall, I think she’s the best option for this country,” Manuelsmith said. “I think she’s the best option for the state.”

He acknowledged that South Carolina is “a very conservative state” and is unlikely to change “to be very leftist and progressive very quickly.”

“So I think, in general, I think moderate politics is more needed in this country as a whole — but I think if you’re going to be a Democrat and you want to win a statewide election in the great state of South Carolina, you got to be on the more moderate end,” he said.

It isn’t only disaffected Republicans who like the approach. Deborah Martin, a 71-year-old retired law enforcement officer from Columbia and a longtime Democrat, said she was “fine with” Andrews’ down-the-middle strategy.

“I think that is a good way to go,” Martin said. “We need to be able to go both sides of the area and get people to get behind her, and I think that’s a good route to go.”

Andrews is leaning into her centrist pitch in the final stretch of what has been a roller-coaster race in the Palmetto State. In a sign of the height of the stakes, Trump is scheduled to return to South Carolina on Thursday for another rally with Graham. It will be his second in two weeks and his third in three months.

The visit comes a little over three months after the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham — an event that began Darline Graham’s political career and gave Andrews a new opponent in the race.

Trump will speak in Rock Hill, in a northern part of the state that Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., carried in the primary. His remarks will almost certainly include attacks on Andrews, who has become one of the president’s favorite targets.

At previous rallies and on Truth Social, Trump has used an anti-transgender slur to refer to Andrews. Her response to his first use of the word was another break from some in her party.

“I want you to hear me loud and clear: I don’t support biological men playing women’s sports and I don’t support — and haven’t ever performed — gender surgery for minors,” she said in an ad.

Graham, meanwhile, has been hacking away at Andrews’ moderate approach. During an interview on “The Brian Kilmeade Show” this week, Graham accused Andrews of “deceiving” South Carolinians.

“Now all of a sudden she’s running these ads like she’s some moderate — I mean, it’s a complete lie,” Graham said, pointing to her stance on transgender surgeries and guns. “She’s deceiving the people of South Carolina, and like I’ve told several people, that’s really what bothers me more than everything.”

“She’s lying to the great people of South Carolina,” she added.

Andrews has kept her party at arm’s length in other ways, too. In the postdebate spin room this month, MS NOW asked her which national Democrat would be most effective campaigning with her in the closing stretch. Her answer was blunt.

“I’m not looking for any partnerships with national Democrats right now because this race is about returning this Senate seat to the people of South Carolina,” she responded.

She has brought in a few national figures, including Democratic Sens. Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. But she has kept her pitch aimed at voters across the spectrum.

“This is a campaign, as I said on the stage, that is for independents who are ready for change, for Republicans who feel left behind by their own party and for Democrats who are daring to feel hopeful,” she said.

The post As Trump heads to South Carolina, Democrats eye an upset appeared first on MS NOW.

"I am very concerned about the weaponization of the Justice Department," Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) told reporters in August, explaining his reservations about voting to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general. Cassidy specifically cited the attempt to prosecute Cassidy Hutchinson, a White House aide during President Donald Trump's first term, based on her 2022 testimony before the House select committee that investigated the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. "I'm told there is a grand jury being empaneled to investigate her," Cassidy said. "Why? Tell me that. Shouldn't every American be afraid of the weaponization of the Justice Department?"

Grand jurors in Washington, D.C., who on Tuesday declined to approve an indictment of Hutchinson, apparently shared the senator's concerns about the case against her. That setback is part of a pattern: Grand juries, which historically have almost never rejected charges proposed by federal prosecutors, have done so repeatedly during the last two years, reflecting the Trump administration's tendency to pursue politically motivated cases based on inadequate evidence.

A grand jury hears only the government's side of a case, and the probable cause standard for approving an indictment, which requires reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and that the person identified by prosecutors committed the crime, is much less demanding than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a conviction. But the Justice Department's manual for prosecutors says they should not pursue criminal charges unless "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient" to meet the latter test. It is a pretty striking indication that prosecutors are disregarding that injunction when a grand jury determines that they have failed to meet the minimal burden of establishing probable cause.

Hutchinson, who at the time of the Capitol riot was White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' principal assistant, delivered the testimony at the center of the failed indictment on June 28, 2022. She described Trump as unconcerned about weapons carried by some of the people who attended the speech he delivered the day of the riot, during which he reiterated his false claim that Joe Biden had stolen the 2020 presidential election and urged his supporters to "fight like hell" against congressional ratification of his victory.

Hutchinson said Trump wanted the Secret Service to stop screening rally participants with magnetometers because he was worried it would reduce the size of the crowd. "I don't effing care that they have weapons," Trump said, according to Hutchinson's approximate recollection. "They're not here to hurt me. Take [the] effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in."

Hutchinson also said Trump was irate when the Secret Service told him he could not join the protesters at the Capitol. That much was consistent with the testimony of other witnesses. But Hutchinson added disputed details, saying Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato had told her Trump was so angry that he "lunge[d] towards Bobby Engel," the head of his protective detail, and "reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel." The Secret Service agent who was Trump's driver that day contradicted Hutchinson's account, and Ornato said he had no recollection of any such incident.

Last March, Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R–Ga.) and Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) urged the Justice Department to prosecute Hutchinson for lying to Congress. "Hutchinson's potential prosecution became a point of controversy between lawmakers and employees of the Justice Department," CNN reports. "Some inside the department believed there was not enough evidence to bring a viable criminal case."

You would expect such a case to be handled by Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. But the investigation of Hutchinson was instead conducted by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which is run by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, another Trump loyalist.

You might wonder what scrutinizing Hutchinson's testimony had to do with "protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans," which is how Dhillon's division describes its mission. Dhillon's involvement is all the more puzzling given that Pirro previously had not hesitated to pursue dubious charges against the president's enemies.

Last February, Pirro sought an indictment of six Democratic members of Congress who appeared in a November 2025 video that reminded U.S. military personnel of their duty to "refuse illegal orders." Trump condemned that message as "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL," saying the lawmakers "should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL." But as a federal judge later noted, the allegedly criminal video was "unquestionably protected" by the First Amendment.

That did not deter Pirro from trying to deliver on her boss's threat. But as in Hutchinson's case, the grand jury apparently was not willing to participate in Trump's vendetta. After it unanimously refused to approve the indictment, Pirro gave up.

That embarrassing experience may have deterred Pirro from getting involved in Hutchinson's case, especially if she thought there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction. She would have had good reasons for reaching that conclusion.

It is not clear exactly what charges the grand jury rejected this week. But the most obviously relevant statutes are 18 USC 1001, which covers false statements "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch," and 18 USC 1621, which covers false testimony under oath. Both are felonies punishable by up to five years in prison. But a conviction under Section 1001 requires proving that the defendant "knowingly and willfully" made a "materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement," and the perjury statute applies only when a sworn witness "willfully and contrary to such oath" makes a "material" statement that "he does not believe to be true."

Those elements would have been hard to satisfy in Hutchinson's case. Her testimony about Trump's insouciant attitude toward weapons carried by his supporters was based on what she said she heard him say, an account that pits her word against that of a habitually dishonest politician whose speech that same day was full of misrepresentations. And even if her recollection of Trump's comments was not fully accurate, that does not necessarily mean she intentionally gave false testimony. The same goes for the alleged lunging-and-grabbing incident, an account Hutchinson said was based on a conversation with Ornato that he says he does not recall.

Maybe Hutchinson, who had a lawyer and was surely aware of the potential penalties for lying to Congress, nevertheless fabricated both of those claims. But assuming her testimony was inaccurate, it seems more likely that she misremembered or misconstrued what Trump and Ornato said. In any event, the task of proving the first proposition beyond a reasonable doubt would give pause to any reasonably cautious prosecutor. And the grand jurors, even without the benefit of hearing a rebuttal to the government's case, thought the evidence of deliberate deception was so weak that it fell short of probable cause.

That determination is just the latest in a series of similar rebukes. In addition to the rejection of Pirro's charges against the "Seditious Six," they include the attempt to prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud, which two separate grand juries in two different Virginia cities blocked last December.

Grand jurors also have stood athwart felony prosecutions of protesters in Washington, D.C., including Sean Dunn, the guy who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer, and Sydney Reid, who allegedly interfered with immigration arrests while using her phone to record them. In the latter case, Reason's Joe Lancaster noted, prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a felony assault indictment "not once, not twice, but a staggering three times." Reid was ultimately acquitted of a misdemeanor charge.

In the summer of 2025, federal grand juries approved just seven of 38 proposed felony indictments against protesters in Los Angeles, an amazingly bad track record. A few months later, federal prosecutors dropped assault charges against two Chicago protesters after a grand jury declined to indict them.

"For decades, federal grand juries have almost never said no," Ballard Spahr attorneys Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. and Brad Gershel noted last year. In 2016, for example, grand juries declined to approve federal indictments just 0.004 percent of the time. "That dynamic is now being tested," Hockeimer and Gershel added. "As the DOJ has adopted a more assertive charging posture in politically sensitive cases, grand juries appear to be reasserting their independence."

The post The Failed Indictment of Cassidy Hutchinson Reflects Grand Jury Resistance to Politically Motivated Charges appeared first on Reason Magazine.

"I'm sending a sledgehammer message to shipping companies whose tankers are transporting illegal Russian diesel to our ports," Sen. Richard Blumenthal said. "Reverse course while there's still time."

Tennessee’s Brent Taylor has joined the list of political candidates whose campaigns have been rocked by sexting scandals this year.

Taylor, who has been endorsed by Donald Trump, is running in a House district that white Tennessee Republicans — acting on the president’s behest — gerrymandered in ways that carved up the state’s only majority-Black district, seemingly ensuring that the district would be represented by a white Republican.

And when all is said and done, Taylor may indeed cruise to victory over his well-known progressive opponent, fellow state Sen. Justin Pearson. But Taylor’s acknowledged history of sending unsolicited nudes has thrown a wrench into his campaign.

Taylor faced mockery and fierce rebuke this week for responding to an exposé by describing the nude photos — some of which he apparently sent in his 50s — as “youthful indiscretions.” According to the Nashville Scene:

Multiple sources say they had received or seen nude photos from Taylor, who is running for U.S. Congress in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. Taylor acknowledged to the Scene that he had sent nude photos in the past but dismissed them as mistakes that have since been forgiven by his wife Kimberly.

“As I near 60 years old, the expiration date has come and gone on any of my youthful indiscretions,” Taylor tells the Scene when asked about a history of texting nude pictures. “Whatever story you think you’ve got, my wife is well aware of and we’ve worked through it a long time ago. My god and my wife have forgiven me, and I would consider everyone else doing the same.”

As the outlet noted, these were hardly “youthful indiscretions”:

One individual — who requested anonymity, citing fear of retaliation — says they received an unsolicited nude picture from Taylor as recently as 2021, before he was elected to the state Senate. A second eyewitness source independently confirmed the nude photos sent by Taylor. At that time, Taylor was 53.

Despite his evidently revealing nature, Taylor — who has spoken out against sexual harassment in politics — has declined to say how many times he has sent unsolicited nudes. And Pearson is pouncing on the scandal:

I'm disturbed to learn of Brent Taylor’s pattern of sending unsolicited nude photos to multiple women.

The fact that he would dismiss his behavior as “youthful indiscretions" despite it happening recently, in his fifties, & while he held government office is ridiculous.

More pic.twitter.com/ks94PtLsGp

— Justin J. Pearson (@Justinjpearson) October 27, 2026

To reiterate, Taylor is still headed into Election Day with the advantage manufactured for him through gerrymandering. But his campaign is providing yet more fodder to point out the hypocrisy of a MAGA movement that claims to promote Christian values but celebrates and enables men known for sex predation, such as Trump.

The Tennessee Republican has given liberals a gift this election season: “My opponent was sending unsolicited nudes while on the doorstep of qualifying for the Denny’s senior menu” is one hell of a closing argument against someone who shouldn’t be anywhere near a congressional seat.

The post GOP candidate’s sexting scandal gives Democrats hope in Tennessee appeared first on MS NOW.

Headed into Election Day, it’s not exactly a secret that House Republicans are likely to lose their majority. Democrats only need a net gain of a handful of seats, and all of the available evidence suggests that won’t be a problem.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, keeps taking issue with the evidence.

“Republicans are no longer responding to polls,” the GOP leader told Fox News over the weekend. He added, “I’m telling you these polls are off — all of them.”

On Monday night, the Louisiana congressman returned to the network and pushed effectively the same line. “I’m telling you the polling is inaccurate,” the House speaker said.

Maybe so. Maybe Johnson’s right — we can probably all think of instances when polls have been off to one degree or another — and it could be the political world is in for an enormous surprise next week.

But if that were to happen, Republicans themselves would be among those who are shocked.

As a matter of campaign strategy and tactics, I can appreciate why Johnson is pushing this line with so much enthusiasm. He is, after all, Congress’ top GOP lawmaker. If he were openly accepting the available data on public attitudes, the House speaker would effectively have to admit the odds of him holding onto his gavel are poor, which wouldn’t exactly motivate his party’s rank-and-file voters to cast a ballot.

But regardless of Johnson’s motivations, even his own party doesn’t genuinely believe his talking point. We know this for certain because Republicans keep moving campaign money around to protect vulnerable GOP incumbents — not based on pleas and anecdotal evidence, but because of their own polling data.

The same is true for Donald Trump’s campaign schedule. The president hasn’t invested his time in states such as Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi and Kansas — states he won by enormous margins two years ago — because he finds local conditions pleasant this time of year. The White House political operation is deploying Trump in response to polling data, even as Johnson insists that Republicans “are no longer responding to polls.”

Of course they are. There’s nothing else for them to use when making difficult electoral decisions.

The post Speaker Johnson says the polls are wrong. His own party doesn’t appear to agree. appeared first on MS NOW.

As the midterm elections approach, House leadership must decide whether to reauthorize the bipartisan Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to avoid stalling progress on semiconductor export controls.

As the midterm elections approach, House leadership must decide whether to reauthorize the bipartisan Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to avoid stalling progress on semiconductor export controls.

EXCLUSIVE: Two Republican members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressing concern over the state of NATO ally Albania’s democratic backsliding, urging the department to use its visa restriction authority against Albanian officials complicit in significant corruption.

"We write to express concern about the state of democracy and the rule of law in the Republic of Albania, a NATO ally and candidate for European Union membership. The United States has invested heavily in Albania's justice reforms and has a strong interest in their success. Recent events suggest that progress is fragile and, in key areas, at risk of reversal," the letter to Secretary Rubio said.

Specifically, the letter urges Secretary Rubio to use the State Department's authority under Section 7031(c) of the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act to publicly designate Albanian officials and their immediate family members, if necessary, if credible information of involvement in significant corruption exists.

SERBIA’S LONGTIME LEADER FACES BIGGEST POLITICAL TEST AS STUDENTS MOUNT ELECTION CHALLENGE

The letter, written by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., and his Republican colleague, House Europe Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, requested the administration answer four key questions by Nov. 5.

In addition to asking the state department to commit to reviewing Albanian officials for designation under its visa restriction authority, the members of congress inquired about what assistance is being provided to Albania's broader justice reform efforts and whether the U.S. Embassy in Tirana is working with local officials to protect protesters and journalists.

The Republican representatives are also requesting an update on former Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku, who was charged with interfering in public procurement for road construction. Prosecutors asked parliament in December 2025 to lift her immunity so she could be arrested, but Prime Minister Edi Rama called the request unconstitutional, and parliament has not allowed the arrest to proceed.

The members of congress say that Albania's anti-corruption institutions cannot succeed in rooting out corruption when political leaders shield the officials they investigate.

US LAWMAKERS SOUND ALARM AS VIOLENCE GRIPS NATO ALLY ALBANIA AMID ANTI-GOVERNMENT PROTESTS

Like fellow protesters in France and across Europe, tens of thousands have protested amid allegations of government corruption, inadequate education, unemployment and a lack of opportunity. The growing nationwide protest movement is driven by students and citizens also demanding accountability, an end to corruption and what they say is the restoration of democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Demonstrations broke out in the capital, Tirana, two weeks ago, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama. The protests quickly turned violent as demonstrators lobbed Molotov cocktails at the Education Ministry and clashed with police.

Protesters also took aim at Rama’s Socialist Party headquarters in Tirana, squaring off with riot police who had been dispatched to protect government property.

Rama blamed "foreign hands who do not want Albania in the European Union and who promote the masks that claim to represent students, but who in fact, more than students, represent organized crime itself."

So far, the prime minister has refused to resign but has proposed entering into dialogue with the protesters.

FRANCE ROCKED BY STUDENT RIOTS AS HUNDREDS ARRESTED, VIOLENCE SPREADS NATIONWIDE

The violence taking place across Albania is a worrying sign for a country struggling to maintain its democracy and continue the path to EU accession.

"Congress is deeply concerned about the situation in Albania as the government uses excessive force against citizens who are demanding accountability and clean institutions. Corruption and narcotrafficking associated with the Rama government must be countered," Rep. Wilson told Fox News Digital in a statement.

The turmoil in Albania comes as the country has long sought European Union membership, which began in 2014 when it became an official candidate for accession. While the 2025 annual European Commission report stated that Albania made significant strides in judicial reforms and combating organized crime, the continued allegations of corruption in the Rama government and the current violence taking place will complicate its path to EU membership.

The student protests in Albania mirror the mass protests that took place in neighboring Serbia, where a student-led political movement toppled longtime leader Aleksandar Vučić.

"Vucic’s defeat by a student-backed movement, following nearly two years of demonstrations over corruption and government accountability, is a striking parallel with the unrest now confronting Rama in Albania, where protests have been ongoing for over 150 days," Agim Nesho, former Albanian ambassador to the U.N. and U.S., told Fox News.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"In Albania, students and other citizens have been demonstrating since May, with the latest wave of daily protests intensifying demands for the resignation of a prime minister who has governed for more than 13 years with rampant corruption and declining public services," Nesho added.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race, there has been very little independent polling, though that has finally changed: The latest New York Times/Siena poll found Dr. Annie Andrews, the Democratic nominee, tied with Republican Sen. Darline Graham, with both garnering 48% support.

The poll comes on the heels of Andrews picking up an endorsement from former Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, and it coincides with Republican Rep. Ralph Norman, who lost to Graham in a competitive special election primary, declaring that South Carolina voters “deserve better” than Graham.

* In Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race, there also has been a dearth of high-quality recent polling, which made it all the more notable to see the latest New York Times/Siena poll showing Democratic Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan leading conservative media personality Michele Tafoya, the Republican nominee, 54% to 40%.

* In Florida’s statewide races, the latest New York Times/Siena poll showed a competitive gubernatorial race, with Republican Rep. Byron Donalds leading former Rep. David Jolly, the Democratic nominee, 48% to 44%.

The same polling found incumbent Republican Sen. Ashley Moody with a six point advantage over state Rep. Angie Nixon, 50% to 44%.

* In Alaska’s gubernatorial race, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski officially endorsed Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins’ candidacy, cementing his front-runner status in the race to succeed Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who is term limited.

As for Alaska’s U.S. Senate race, The New York Times reported that the political operation of the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, was more involved in finding someone named Dan Sullivan to run against Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, than previously known.

* In Texas’ competitive gubernatorial race, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is benefiting from another $5 million investment from GOP megadonor Elon Musk in the contest’s final week.

* In Ohio’s statewide races, the latest USA Today/Suffolk University poll found the Democratic nominee, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, ahead of the Republican incumbent, Sen. Jon Husted, 47% to 44%.

The same poll showed Democrat Amy Acton leading Republican Vivek Ramaswamy by a slightly larger margin in Ohio’s gubernatorial race, 48% to 44%.

* And in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District, which Republicans expect to flip after approving a gerrymandering scheme, there’s a new problem for the GOP nominee: State Sen. Brent Taylor reportedly sent an unsolicited nude picture, to someone who was not his wife, as recently as 2021.

When the Nashville Scene, an alternative weekly newspaper, asked the Republican about what transpired, Taylor said, “As I near 60 years old, the expiration date has come and gone on any of my youthful indiscretions.” The incident in question happened when he was 53 — which is generally not seen as “youthful.”

The post Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.28.26: Poll shows tied race in South Carolina appeared first on MS NOW.

Drop Site reveals the sources of funding to keep 82-year-old incumbent CA Rep. Doris Matsui (D) from losing to progressive challenger Mai Vang, who rejected AIPAC money and called out Israel's genocide

This essay is part of Beyond the battlegrounds, a special opinion series from MS NOW that digs into a number of lesser-known elections to watch, which will each nonetheless impact the national balance of power in important ways.

Unless he’s defending President Donald Trump on Fox News, Roger Marshall, the junior senator from my home state of Kansas, has a habit of dodging questions.

Less than two months after Trump’s inauguration, Marshall faced an angry crowd at a packed town hall in Oakley, a small city in northwestern Kansas. Attendees asked about the Department of Government Efficiency’s slashing of federal agencies, veterans’ benefits, rural healthcare and other depredations being carried out by the administration.

Marshall didn’t take it well. As reported by The Kansas City Star, the senator called the crowd “one of the rudest audiences I’ve ever had.” Roughly 20 minutes before the event was scheduled to end, he walked out as audience members booed and jeered.

Marshall hasn’t held a town hall since.

Ask Marshall’s constituents how often he responds to their phone calls and emails. They’ll tell you rarely, if ever.

I mention this because the Johnson County Post, which covers the state’s most populous and wealthy county, recently posed a series of questions to Marshall and his two opponents, Democrat Adam Hamilton and Libertarian David Graham. The questions posed were based on reader input, including one on rising prices and what the candidates plan to do about them; one on the war with Iran and whether they support a congressional resolution calling for its end; and another on ICE and what they would change about federal immigration enforcement.

Hamilton, founder and senior pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood (the largest Methodist church in the country, with 24,000 members), gave thoughtful and nuanced answers to all five questions.

Especially notable was his answer to the question about Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which last month staged raids in southwestern Kansas, a region that supplies nearly a quarter of the nation’s grain-fed beef.

“Kansans expect our immigration laws to be enforced,” Hamilton wrote. “We also expect every person to be treated with dignity and respect. Enforcement should focus on people who are dangerous, and it should work with local law enforcement, not around it. What happened in Liberal, Garden City and Dodge City doesn’t reflect who we are. We’re Kansans. We don’t make our neighbors afraid.”

And Marshall’s answer? Er, he didn’t provide one. Nor did he provide an answer to the other four questions.

That’s his modus operandi. Ask his constituents how often he responds to their phone calls and emails. They’ll tell you rarely, if ever.

It’s no wonder he’s earned the epithet “Roger the Dodger.” Marshall is so fearful of encountering his own constituents that, at least until recently, he frequently visited his $1.2 million beachfront mansion in Sarasota, Florida, that he purchased in 2019 (and sold just weeks before Election Day).

Caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Marshall finally had to interact with a constituent.

The devotion Marshall withholds from his constituents he saves for the president, whom he unstintingly praises and defends in frequent appearances on Fox News. The first time I can recall Marshall daring to even mildly criticize Trump came during the recent ICE raids. Without mentioning the president’s name, he questioned ICE’s failure to consult in advance with local law enforcement — a true profile in courage.

It’s no wonder that Marshall is facing the fight of his life. Kansas last elected a Democratic senator in 1932, the longest losing streak by far of any party in any state. Trump won Kansas by 16 percentage points in 2024, yet polls show Hamilton running neck and neck with Marshall.

So spooked are Senate Republicans by these numbers that their main super PAC diverted $14 million from North Carolina, which it now regards as a lost cause, to bolster Marshall’s flagging campaign.

A spate of damaging stories over the past month has made the rescue mission more difficult. The New York Times reported that during his years as a practicing OB-GYN, Marshall sued more than 700 patients for unpaid medical debts while charging them 18% interest. One unpaid bill was just $101. After Marshall said that his debt collection practices were “very common,” the Kansas City Star looked at 150 other medical practices and found that the 18% interest charged by Marshall was “by far the highest.” The collection lawyer used by Marshall told the Star that Marshall’s office had determined the interest rate.

More recently, a joint investigation by the Kansas Reflector and MS NOW found Marshall “repeatedly using congressional staff and government resources in ways that experts say likely crossed the line between official business and campaigning.” (A lawyer for Marshall’s campaign declined to answer a detailed list of questions from the two outlets, and instead said in a statement that “Senator Marshall and his team fully comply with both FEC rules and Senate ethics.”)

And then there was the Oct. 8 Facebook post of a baker in Hutchinson who claimed that Marshall stiffed her for almost $700 worth of cookies she had baked for his 2020 election watch party. Marshall quickly paid up, writing, “We have absolutely no idea how this happened … and we have repaid the bill from 2020, double.”

The irony of suing patients for unpaid medical bills while failing to pay for baked goods was not lost on anyone. Caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Marshall finally had to interact with a constituent. It was the perfect metaphor for his crumbling campaign.

The post How Kansas’ Roger ‘the Dodger’ Marshall laid the groundwork for his troubled re-election campaign appeared first on MS NOW.

This essay is part of Beyond the battlegrounds, a special opinion series from MS NOW that digs into a number of lesser-known elections to watch, which will each nonetheless impact the national balance of power in important ways.

After being written off as a red state for a couple of election cycles, Iowa is back at the center of the battle for power in Washington.

Republicans have held all four U.S. House seats in the Hawkeye State since 2023. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Districts, however, could flip on Nov. 3, meaning the path to a Democratic majority runs through Iowa. National forecasters have upgraded Democratic prospects in all three races since Labor Day. It’s no surprise, then, that despite relatively low advertising costs in Iowa’s media markets, those three campaigns rank among the top 30 congressional races for outside spending.

National political observers were slow to pick up on the close race brewing in the 2nd District, covering northeast Iowa.

In the 1st District, covering much of southeast Iowa, GOP incumbent Mariannette Miller-Meeks is in trouble. Her first victory, in 2020, was the closest U.S. House race in the entire country: a six-vote margin out of about 394,000 ballots cast. Two years ago, she won a third term by 799 votes — less than 0.2 percentage points — in a district Donald Trump carried by about 8.5 points.

Democratic groups immediately signaled Miller-Meeks would be a top target for 2026, and she is again facing Democrat Christina Bohannan, who nearly unseated her in 2024.

Bohannan has tied rising costs for working Iowans to Miller-Meeks’ votes to allow Trump’s tariffs and war in Iran to continue. The strategy seems to be working. After pouring millions into boosting Miller-Meeks’ campaign this year, some GOP-aligned super PACs recently cut their ads in the district, redeploying funds to other Iowa races. Independent candidate Michael Bridgford, running as a centrist in the Joe Manchin mold, may be pulling more support from Miller-Meeks than from Bohannan.

The best hope for Miller-Meeks lies in the district’s half-dozen smaller working-class cities, which have trended Republican during the Trump era. All year, the incumbent has emphasized her vote for no taxes on tips and overtime. This month, she has tried to take credit for a proposed $15 billion steel mill near the state’s southeast corner.

Bohannan, for her part, will get a boost from the strongest “get out the vote” effort that Iowa Democrats have seen since Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. She will need particularly high turnout in the deep-blue Iowa City metro area and the swingy Quad Cities along the Iowa-Illinois border.

While the 1st District was long expected to be competitive, national political observers were slow to pick up on the close race brewing in the 2nd District, covering northeast Iowa. The seat is open because three-term GOP incumbent Ashley Hinson is running for U.S. Senate. Since Hinson has typically outperformed the top of the ticket, many people mistakenly saw the seat as safely red.

The 3rd Congressional District, anchored in the Des Moines metro area, has been a battleground almost every election for the past two decades.

The trend lines still favor Republicans: Trump carried the district by about 10 points in the last presidential race. Several northeast Iowa counties saw swings of 40 points or more from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2024.

But Trump +10 is only slightly redder than Iowa’s 1st District. And this year’s GOP nominee Joe Mitchell lacks deep roots in the area, having just moved there before launching his campaign last September. In contrast, Hinson spent about a decade as a TV reporter and anchor in the Cedar Rapids market before running for the state legislature and later for Congress.

Mitchell is running on an unconventional platform, backing term limits and denouncing corporate PAC contributions and congressional stock trading. Unlike some Republicans in swing districts, he has embraced Trump. He even gave the president a “man of the century” award at a rally last week.

Democratic nominee Lindsay James is a state lawmaker from Dubuque, much like Abby Finkenauer, the Democrat who flipped northeast Iowa’s House seat in 2018. An ordained Presbyterian minister and chaplain, James has highlighted her faith values in her campaign messaging. James will need big margins in the largest counties, containing Cedar Rapids, Dubuque and Waterloo, to counteract the Republican edge in rural parts of the district.

And if the race is very close, two other candidates on the ballot — independent Dave Bushaw, who is running a progressive populist campaign, and libertarian Rick Stewart — could peel off enough voters to change the outcome.

The 3rd Congressional District, anchored in the Des Moines metro area, has been a battleground almost every election for the past two decades. The previous version of the district went from red to blue in 2018. Zach Nunn flipped it back to the GOP column four years ago.

I’ll be watching results closely in Wapello County, the 3rd district’s third-largest county. A Democratic stronghold for generations, the county has trended Republican over the past 15 years.

I have long felt this district was poised to flip again this year. It is the the least Republican-leaning of the state’s four districts, and Nunn does not have a track record of overperformance. He barely defeated incumbent Cindy Axne amid poor Democratic turnout in 2022. Two years later, voters re-elected Nunn by a 4-point margin, about the same as Trump’s advantage over Kamala Harris in the district. Every recent Iowa poll suggests the president’s approval is underwater statewide, which suggests he is deeply unpopular in the 3rd District.

Nunn needs strong turnout from voters on the right, who still back Trump, while not alienating constituents who have soured on the president. The result is an awkward balancing act. On one hand, Vice President JD Vance headlined a rally for Nunn in May, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared with him at an August fundraiser. But Nunn switched his vote on a war powers resolution in September and now emphasizes his bipartisan work in TV ads and public appearances.

Democratic challenger Sarah Trone Garriott is both an ordained Lutheran minister and a tenacious campaigner. She has won three state Senate races in suburban districts that voted for Trump. Her top issues include access to healthcare, taking on Washington corruption and showing up for voters. Trone Garriott often mentions that Nunn has not held a single public town hall during his four years in Congress, while she has held public events in all 21 counties.

About 75% of the votes in the 3rd District will come from Polk and Dallas counties, which cover Des Moines and most of its suburbs. Democrats are well-organized in both counties. Nunn needs to run up the score in the rest of the district. I’ll be watching results closely in Wapello County, the district’s third-largest county. A Democratic stronghold for generations, the county has trended Republican over the past 15 years. But the closure of an internal medicine in Ottumwa, attributed to Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill, has been a major local news story that won’t help Nunn.

The competitiveness of these districts also offers a lesson for other states. Iowa has three districts in play, yet in many larger states, the districts are all but foregone conclusions. Even when Iowa hasn’t looked much like a swing state at the top of the ballot, we’ve always had some targeted U.S. House races.

Why? Because in the 1970s, Iowa adopted one of the best redistricting systems in the country. By state law, “No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress, or other person or group, or for the purpose of augmenting or diluting the voting strength of a language or racial minority group.” The law has guardrails to prevent “cracking,” “packing” and other partisan games.

If every state drew political maps the Iowa way, dozens more House seats would be up for grabs. Millions more Americans would have a chance to determine which party controls Congress. For now, Iowans will continue to punch above their weight.

The post The path to a Democratic House majority runs through Iowa appeared first on MS NOW.

In an extensive conversation with EU Today publisher Gary Cartwright, Ukrainian-American lawyer and political commentator Askold Lozynskyj delivers a sharply critical assessment of Donald Trump, examines the possibility of a geopolitical bargain with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, and explains why November’s American midterm elections could determine far more than the composition of Congress.

There is something peculiarly unsettling about a world in which the leaders of three nuclear powers might gather to discuss the future of smaller nations without troubling to invite the nations concerned. It is a diplomatic arrangement with considerable historical precedent, although not necessarily the sort that ought to inspire confidence.

For Askold S. Lozynskyj, a New York lawyer, former president of the Ukrainian World Congress and regular contributor to EU Today, the prospect of Donald Trump sitting down with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping raises precisely this concern.

His latest opinion piece, The Thug Summit, published on 23 October, presents an uncompromising interpretation of the proposed trilateral meeting in China. In a wide-ranging conversation with EU Today publisher Gary Cartwright, Lozynskyj expands upon that argument, moving from the peculiarities of Trump’s political personality to the constitutional foundations of American democracy, the future of Europe and the increasingly precarious standing of international law.

The resulting discussion is occasionally caustic, frequently humorous and consistently concerned with a question that extends well beyond the current occupant of the White House: how resilient are democratic institutions when confronted by leaders who regard constitutional constraints as inconveniences?

Watch the full interview with Askold S. Lozynskyj and Gary Cartwright below.

From the Oval Office to the Beverly Hillbillies

The conversation begins with Trump’s political ascent, which Lozynskyj regards as one of the more extraordinary developments in modern American history.

He recalls the incredulity surrounding Trump’s original presidential ambitions and questions how a politician whose personal conduct had attracted considerable controversy managed to secure such enthusiastic support among conservative Christian voters.

Cartwright introduces a lighter comparison, recalling a photograph of Trump surrounded by his senior advisers in the Oval Office.

The only person missing, he suggests, was Jed Clampett, the fictional patriarch of the American television comedy The Beverly Hillbillies.

Lozynskyj is not inclined to defend the administration’s sophistication. Yet behind the humour lies a more serious argument about the disappearance of independent-minded advisers and the consequences of political loyalty becoming the principal qualification for high office.

“Donald Trump is not a conservative. Donald Trump is a thug,” he declares.

It is an unequivocal assessment, characteristic of Lozynskyj’s commentary, although his criticism extends beyond Trump himself to the Republican Party’s willingness to accommodate his leadership.

The elections that could change Washington

Much of the interview centres on the American midterm elections scheduled for 3 November.

Lozynskyj predicts that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives and potentially transform the remainder of Trump’s presidency through congressional investigations, subpoenas and impeachment proceedings.

His prediction is emphatic, although the eventual balance of power remains uncertain.

Control of the House would give Democrats substantial investigative authority, although the president would retain his executive powers. Removing him from office following impeachment would still require a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Nevertheless, Lozynskyj believes the elections could fundamentally alter Washington’s political atmosphere.

“They will tie up Trump like never before,” he argues.

Cartwright raises a more disturbing possibility: could Trump manufacture an emergency to postpone an election or otherwise attempt to prolong his presidency?

“I think he could try, but I don’t believe that he will prevail,” Lozynskyj responds, expressing confidence that America’s constitutional institutions would ultimately resist such an attempt.

The exchange moves naturally towards the events of 6 January 2021, presidential immunity and the effectiveness of the checks and balances upon which the American constitutional system depends.

Ukraine, Europe and the price of great-power diplomacy

For Lozynskyj, whose public career has been closely associated with Ukrainian interests, the implications of Trump’s foreign policy are particularly troubling.

His central concern is that negotiations among Washington, Moscow and Beijing could revive the notion that major powers possess an informal entitlement to determine the political and territorial futures of their neighbours.

In his opinion piece, he raises the possibility that Ukraine and Taiwan could become bargaining instruments in a wider geopolitical settlement. These are his warnings about potential outcomes, not established agreements between the three governments.

Yet his criticism of Washington is accompanied by considerable appreciation for Europe’s role in sustaining Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion.

“Without Europe, Ukraine could never have survived as long as it has survived,” he tells Cartwright.

He also ventures into the British debate over European integration, arguing that the United Kingdom should return to the European Union.

It is an intervention likely to provoke disagreement, but it reflects his broader conviction that collective institutions provide an essential counterweight to unilateral political power.

Democracy, disorder and the limits of authority

The discussion also examines political unrest in Europe, changing national identities and the relationship between elected governments and the populations they represent.

Cartwright points to social tensions in European cities and the growing importance of regional identity, including the independence debate in Flanders.

Lozynskyj approaches these developments through the history of democratic protest, citing Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, the Revolution of Dignity and more recent demonstrations over the independence of anti-corruption institutions.

For him, public opposition to governments is not necessarily evidence of democracy’s failure. It can also demonstrate that political authority remains subject to popular consent.

The conversation concludes with international law, the International Criminal Court and the difficulty of enforcing common rules when powerful states refuse to accept external constraints.

Lozynskyj’s observations are deliberately provocative, and his forecasts will be tested by events. But the interview offers something more substantial than another exchange of opinions about Donald Trump.

It is a discussion about the relationship between power and restraint, the responsibilities of democratic institutions and the uncomfortable possibility that the international order may be entering another period in which military and economic strength increasingly determine political outcomes.

As the United States approaches its midterm elections and speculation continues over a possible meeting between Trump, Putin and Xi, those questions are unlikely to disappear.

The full conversation with Askold S. Lozynskyj is available in the video above.

Years ago, I bought a contraption designed to separate and concentrate the most volatile components of a liquid mixture. I would tell you what I did with it, but I don't want to implicate myself in a federal felony.

Since 1868, it has been illegal for Americans to locate a "distilled spirits plant" in "any dwelling place," an offense currently punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine and up to five years in prison. The federal ban on home distilling is at the center of a case that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear, which raises a specific constitutional issue but also highlights the absurdity of treating this hobby as a crime.

That policy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last April, cannot be justified as an exercise of the federal government's tax power. To the contrary, Judge Edith Jones said in the court's opinion, the ban is "an anti-revenue provision that prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence," meaning its effect is "to reduce revenue instead of raising it."

Nor is the provision consistent with "the Supreme Court's explanation of how the federal power of taxation works," Jones wrote. When Congress imposes a tax, the Court explained in 2012, it "leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice." But in this case, Jones noted, would-be home distillers "have only the choice not to do as they wish or risk fines and imprisonment."

The government argued that the ban helps collect liquor taxes by prohibiting a form of production that is difficult to detect. But "Congress cannot prohibit intrastate activity solely because it might produce products hard to tax," Jones said. If it could, she warned, there would be "no limit whatsoever" to its tax power.

Under the government's logic, Jones noted, "Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity. Home-based businesses may be forbidden. Remote work may be deemed a crime."

The Trump administration, which wants the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit's decision, argues that threatening to imprison home distillers is a "necessary and proper" safeguard against tax evasion. But whatever your take on the constitutional question, that policy is morally indefensible, haphazardly enforced, and inconsistent with the federal government's treatment of wine and beer.

The lead plaintiff in this case is Scott McNutt, a member of the Hobby Distillers Association. In 2014, McNutt received a "Notice of Potential Civil and Criminal Liability" from the Treasury Department, which said it had reason to believe he "may have purchased a still capable of producing alcohol and/or equipment and materials that may be used in the manufacture of a still."

The notice warned that "federal law provides no exemptions for the production of distilled spirits for personal or family use." It added that "unlawful production of distilled spirits is a criminal offense," which it erroneously claimed was "punishable by a fine of up to $500,000" as well as "imprisonment for not more than 5 years."

Meanwhile, online retailers such as Amazon sell a wide variety of home stills, many of which are explicitly advertised as appliances designed to produce alcoholic beverages such as vodka, gin, brandy, and whiskey. Customers could be forgiven for assuming that's legal, especially since federal law has long permitted home wine and beer production "for personal or family use."

McNutt's lawyers say he "owns a still that he has used to lawfully distill fuel alcohol and seeks to 'tinker around' with beverage spirits." Another plaintiff, Thomas Cowdrey, "likewise seeks to experiment in creating new beverage spirits, including 'apple pie vodka,' for which he has developed a recipe."

Because of a law Congress enacted 158 years ago, McNutt and Cowdrey would be felons if they acted on those desires. It might be time to rethink that policy.

© Copyright 2026 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post A Supreme Court Case Underlines the Absurdity of the Federal Ban on Home Distilling appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska endorsed Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins for governor Tuesday, crossing party lines in the final week ahead of Election Day.

The endorsement delivers to Kreiss-Tomkins a high-profile Republican endorsement in the race to succeed term-limited Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

Murkowski announced her support in an interview with Alaska News Source, citing widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the state and praising Kreiss-Tomkins’ willingness to work across the aisle.

“Alaskans are seeking change. They don’t like the status quo,” Murkowski said. “I think it’s been a hard eight years in many different areas, and Alaskans are looking for something different.”

Four candidates are competing to replace Dunleavy, who cannot seek another term after eight years in office. Recent polling shows Kreiss-Tomkins, a former state lawmaker, leading the crowded field against Republicans Bernadette Wilson, former Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson and former state Attorney General Treg Taylor. Alaska uses a ranked-choice voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, with the lowest-performing candidate eliminated and that candidate’s votes redistributed until one candidate secures a majority.

Murkowski described Kreiss-Tomkins as a candidate who could bring new energy and a collaborative approach, emphasizing his commitment to including Republicans, Democrats and independents in his administration.

“JKT is a young Alaskan with a view and a perspective that I think Alaska needs right now,” she said, calling him “a common sense guy who has a known ability to be working together.”

“We need a governor who’s going to work with the legislature,” Murkowski added.

Kreiss-Tomkins welcomed the endorsement, praising Murkowski’s bipartisan record.

“I have a lot of respect for Lisa, her integrity. I think she’s worked across the aisle in Congress, which is a quality I really admire, and hope to live up to if I’m elected governor,” he told Alaska News Source. “I’m very grateful that she wanted to step up and be a part of the coalition that we’re building.”

The endorsement is the latest example of Murkowski’s willingness to break with her party. She previously supported Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign for the House in 2022 and 2024.

She has also repeatedly clashed with President Donald Trump, including over his conduct and leadership of the Republican Party. Murkowski was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Trump subsequently backed a Republican challenger to Murkowski in her 2022 re-election race, which she won.

Most recently, Trump lashed out at Murkowski on Saturday, calling her a “disgrace to Alaska and our country” after she criticized his administration’s lawsuit seeking to block Alaska from certifying its Senate election results if the Republican candidate loses narrowly. Trump also accused Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system of being a “total Democrat scam.”

Wilson, who has been endorsed in the gubernatorial race by Trump, blasted Murkowski’s endorsement in a social media post Tuesday, accusing the senator of abandoning Alaska’s values.

“As Governor, I will not be a sitting duck,” Wilson wrote, “and I can assure you, I will actively work to unseat the worst “Republican” senator in the country.”

The post Lisa Murkowski crosses party lines to endorse Democrat in Alaska governor’s race appeared first on MS NOW.

The cost of the U.S.’s war against Iran has gone up to $47 billion, an increase of more than $3 billion since last month, as President Trump mulls launching strikes against the Islamic Republic after the U.S. midterm elections.  The biggest chunk of the cost is munition replacement at $29 billion, according to an Oct.…

The cost of the U.S.’s war against Iran has gone up to $47 billion, an increase of more than $3 billion since last month, as President Trump mulls launching strikes against the Islamic Republic after the U.S. midterm elections.  The biggest chunk of the cost is munition replacement at $29 billion, according to an Oct.…