It’s a big part of the job. You talk in legislatures. You talk at committees. You talk to voters. You talk to reporters. If you’re lucky, you’re asked to talk on TV, the radio, or other popular platforms.
Politicians crave the attention. It’s validating. It means that you’re important. You’re a somebody with important things to say. You’re noticed. People listen.
Politicians know that the bigger their job, the more careful they have to be when they’re talking to an audience – however small or large. That’s especially true if you’re a cabinet minister or a “leader”. Too much unscripted talking can be dangerous.
So, more often than not, what politicians say while they’re talking is forgettable or worse, meaningless. They have to stick to their talking points. They adore cliché.
Still, there are moments when politicians get too comfortable. They get complacent. They slip up and say something candid and revealing about who they are and what they actually think and believe.
Fortunately, two politicians opted for refreshing bursts of honesty over the standard rhetorical gruel this past week. One is Canadian. The other is American. You probably don’t know the first politician. The second is quite well-known.
Both were talking, in a roundabout way, about what is happening in Gaza.
The first politician’s name is Selina Robinson. She is, as of this writing, the minister of post-secondary education in the “socialist” provincial government of British Columbia, Canada.
On January 30, Robinson was talking on Zoom as part of a panel of Jewish politicians organised by a pro-Israeli advocacy group. She was among “friends”, talking to and with “friends”.
In one remarkable swoop, Robinson not only rewrote history, but trafficked in a familiar racist trope. Before the engineered birth of Israel, she said, Palestine was “a crappy piece of land with nothing on it”.
“There were several hundred thousand people but other than that, it didn’t produce an economy … it couldn’t grow things. It didn’t have anything on it, and that it was the folks who were displaced that came and the people who had been living there for generations and together they worked hard,” the minister said.
Translation: 700,000 idle Muslim and Christian Palestinians had, for generations, squandered the chance to make the desert bloom. Happily, it flowered after the arrival of “displaced”, hard-working Israelis who “were offered” the “crappy piece of land”.
Since she said what she said, Robinson has stopped talking – in public, at least. Instead, the minister has had to watch and listen to a lot of other people talking about how and why she must resign.
Even the pro-Israeli outfit that invited Robinson to talk has more or less abandoned her, reportedly telling a CBC reporter that: “The comments made by Minister Robinson … do not reflect the opinion of our organization.”
You know you have talked too much when your once-close “friends” cut you adrift.
So, Robinson did what politicians have to do when they give fulsome voice to what they think and believe: she made a grovelling apology on X.
Robinson wrote that her “flippant” and “disrespectful” comments had “caused pain”.
“I regret what I said and I apologize without reservation.”
Few are convinced by Robinson’s belated, performative act of contrition, including two of her “socialist” colleagues in Ottawa. One member of parliament (MP) is demanding a “reassessment” of her place in cabinet. Another MP pilloried Robinson for “an appalling disregard for the horrific violence being inflicted on Palestinians”.
Robinson’s boss, the premier of British Columbia, is also talking. He said that the minister’s remarks were “wrong”. Rather than fire her, the premier is giving Robinson a good talking to. He told her, in effect, to keep talking.
“She’s got some work to do to go out to the community to address the harm that her comments have caused,” he said.
In other curious words, the premier wants Robinson to talk her and the government’s way out of a prickly jam.
Right. That should do it.
The second chatty politician is the former speaker of the US House of Representatives and the grande dame of Congressional Democrats, Nancy Pelosi. She did her troublesome talking in the ever-agreeable studios of CNN’s Washington bureau on January 29.
The influential “Speaker Emerita” was asked to comment on those pesky, mostly young demonstrators who have been interrupting President Joe Biden with chants of “Genocide Joe” at campaign stops and address whether she was “concerned that they might just stay home” in the fast approaching presidential election.
A condescending Pelosi promptly played the victim card, saying: “I have been the recipient of, shall we say, their exuberance in this regard … they’re in front of my house all the time.”
Poor, pampered Pelosi.
The “Speaker Emerita” compounded her, shall we say, disdain with a lecture, claiming that unlike the “exuberant” rabble, she and other serious types on Capitol Hill were required to “think” about “how to try to stop the suffering in Gaza”.
Poor, misunderstood Pelosi.
Apparently, she “thinks” that a “ceasefire” would not “stop the suffering in Gaza” since that’s what Russian President Vladimir Putin “would like to see”.
Pelosi’s McCarthyite-smear-laden logic is loathsome and bizarre. What, apart from a ceasefire, is going to “stop the suffering in Gaza” – with or without Putin’s blessing?
Silly, exuberant me, but I can’t “think” of anything other than a “ceasefire” that will “stop the suffering in Gaza”.
Pelosi ought to have stopped talking. Thankfully, she didn’t.
She then proved that behind every America-flag-pin-wearing speaker emerita, there lies an Alex Jones-like conspiracy theorist who is convinced that the homeland is awash with fifth columnists disguised as citizens exercising their constitutional rights to challenge a sitting president.
“I think some of these protestors are spontaneous and organic and sincere,” Pelosi said. “Some, I think, are connected to Russia.”
Again, Pelosi ought to have stopped talking.
Thankfully, she didn’t.
Not done tarring millions of her fellow, albeit “exuberant”, Americans of Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian descent as Putin’s useful tools, she confirmed that she is every bit as willing and eager as her nemesis, Donald Trump, to sic the FBI on perceived enemies.
“Some financing should be investigated and I want to ask the FBI to investigate that,” Pelosi said.
Paging J Edgar Hoover. Paging J Edgar Hoover.
I’m glad Pelosi kept talking.
I’m glad because she has exposed the Democratic Party for the “progressive” and “inclusive” sham that it is.
The Democratic Party never has and never will be the “home” to Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian Americans. They will always be treated with suspicion and contempt by a party establishment that confuses dissent with disloyalty and considers Palestinians disposable fodder.
You see, sometimes, when politicians talk, it’s clarifying.
MONTREAL – A Quebec political party has voted to support one of its members facing backlash for saying that racialized people are regularly disparaged at the provincial legislature.
Québec solidaire members adopted an emergency resolution at the party’s convention late Sunday condemning the hate directed at Haroun Bouazzi, without endorsing his comments.
Bouazzi, who represents a Montreal riding, had told a community group that he hears comments every day at the legislature that portray North African, Muslim, Black or Indigenous people as the “other,” and that paint their cultures are dangerous or inferior.
Other political parties have said Bouazzi’s remarks labelled elected officials as racists, and the co-leaders of his own party had rebuked him for his “clumsy and exaggerated” comments.
Bouazzi, who has said he never intended to describe his colleagues as racist, thanked his party for their support and for their commitment to the fight against systemic racism.
Party co-spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois said after Sunday’s closed-door debate that he considers the matter to be closed.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 18, 2024.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Democrats who control both chambers of the Virginia legislature are hoping to make good on promises made on the campaign trail, including becoming the first Southern state to expand constitutional protections for abortion access.
The House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced three proposed constitutional amendments Wednesday, including a measure to protect reproductive rights. Its members also discussed measures to repeal a now-defunct state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and ways to revise Virginia’s process to restore voting rights for people who served time for felony crimes.
“This meeting was an important next step considering the moment in history we find ourselves in,” Democratic Del. Cia Price, the committee chair, said during a news conference. “We have urgent threats to our freedoms that could impact constituents in all of the districts we serve.”
The at-times raucous meeting will pave the way for the House and Senate to take up the resolutions early next year after lawmakers tabled the measures last January. Democrats previously said the move was standard practice, given that amendments are typically introduced in odd-numbered years. But Republican Minority Leader Todd Gilbert said Wednesday the committee should not have delved into the amendments before next year’s legislative session. He said the resolutions, particularly the abortion amendment, need further vetting.
“No one who is still serving remembers it being done in this way ever,” Gilbert said after the meeting. “Certainly not for something this important. This is as big and weighty an issue as it gets.”
The Democrats’ legislative lineup comes after Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, to the dismay of voting-rights advocates, rolled back a process to restore people’s civil rights after they completed sentences for felonies. Virginia is the only state that permanently bans anyone convicted of a felony from voting unless a governor restores their rights.
“This amendment creates a process that is bounded by transparent rules and criteria that will apply to everybody — it’s not left to the discretion of a single individual,” Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, the patron of the voting rights resolution, which passed along party lines, said at the news conference.
Though Democrats have sparred with the governor over their legislative agenda, constitutional amendments put forth by lawmakers do not require his signature, allowing the Democrat-led House and Senate to bypass Youngkin’s blessing.
Instead, the General Assembly must pass proposed amendments twice in at least two years, with a legislative election sandwiched between each statehouse session. After that, the public can vote by referendum on the issues. The cumbersome process will likely hinge upon the success of all three amendments on Democrats’ ability to preserve their edge in the House and Senate, where they hold razor-thin majorities.
It’s not the first time lawmakers have attempted to champion the three amendments. Republicans in a House subcommittee killed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights in 2022, a year after the measure passed in a Democrat-led House. The same subcommittee also struck down legislation supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal an amendment from 2006 banning marriage equality.
On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers voted 16-5 in favor of legislation protecting same-sex marriage, with four Republicans supporting the resolution.
“To say the least, voters enacted this (amendment) in 2006, and we have had 100,000 voters a year become of voting age since then,” said Del. Mark Sickles, who sponsored the amendment as one of the first openly gay men serving in the General Assembly. “Many people have changed their opinions of this as the years have passed.”
A constitutional amendment protecting abortion previously passed the Senate in 2023 but died in a Republican-led House. On Wednesday, the amendment passed on party lines.
If successful, the resolution proposed by House Majority Leader Charniele Herring would be part of a growing trend of reproductive rights-related ballot questions given to voters. Since 2022, 18 questions have gone before voters across the U.S., and they have sided with abortion rights advocates 14 times.
The voters have approved constitutional amendments ensuring the right to abortion until fetal viability in nine states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Vermont. Voters also passed a right-to-abortion measure in Nevada in 2024, but it must be passed again in 2026 to be added to the state constitution.
As lawmakers debated the measure, roughly 18 members spoke. Mercedes Perkins, at 38 weeks pregnant, described the importance of women making decisions about their own bodies. Rhea Simon, another Virginia resident, anecdotally described how reproductive health care shaped her life.
Then all at once, more than 50 people lined up to speak against the abortion amendment.
“Let’s do the compassionate thing and care for mothers and all unborn children,” resident Sheila Furey said.
The audience gave a collective “Amen,” followed by a round of applause.
___
Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.
___
Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative.
NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump says he will nominate anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, putting him in charge of a massive agency that oversees everything from drug, vaccine and food safety to medical research and the social safety net programs Medicare and Medicaid.
“For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social site announcing the appointment. Kennedy, he said, would “Make America Great and Healthy Again!”
Kennedy, a former Democrat who ran as an independent in this year’s presidential race, abandoned his bid after striking a deal to give Trump his endorsement with a promise to have a role in health policy in the administration.
He and Trump have since become good friends, with Kennedy frequently receiving loud applause at Trump’s rallies.
The expected appointment was first reported by Politico Thursday.
A longtime vaccine skeptic, Kennedy is an attorney who has built a loyal following over several decades of people who admire his lawsuits against major pesticide and pharmaceutical companies. He has pushed for tighter regulations around the ingredients in foods.
With the Trump campaign, he worked to shore up support among young mothers in particular, with his message of making food healthier in the U.S., promising to model regulations imposed in Europe. In a nod to Trump’s original campaign slogan, he named the effort “Make America Healthy Again.”
It remains unclear how that will square with Trump’s history of deregulation of big industries, including food. Trump pushed for fewer inspections of the meat industry, for example.
Kennedy’s stance on vaccines has also made him a controversial figure among Democrats and some Republicans, raising question about his ability to get confirmed, even in a GOP-controlled Senate. Kennedy has espoused misinformation around the safety of vaccines, including pushing a totally discredited theory that childhood vaccines cause autism.
He also has said he would recommend removing fluoride from drinking water. The addition of the material has been cited as leading to improved dental health.
HHS has more than 80,000 employees across the country. It houses the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the National Institutes of Health.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine nonprofit group, Children’s Health Defense, currently has a lawsuit pending against a number of news organizations, among them The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy took leave from the group when he announced his run for president but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
