"Andrews views the broader landscape of Trump’s second term with profound alarm. She sees a state and a country buckling under the weight of “chaotic” economic and social policies. “I’m deeply concerned about the direction this country is moving in,” she says. “Gas prices are high. Grocery prices are high. There’s an affordability crisis in housing and in childcare. We don’t have jobs to meet the needs of folks who are graduating from technical colleges or from four-year universities and, on top of that, we’re witnessing unprecedented corruption in the federal government.” Her proposed remedies to break the fever include ending partisan gerrymandering, implementing term limits, banning members of Congress from trading stocks or becoming lobbyists and overturning the Citizens United supreme court ruling to purge dark money from politics."

 Guardian report, even before Graham croaked Dr. Annie Andrews was the SC Dem candidate for Senate. Now she runs against sister of smooth slime. A quack awakened the political imperative within the heart of this South Carolina pediatrician - 

Dr Annie Andrews says her ‘mission remains the same’ as she now aims to unseat Darline Graham, sister of the late Republican senator 

[...] “My opponent will change but my mission remains the same and that’s what I’m staying focused on.”

That mission was galvanised by the two decades that Andrews spent on the frontlines of what she describes as America’s “broken” public healthcare system, including 15 years at a children’s hospital in Charleston. The experience ultimately compelled her out of the medical ward and into the political arena.

“Over those years, I started to understand that the problems my patients and their families were facing were policy problems. These were systemic problems with systemic solutions and what we needed to do was start electing people who inherently care about South Carolina’s kids and families and care about solving those problems.”

She recalls: “In the aftermath of Trump being re-elected, the day that I decided to consider this seriously was the day RFK Jr was nominated to lead HHS because, as a paediatrician, that’s the worst-case scenario for America’s public health system.”

For Andrews, the elevation of Kennedy – who spent decades amplifying baseless anti-vaccine views – is not merely a political affront but a direct threat to the lives of the children she treats.

“Doctors are trained, when they take a history from a patient, to ask if their immunisations are up to date. Twenty years ago, when I started asking that question, the answer was almost universally yes.

“Now when I ask that question, I brace myself for the response because bad actors like RFK Jr, [quack, quack] grifters and conspiracy theorists have been peddling in these anti-vaccine conspiracy theories for decades [quack] and it has seeped into the consciousness of many parents in America who now don’t know who they can trust for solid evidence-based medical information about decisions for their children’s health and it’s deeply frustrating to watch as this has evolved.”

The consequences are brutal. Measles cases in the US have hit a 35-year high, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, with more than 90% of reported infections occurring among the unvaccinated or those whose vaccination status is unknown.

 [...] 

Indeed, for Andrews, the triage urgently required in Washington is clear. She views the impending Medicaid budget cuts signed into law by Trump as a devastating threat to rural South Carolinians. She advocates for defending Medicare, lowering prescription drug costs through federal negotiating power, and gradually introducing a public option to force private insurers into offering more competitive, less profit-driven plans.

And her definition of the public health emergency extends to gun violence. She speaks with the authority of a doctor who has “cared for children with bullet holes in them” and “stood at the bedside of a child who has been shot and held the parent’s hand, understanding that these are preventable injuries, these are policy choices that have been made by our lawmakers”.

While acknowledging that gun control may not be the primary issue driving voters to the polls in 2026, she insists: “I will not stand on the sidelines as gun violence continues to be the leading cause of death for kids in South Carolina and kids all across this country. But the good news is the vast majority of Americans agree with me. Over 90% of Americans believe we need commonsense solutions like universal background checks.”

[,,,] Her proposed remedies to break the fever include ending partisan gerrymandering, implementing term limits, banning members of Congress from trading stocks or becoming lobbyists and overturning the Citizens United supreme court ruling to purge dark money from politics.

Andrews has spent a year building a statewide campaign apparatus, raising funds and recruiting more than 2,000 volunteers. This week, she gained the endorsement of Her Bold Move, a national support network for women running for political office. [...]

Not a Medicare for All advocate, but championing a public option; she is short of a certified progressive, and the Dem Socialists advocate a unicameral Congress with the Senate abolished, and Andrews is silent about that. So, good overall, but in South Carolina a ray of sunshine in a stale ranging tightly from Lindsey crap to Clyburn crap.

As Guardian noted in closing the item:

South Carolina is a stronghold for Republicans with state elections historically decided by double-digit margins. In 2020, the Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison shattered national fundraising records, amassing a war chest of more than $100m, yet still lost to Graham by a crushing 10 percentage points.

Clyburn is well up in years, set in ways, and the fact is Harrison was a Clyburn pick and hence got money and hence lost the contest. Some Dems need to think anew. 

Or keep losing, the Clyburn way or the highway. Awaken, please. The fish fry is yesterday, Andrews is today, and we hope she is tomorrow in the Senate. 

(The Crabgrass headline is a run-together of two item paragraphs)

===========================

Her Bold Move, (https://www.herboldmove.org/about-us), the national support network endorsing Andrews is not explicit, but it seems some women thought Emily's List needed a second front, of possibly more young and open thinkers. HBM 2026 endorsement images suggest extreme longevity is not considered a plus to these advocates. That's a Crabgrass guess, but Emily's List did go extreme super-top-heavy on Hillary in the Hillary vs Trump days, so something shaking differently is a sound development. Something other than Clintonian hash might just have a better, fresher flavor.

They seem Democrats, per checking the web on those already holding a political office, none dessicated, judging from the photos. Pelosi not on the endorsement board nor endorsed. One wonders, do Republicans have a second front female advocacy thing, younger than Susan Collins, etc. - or even one at all?

UPDATE: Emily's List might face a third front - WFTW

https://www.womenforthewin.org/ 

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/wftw 

Of interest, 

Colleen J. Davis

chairs the Her Bold Move endorsement board, and is a key person with WFTW, with this https://www.womenforthewin.org/meet-the-team bio 

Colleen J. Davis has been in the entertainment industry for two decades. In that time, she has worked on television series of all genres including soap operas, reality, live events, children’s programming, & daily talk shows. Over the past few years, Colleen has made the transition from creative producer to clearance producer where she oversees various legal aspects of a production. Politics have always been an important part of Colleen’s life. With a firefighter father & a postal worker mother, local elections had direct impacts on her family. From a young age, she was taught the importance of voting & has still never missed a single chance to submit her ballot. Colleen splits her time between L.A. & her native Seattle. When not working, she can be found traveling or cheering on her favorite soccer teams: the Seattle Sounders, the O.L. Reign, & the U.S. Women’s National Team. 

Davis appears to have no wikipedia page (a Delaware Colleen Davis office holder does, so don't be confused). However, https://grokipedia.com/page/Colleen_J_Davis notes her activity with both of the above mentioned activist networks. Crabgrass gets a feeling that Emily's List is establishment-entrenced Dem party, these two networks being distinct and different.

Schumer might feel far, far more comfortable with Emily's List. Vice versa.

FURTHER UPDATE: US citizens learning of Andrews for the first time might want to contribute directly to her campaign, and not via either of the two activist nets.

search = Dr Annie Andrews campaign page --  links to 

https://drannieandrews.com/platform/ 

See, also, https://drannieandrews.com/the-new-york-times-the-doctor-will-seek-your-vote-now/

South Carolina residents probably already know much about Andrews. And await general election early voting to cast a ballot in comfort, no lines, no ICE. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Andrews_(physician) 

WANTING TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION: "EMILYs List Endorses Dr. Annie Andrews in South Carolina's U.S. Senate Race".  

 So even the traditionalists are Andrews supporters, which matters.

 

Sideline Susie.

 If you care: https://sportsbyline.com/nbc-sideline-reporter-michele-tafoya-click-to-listen/

Ambitions beyond her doing a sideline interview or a report from the injury tent and you're screaming at your TV, show the field, show the fucking field!

Now ambitions beyond the sideline. Qualifications? That remains a question. But somebody who hates football while favoring "entertainment" decided sideline susies was a good idea. We've had them ever since. Tafoya was handed that ball, and ran with it.

UPDATE: A GOP view: 

After reading this Washington Examiner article, I'm not certain that Mike Lindell, the purveyor of MyPillow, is a Republican. If he is, he's a John McCain Gang of Eight type of Republican, not a movement conservative like Ted Cruz. I've vooted before for candidates who weren't movement conservatives up and down the ticket in Minnesota. I'll enthusiastically vote for Michelle Tafoya for U.S. Senate in the primary and in the general election if she wins the primary, which I think she will.

What can I say? 

UPDATE: Link. 

An early 2028 New Hampshire Presidential Preference Poll. Early polling is worth what you pay for it. Bright spots, neither Ted Craz nor Amy Klobuchar - as is reasonable - have traction.

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1982&context=survey_center_polls 

Realty seems to be a catching-on trend about Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom.

Mayor Pete is a technocrat from McKinsey, and that will not get anyone decent healthcare. Why he's so high on the poll, you tell me. I do not understand it.

Mark Kelly doing well - trending - is a positive sign. Politically distant from AOC and Bernie, but solid and trustworthy. He's been who he's been, and you need not worry about any surprises about anything with Kelly.

Again, should anybody expect vigorous healthcare reform efforts from McKinsey?

There is a Repubican part of the poll, and again Ted Cruz having no traction is a promising thing. Otherwise, Vance will be it. 

There is nationwide traction, while locally MinnPost headlines, " Minnesota progressives campaign on ‘Medicare for All’ as ranks of uninsured grow But moderate Democrats embrace less ambitious reforms to health coverage, splitting the party." - by Ana Radelat 07/21/2026

The MinnPost item sketches a picture:

WASHINGTON – Jake Johnson, a Democrat seeking to represent southern Minnesota in Congress, gingerly sidestepped a question at a town hall he hosted about whether he supported “Medicare for All.”

Johnson, a moderate who is trying to unseat Rep. Brad Finstad, R-1^st District, said at that event in New Richland that he sympathized with those who are struggling to afford health insurance and pay for medical costs. He said he supported “a strong public option to the health insurers we have now.”

That meant Johnson would support allowing Americans to purchase a healthcare plan offered by the federal government that would compete with private insurers.

But that proposal — aimed at countering the increasing cost of health insurance coverage that is driving up the number of uninsured — has been rejected by Democratic socialists and progressives who have notched impressive victories in primaries this year and made their mark in Minnesota through the DFL endorsement process.

From 2019: At Houston debate, Klobuchar opposes Medicare-for-All plans

They pan the “public option” and other reforms proposed by Johnson and other party centrists as ineffective solutions that would continue to allow insurers and pharmaceuticals to unfairly profit from pain and illness.

So, the debate over healthcare in this election year has caused a fissure in the Democratic Party in Minnesota and across the nation.

[...] Sometimes a Democratic candidate’s position on healthcare reform is based, at least in part, on how well the party has done in their district.

The 1^st Congressional District Johnson seeks to represent gave President Donald Trump 55% of the vote in 2025. 

But in the neighboring 2^nd Congressional District, former Vice President Kamala Harris won with  52% of the vote, and, unlike Johnson, the endorsed DFL candidate, Matt Little, is a vigorous proponent of Medicare for All.

[...] Little said if he wins the 2nd District seat he would support a new bill, sponsored in the U.S. House by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would guarantee comprehensive healthcare to every U.S. resident as a human right, eliminating all premiums, deductibles and copayments.

The legislation would end the leading role of private insurers in providing most of the nation’s healthcare coverage, although they would be allowed to sell supplemental plans. 

[,,,] Little, who like Sanders considers himself a progressive, said the time is ripe politically to once again try to establish a “single payer” system similar to those of other industrialized nations that most Republicans decry as low- quality “socialized” medicine.

“I think we are in a defining moment right now in the country,” he said, citing the Trump administration’s cuts to Medicaid and the GOP Congress’ failure to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that helped many Americans, including about 90,000 Minnesotans, purchase health insurance.

 [...] Like Little, state Rep. Kaela Berg is running for the 2^nd District congressional seat that is now held by Rep. Angie Craig, who is running for U.S. Senate.

Like Little, Berg is running as a progressive.

But unlike Little, Berg is flexible when it comes to proposed reforms to the nation’s healthcare system.

Berg said she supports the public option “and anything that gives people more health coverage.”

“It’s great to say Medicare for All and energize people,” Berg said. But she said that “we need to have (more) coverage now, whatever that looks like … while we continue to fight for Medicare for All.” 

 [...] And organized labor is split over Medicare for All, with some unions, including the United Auto Workers and the Association of Flight Attendants, supporting the idea and others strongly opposed because healthcare has been one of organized labor’s most potent bargaining chips.

The third Democrat running for Craig’s seat, state Sen. Matt Klein, is a  physician, an internist who works for the Mayo Clinic.

He said he is a “firm believer that we need to get to universal healthcare” and if elected to Congress would “support whatever bill advances that.”

But he stopped short of backing Medicare for All, saying he would prefer the implementation of the public option.

The American Medical Association is firmly opposed to Medicare for All, saying it would limit patient choice and physician autonomy. The American Hospital Association and other powerful medical groups also strongly oppose the idea of a government-run, single payer plan.

Still, more than 100 U.S. House Democrats, including Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-5^th District, and Betty McCollum, D-4^th District, are co-sponsors of  Jayapal’s Medicare for All bill and Sen. Tina Smith has co-sponsored Sanders’. But Rep. Kelly Morrison, D-3^rd District, who like Klein is a physician, has not co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation.

 [...] The Democrats running for retiring Sen. Tina Smith’s seat — Craig and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan — are also split over how to achieve the goal of universal health coverage.

“This is not working,” Flanagan said of the nation’s healthcare system. “It is broken and I think people are ready (for Medicare for All).”

While noting the healthcare overhaul is impossible unless Democrats hold the White House and both chambers of Congress, Flanagan said defaulting to support of a public option for now with the hopes of working toward Medicare for All would not work.

“You should not start at the bottom because you are going to get even less,” she said.

Craig, meanwhile, last week introduced the Medicare-X Choice Act, which would create a public option in the nation’s Affordable Care Act exchanges.

Craig said the public option would “give the insurance companies some competition,” leading to lower premiums and better coverage for all.

Yeah, the bastards would compete over highest percentage of denied coverage, as they have under present law.

Let them compete for supplemental plans, but there, expect them to still be denying coverage to boost the bottom line profits they would want to still extract, but at lower levels than they are permitted to extract now. Final item paragraphs:

 Since Democrats are split over Medicare for All, there’s little chance a single-payer system will be established in the United States anytime soon.

But a Democratic takeover of the U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate could result in a rush of Democratic healthcare legislation and a vigorous debate over how to reverse the increase in uninsured Americans, even as any substantial change would have to wait for a Democratic president.

That ending is true enough. But if the people are ready to send populist progressive candidates in ever larger numbers to Congress, the wrestle is set and only improvement can come of it, however long the timeline. Do it.

Of interest, over the last 24hrs Google Analytics shows the bulk of Crabgrass readers are from the US. A distant second, Norway. And we should lust for the plan they have. Beyond a $200- $300 copay, up front, the rest for a year is free, as needed. 

See: here, and here. A way to view that, Norwegians are comparatively a civilized nation. With a healthcare perspective not that of the most predatory highwayman imaginable (arguably A/K/A that of UnitedHealth).

You want rankings? Try this. You'll have to go down the list somewhat to find the US, and the opening two paragraphs may be viewed as hinting so:

Health

These nations prove that health is the ultimate wealth. By investing in universal care and cutting-edge research, they make it clear that quality medical support should be treated as a right, not a luxury. They build populations that are resilient and health infrastructure that is prepared to tackle any threat. Their focus on healthy life expectancy and universal coverage makes them the gold standard for modern, compassionate living.

The Health category is based on an equally weighted average of three subcategories: Mortality & Longevity, Public Health Preparedness and Healthcare. For more information on how we rank, read the Best Countries methodology.

 

You look at the opening image of this video, one man smiling the other not, and you may wonder based on what is reported, "Trump approves nuclear agreement that may allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium," was Epstein working for the Saudis and do they hold comprimising images.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eWnRdi-KBM

 

 

Yet again, tail wags dog. + Angie made their list.

 https://www.aipac.org/press-release/israel-defense-fiscal-year-27-ndaa

 

Angie on the list - right there with Emmer and Stauber - the sulfide mining twins. : https://candidates.aipacpac.org/page/featured/

Check that link, search Angie's name. Seach for Emmer and Stauber. Click when you find them and see how AIPAC touts each.

AND - The bastards tout this list of scalps on their tentpole:

They go after better people than they sponsor; i.e. a force for their way or the highway.

UPDATE: Of course, you could, instead support and embrace Bibi led Gaza genocide. 

FURTHER: Extended parallel bragging of the dog being wagged. 

 

Further coverage of the Trump folks killing habitat protection under the Endangered Species Act. Hat tip to Sorensen, for the links.

First, Sorensen has been journaling in Minnesota, has moved to South Dakota, and has moved her publishing to substack: https://bluestemprairie.substack.com/ 

Her most recent post is about the Trump savaging of endangered species habitat protection, a move Trump aims at enabling developers into otherwise protected lands to exploit rather than protect. Trump acts, presumably with cronies in mind, not the environment nor living critters, about which he likely doesn't give two shits.

Sorensen's post, here. Readers who check her substack will note the chance to help Sorensen monetize her journalism, so she doesn't say, "Fuck it," and quit. Her work merits it's current ongoing status, into the future, so check it and possibly help.

THAT SAID -

Sorensen links to one item and republishes another, so Crabgrass goes to the originals. One a radio podcast, the other a text.

Native America Calling seems from the one item to be a call-in, with guests, or at least so for: https://www.nativeamericacalling.com/monday-july-20-2026-tribes-sue-after-feds-redefine-harm-in-endangered-species-act-upend-decades-of-land-conservation/

https://stateline.org on July 20 posted: The feds no longer protect endangered species habitat. States say they can’t pick up the slack. -- Few wildlife agencies have the authority to regulate habitat under state laws.

 Sorensen republishes the full item, Crabgrass will extract from the start:

The Trump administration is removing protections from the key places where endangered species live, saying states can keep the areas safe. 

But experts say states aren’t equipped for the task.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration finalized a major change to the Endangered Species Act, rolling back protections for the forests, wetlands, deserts and other critical habitats that many plants and animals rely on.

The new rule will open many landscapes to development, logging, mining and oil and gas drilling. Wildlife officials — in both conservative and liberal states — had expressed strong concerns about the proposal, saying it would threaten their plans to safeguard endangered species. 

But federal officials framed the decision as a move to give “freedom” to state leaders to manage wildlife without burdensome federal regulations. 

States that wish to continue protecting habitats can do so under state law, the Interior Department and other federal agencies wrote in their lengthy new regulations. 

But legal experts and wildlife veterans say that almost no states have endangered species laws on the books that allow state officials to prevent habitat destruction in the name of saving wildlife. 

While many states have laws to stop poaching and direct killing of wildlife, the protection of nesting trees, spawning streams and other resources has long fallen to the federal Endangered Species Act and the agencies that enforce it. 

“It’s not going to be a situation where the states can easily just jump in here and fill the void,” said Robert Anderson, who served as solicitor for the Department of the Interior during the Biden administration. “It’s not going to help states, and it’s going to make it worse for the species.”

Many wildlife experts also noted that state wildlife agencies are already underfunded as it is. Taking on the massive regulatory system that prevents developers and extractive industries from destroying critical habitat would require far more resources than those agencies have available.

A coalition of environmental groups and tribal nations have filed lawsuits challenging the federal rollback. 

The ‘harm’ rule

On July 10, the federal departments of Interior and Commerce announced they had finalized a rule rescinding the longstanding definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. 

For decades, federal officials have scrutinized logging projects that would cut old-growth trees where owls build their nests, and agriculture operations that diverted water from streams where salmon return to spawn. 

But now, the feds are pivoting to a much more limited definition of “harm.” Only actions that directly injure or kill the animals themselves will be considered a violation of endangered species law.

[... Quoting] Karrigan Börk, a law professor and director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the UC Davis Institute of the Environment. “If you drain a salmon river during the summer when the salmon aren’t in it, ultimately it has the same impact of killing off that whole species.”

In its announcement, the Trump administration framed the move as restoring the “original intent” of the Endangered Species Act and reducing regulations that punished people for “indirect or speculative impacts” to wildlife.

The Interior Department did not respond to a Stateline interview request. 

A 2019 study published in Conservation Science and Practice of species added to the list of endangered species from 1975 to 2017 found that only 17% of them faced threats from direct killing, while 81% faced habitat loss. 

“It’s common sense that we can’t save a species unless we save the places that they live,” said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife, a nonprofit conservation group that is planning to sue the federal government over the change. “This is an attempted death blow to the Endangered Species Act.”

Some industry groups praised the move. The American Petroleum Institute and other oil and gas groups said in public comments that they supported the effort to limit habitat protections, but expressed concern that the Trump administration’s move to rescind the “harm” definition without issuing a new interpretation could allow a future president or the courts to issue a more expansive reading of the law.

It is really hard to love the fossil fuel giants as Trump does, where their money was a springboard to his second term, and such. Damned hard. Impossible for Crabgrass.

continuing-

[...] 

Going to court

Last week, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the “harm” rule. A pair of tribes in Washington state filed their own lawsuit, asserting that the decision will infringe on tribal fisheries that the federal government is obligated to protect under treaty agreements. 

Some legal experts expect a flood of lawsuits over specific proposed projects.

“Courts are going to have to figure out on a case-by-case basis what’s covered and what’s not covered,” said Börk, the UC Davis professor. “It’s going to lead to widespread confusion over the next decades over what’s illegal or legal, and it’s going to make it harder for developers and landowners to know whether they have liability or not.”

And the authors note litigation could reach the Supremes, who'd possibly fuck things up as badly as they've fucked things against the stench of money in politics. Then a future administration would have a big rock to push uphill if some phony "Constitutional" property rights thing gets cooked from litigation that billion dollar corporate money prevails over a few "extincted" species where others, of course, exist. It could be that bad

A new Dem administration and Congress could amend the statute if winning both in 2028, but that would still leave the Supremes to their will to impose bad law.

================================ 

Which is a point to segue to EmptyWheel, here, which today deals with the Impeachment possibilities against sitting "Justices." It's worth the time to read and it is building commentator content as this post is being written and finished.