Sen. Webb: 'Give me a chance'
GRAYSON Sen. Robin Webb, who just last week was the lone Democrat representing rural Kentuckians, said she never expected her party switch to garner so much attention.
Webb, who has represented back-country counties in Frankfort since the 1990s, has been the center of both praise and contempt after announcing she would be joining the Republican Party last week.
Often voting in line with Republican legislature and sponsoring bills with bi-partisan support throughout her decades in the General Assembly, Webb said she didn't anticipate her announcement to be a surprise, or that it was worthy of reaching the national stage.
'Oh heck no. I'm not that important,' Webb said when asked if she expected to appear in national and international headlines, including multiple talking segments on Fox News since the announcement.
That attention has brought Webb an array of reactions, a mixed bag of 'disappointment and meanness expressed — but it's overall been positive,' she said.
After decades in the legislature and at the near halfway point of her Senate term, Webb said she chose to join the Republican party to 'get it out of the way,' ahead of the General Assembly's interim budget session.
'I wanted to be starting legislative work in earnest and get it out of the way so it wouldn't be a distraction,' Webb said. 'I felt like it was the transparent and ethical thing to do, to not do it at the last minute.'
As mentioned, Webb's legislative history has often leaned conservative on issues related to gun, conservation and agricultural issues, which she said compounded onto a 'disconnect and rural divide' within Kentucky's Democratic Party.
'Of course there are a few issues we separate on,' Webb said of her former party. 'They just have a different demographic and I felt like we weren't being acknowledged.'
That division, Webb said, became more clear to her on energy, agricultural and social policies, although she said she still strived to remain 'party-blind when it comes to work.'
'Like I said, my votes are pretty consistent the past 25 years. Nothing much has really changed about me,' Webb reasoned. 'I landed where my votes and things have taken me.'
The Senator's district — Boyd, Carter, Greenup and Lewis County — has continued to trend from historically Democrat to Republican in local and national races, but Webb told The Daily Independent her decision to change parties was not swayed by future political races or aspirations.
'I felt like if my voting record was that far off, I would've probably had opposition,' Webb said, adding running as a Democrat candidate has never lessened her popularity in her district.
'I represent a Republican district and I won one of the most Republican counties in the state,' Webb said. 'To nip that myth, I do not have my eye on any other office. I like where I am and will run for state senate again.'
In response to statements of betrayal possibly felt by rural Democrats who officially have no representation in Frankfort, Webb said that shouldn't be the case as she will continue to legislate as she always has.
'They should feel like I'm being transparent and honest,' Webb said. 'I'm being true to myself and trying to be true to my people.
'I thank everybody who has put me where I am and all the party support I've received from both sides,' Webb said.
According to Webb, her party affiliation was not swayed by national politics, either, as she said 'nationally, I don't agree with anybody completely,' as her national focus has been preserving Second Amendment rights and preserving 'the Constitution as a whole.'
Webb's primary focus in the Senate, however, will continue to be on 'rural issues and voters.'
'I will continue to look at how to help my people and continue to look at their issues,' Webb said, '(and) try to bring our share of tax dollars and try to grow our economy.
'I'm still who I am and I hope that they give me a chance to do it,' Webb said to her voters — no matter their registration. 'My people mean more to me than anything and that's not going to change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
Advertisement Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. Advertisement 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. Advertisement If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Advertisement Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.
Boston Globe
29 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP can't include limits on Trump lawsuits in megabill, Senate official rules
'Individual district judges -- who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts -- are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairm of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out Trump's agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits. Advertisement The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law -- gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'It was nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored this nation since its founding.' Advertisement Senate Republicans sought to target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders that often block administration policies. Republicans in the House passed a measure in their version of their party's major policy bill to impose limits on federal judges' power to hold people in contempt. The actions came as federal judges have opened inquiries about whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating their orders in cases related to its aggressive deportation efforts. The decision on Sunday is part of a broader review MacDonough is conducting of the Republican-written legislation, which includes large tax cuts and reductions in social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. She ruled that Republicans could include in their bill a divisive measure that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., opposes that provision and has said he intends to introduce an amendment to try to kill the measure. MacDonough also rejected a GOP plan to push some of the costs of nutrition assistance, formerly known as SNAP, onto the states, a ruling that has sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She was expected to work into the week evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order, including whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. Advertisement If Republicans fail to remove the measures she deems out of order, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it. That would effectively kill the legislation since Democrats are solidly opposed. This article originally appeared in
30 minutes ago
New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary
NEW YORK -- New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary election Tuesday, a system that takes some explaining, even for New Yorkers who have used it before. Voters' understanding of how ranked choice works could play a role in which candidate comes out on top in a race that features former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, progressive upstart Zohran Mamdani and several other current and former public officials, including City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and City Comptroller Brad Lander, who was arrested last week at an immigration court. The system is based on a simple premise: Democracy works better if people aren't forced to make an all-or-nothing choice with their vote. Rather than pick just one candidate, voters get to rank several in order of preference. Even if a voter's top choice doesn't have enough support to win, their rankings of other candidates still play a role in determining the victor. The system is more complex than a traditional election, making it tough to forecast a winner. It could also take longer to get results. In New York City's version, voters get to rank up to five candidates, from first to last, on the ballot. If one candidate is the first choice of a majority of voters — more than 50% — that person wins the race outright, just like in a traditional election. If nobody hits that threshold, ranked choice analysis kicks in. Vote tabulation is done by computer in rounds. After the first round, the candidate in last place — the candidate ranked No. 1 by the fewest amount of people — is eliminated. The computer then looks at the ballots cast by people who ranked that candidate first, to see who they ranked second. Those people's votes are then redistributed to their second choices. That process then repeats. As more candidates are eliminated, voters' third, fourth and even fifth choices could potentially come into play. Rounds continue until there are only two candidates left. The one with the most votes wins. Eleven candidates are on the ballot in the Democratic mayoral primary. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams isn't one of them. He's a Democrat but is running as an independent. The Republican Party has already picked its nominee, Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa. The computerized process of tabulating votes takes little time, but it doesn't start right away. Polls close at 9 p.m. Tuesday. Within a few hours, preliminary results should give a picture of how the candidates are doing based on voters' first choices. The ranked choice tabulations, however, won't start until July 1 because the city needs to wait for the arrival of mail-in ballots. The July 1 tabulation could potentially give a clear picture of who won, but the result won't be official. Further rounds of ranked choice analysis will be done as additional absentee ballots come in until the board certifies the election July 15. This will be the second time New York City has used ranked choice in a mayoral primary. The first time, in 2021, things went haywire when elections officials neglected to clear test data from the tabulation program. That led to an inaccurate vote tally being reported until officials realized the error. Officials are hoping things go smoother this time. One benefit is that nobody 'wastes' their vote by picking an unpopular candidate as their first choice. Voters can rank someone they like No. 1, even if they suspect the candidate doesn't stand a chance. If that person is eliminated, voters still get a say in who wins based on their other rankings. Another benefit is that it's tough for someone to get elected without broad support. In a traditional election, it's possible for someone with fringe political views to win in a crowded field of candidates, even if they are deeply disliked by a majority of voters. That's theoretically less likely in a ranked choice system. A candidate could get the largest share of first-choice votes but still lose to someone who is the second or third choice of a large number of people. The system is tough to grasp. It requires voters to do more research. It also makes races less predictable. Transparency and trust are also potential problems. Ordinarily, candidates, the public and news organizations can see votes coming in, precinct by precinct, and know exactly who is leading and where their support comes from. Under the ranked choice system, the process of redistributing votes is done by computer. Outside groups will have a harder time evaluating whether the software sorted the ranked votes accurately. That's a challenge for news organizations, like The Associated Press, that analyze vote tallies and attempt to report a winner before the count is complete. There may be instances when candidates who seem to have a comfortable lead in first-place votes on election night lose because relatively few voters rank them as their second or third choice. That could lead to people questioning the results.
