In politics, you sometimes just do what you can.

All 100 duly chosen and sworn U.S. senators understood why the Senate met for a week at the end of September.

Yes there was the college sports bill. Yes there was the confirmation of Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling. Yes there was a big hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith.

But you’d be badly mistaken if you thought both sides were really there to hammer out a package to bring down the cost of living for Americans.

Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the senators.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: A GUIDE TO THE COLLEGE SPORTS VOTE AND SENATE’S OHIO SHOWDOWN

You are correct to say that Democrats blocked two bills that Republicans say voters really want. One was a measure to diminish the costs consumers pay for data centers and a plan to restrict stock trades by lawmakers. The latter bill even included a voter ID requirement – crucial to the GOP and its base. But Republican senators knew that Democrats wouldn’t accept these proposals.

This was about politics.

And Democratic senators wouldn’t accept any of the GOP’s legislative propositions, either.

So let’s start with the Ratepayer Protection Act.

Both sides know that voters are tripped out about AI and utterly losing it when it comes to data centers. An internal GOP memo in August revealed that the party was especially leery of what this meant for Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Husted to the Senate last year to succeed Vice President JD Vance. Husted helped foster development of data centers as an official back in the Buckeye State.

So, the final week of the Senate’s session before the midterms crawled with politics.

REPUBLICANS FEAR THEY ‘HAVEN’T DONE A DAMN THING’ TO LOWER PRICES AHEAD OF MIDTERM RECKONING

Republicans aimed to curb skyrocketing utility costs associated with the construction of data centers.

«(People) ought to be guaranteed no electricity bills will go up by a cent because of a data center,» said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. «It sends a clear message that these AI companies and these data centers can’t just come into local communities and strip mine out (land). Raise the electricity rates. Kick people off the grid. Take their water.»

But Democrats say the bill didn’t compel compliance by AI firms. This was just a suggestion that those who build the data centers help foot some of the bill.

«It is a sham. A charade because it has no enforcement,» said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

«Everything in that bill can already be done by a state regulator. Or it can already be done by a data center developer. And the bill requires nothing of them,» argued Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

I pressed Kaine on if «something was better than nothing.»

He disagreed.

«No. You shouldn’t trick people. And this is not even something,» replied Kaine. «It’s nothing,»

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., piled on with, «The Ratepayer Protection Act is a fraud. It does not require any protections at all. While Americans are demanding real guardrails on AI and data centers, Republicans are offering a toothless messaging bill.»

The bill is laced with midterm politics. Democrats claim Republicans called the vote to throw a lifeline to Husted.

Many Senate Republicans were ready for the Senate to leave town for the midterms. But they hedged their bets around the data center bill. And, Husted.

«Can you say 110 precent this is not a vote to help Jon Husted in Ohio?» yours truly inquired of Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.

«I think it will help him,» replied Hoeven. Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., agreed with Hoeven.

«The one thing I’ll just say is that this is clearly a political ploy,» said Kim. «This is not something that’s good for the American people. But it’s certainly good for Sen. Husted.»

DATA CENTERS COULD BE THE SLEEPER ISSUE OF THE 2026 MIDTERM ELECTIONS

The tilt between Husted and former Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is one of the nation’s most contentious Senate contests.

«I don’t think that there’s a secret that Sen. Husted is trying to pass a piece of legislation so he could go home and run a campaign ad,» said Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M.

Husted conceded as much.

«We gave everybody a chance to do something about affordability and the Democrats blocked it. So we’ll go campaign on it,» said Husted.

So yes. The Senate’s last week of session was about the midterms.

«Has there ever been a late September or October before an election that wasn’t all politics?» asked Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.

The evolving positions on the data center bill by Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., may be an example of that.

Welch was a yea when asked about the legislation on September 23 , after it overwhelmingly cleared the House.

«I support it and I’d be glad to vote on it,» said Welch.

But the Vermont Democrat flipped to nay when the issue approached a roll call vote on the floor.

«Why did you change? I asked Welch.

«Well, two things. One, they won’t allow us to have an amendment. And the problem with this bill is that it has no teeth,» he replied.

So the question is whether the sides prefer action. Or, if they’d rather have the issue. In fact it could be argued that Husted may have scored some political capital, deploying the blocked bill as a foil in an effort to contrast himself to Democrats.

«It ought to be something that should be a no brainer here on the floor of the Senate,» said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

TRUMP’S DATA CENTER PUSH FRACTURES CONGRESS AS LOCAL ANGER EXPLODES: ‘GRASPING AT STRAWS’

It’s rare that competitive Senate contests pivot on a solitary issue. And certainly an individual debate or vote. Democratic Maine Senate nominee Troy Jackson is pushing Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on her vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. It was one of the most factious confirmation battles in history. But Collins won reelection in 2020. That vote was eight years ago.

A vote like the one on the data center measure just before the election can plant a seed in the mind of voters. And since Republicans were struggling on affordability – and then AI and data centers emerged as an issue – forcing this vote was probably the best political play the GOP had at its disposal. In campaigns, you do all you can.

Let’s say for a moment that Husted loses narrowly to Brown in two weeks. And maybe Republicans would have held the Senate had Husted prevailed. Perhaps exit polling reveals that voters wished Republicans had done more on affordability. Party insiders would then accuse the Senate GOP brass of political malpractice by denying Husted a chance to make his case.

It was the best Husted could do. And the best Senate Republicans could do.

It may not work. But at least Republicans can say they did what they could.

politics, midterm elections, senate, democrats senate, john thune, chuck schumer, republicans elections

El primer debate presidencial aumentó la incertidumbre en Brasil. A solo seis días del balotaje del domingo próximo, el presidente Lula da Silva acortó aún más la desventaja sobre su rival de derecha Flávio Bolsonaro, según los últimos sondeos divulgados este lunes.

La diferencia a favor del primogénito de Jair Bolsonaro entra en el margen de error en dos de las tres encuestas conocidas hoy.

Un sondeo de BTG/Nexus reveló que el candidato del Partido Liberal (PL) cuenta con el 50,3% de los votos válidos (que excluyen los sufragios en blanco, nulos e indecisos) contra el 49,7% de Lula. La ventaja a favor del actual senador es de tan solo 0,6% frente a los 3,2 puntos del sondeo anterior divulgado el martes pasado.

Otra encuesta de Atlas/Bloomberg muestra a Bolsonaro con el 51,1% contra el 48,9% de Lula (con una diferencia de 2,2 puntos).

Un tercer sondeo de PoderData/Aya dio a Bolsonaro una ventaja de cuatro puntos (52% a 48%), el único que se muestra por fuera del margen de error.

La encuestas fueron realizadas antes del debate transmitido por la TV Band.

“Flávio aún tiene cierta ventaja, porque está numéricamente por delante, pero principalmente porque sabemos que la abstención tiende a perjudicar un poco más la candidatura de Lula. Históricamente, la abstención se concentra más entre los votantes de bajos ingresos y con menor poder adquisitivo, donde Lula recibe significativamente más votos que Flávio”, dijo Marcelo Tokarski, director general de Nexus.

En la primera vuelta, celebrada el 4 de este mes, Bolsonaro venció por dos puntos (47% a 45%) sobre Lula. Ambos candidatos mantendrán un segundo debate este viernes, dos días antes del segundo turno.

Quién ganó el debate

El debate, el primero de la campaña electoral, estuvo plagado de chicanas, denuncias y acusaciones cruzadas de corrupción.

Las propuestas quedaron opacadas ante la profusión de imputaciones y recriminaciones. En el cierre del debate el griterío de la platea, colmada de asesores y simpatizantes, interrumpió las consideraciones finales de ambos candidatos.

En un principio, Bolsonaro se mostró más seguro y logró desestabilizar a Lula, pero el actual presidente se recompuso y logró emparejar el desarrollo.

El analista brasileño Rodrigo Toniol destacó a TN que el debate fue seguido de forma masiva en Brasil. “Hoy por la mañana, en las calles, este es uno de los temas de conversación”, indicó.

Según afirmó, “en términos generales, fue un debate violento, absolutamente carente de propuestas y viciado por contenidos diseñados específicamente para convertirse en fragmentos virales en las redes sociales”.

Silva

FIRST ON — A Black conservative filmmaker is challenging the Smithsonian to explain why his documentary questioning progressive views on race has yet to secure a public screening at its African American history museum, which has previously showcased films examining systemic racism.

«White Guilt,» directed and co-produced by Eli Steele, is based on a book by his father, noted Black conservative academic Shelby Steele. The younger Steele, who is Black, Jewish and deaf, has drawn on his own experiences to challenge prevailing views on race and identity.

The documentary argues that White guilt over America’s racial history, along with fears of being labeled racist, has pushed institutions to prioritize racial identity over individual merit.

The dispute comes as the Smithsonian faces mounting pressure from President Donald Trump and his administration over allegations of ideological bias in its portrayal of American history. The White House has accused the institution of promoting progressive narratives and threatened to restrict federal support, escalating a broader battle over whose perspectives are represented in the nation’s museums.

SMITHSONIAN AMERICA 250 EXHIBIT FEATURES 3X MORE LIBERAL ITEMS THAN CONSERVATIVE ONES

Steele provided communications to Digital showing that the museum declined his proposed screening dates and offered him a private rental option instead. The filmmaker says the museum has yet to respond to his request for alternative dates for a public screening.

«The film is professionally shot, the quality is there. A comparable film that they’ve shown is ’13th,’ which itself is a very controversial film,» Steele told Digital. «So that’s the big question we have here: Do we have viewpoint diversity or do we not? Do you have to be the right kind of Black to be shown at the Smithsonian?»

«That’s the big question that we have to address in this room. But I hope that it’s not about any of that,» he continued.

The filmmaker has questioned the apparent decision to not screen his film, given that the museum has allowed numerous other films with more progressive messages to have public screenings, though stopped short of accusing the museum of ideological discrimination.

«13th,» the film mentioned by Steele, is featured in educational and public programming at the NMAAHC. It argues that the 13th Amendment’s exception permitting forced labor as punishment for a crime enabled racial control to persist after slavery by allegedly criminalizing Black behavior.

Other films shown by the NMAAHC in public screenings include such titles as «Hidden Figures» in 2016, «I Am Not Your Negro» in 2017 and «Faith in Blackness: An Exploration of AfroLatine Spirituality» in 2023, the latter presented in partnership with the Smithsonian Folklife Festival.

LIBERAL FACULTY STILL HUGELY OUTNUMBER CONSERVATIVES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: REPORT

While Steele was hesitant to speculate as to why his film hadn’t been scheduled for a public screening, other Black conservatives saw the museum’s handling of his request as part of a familiar pattern.

«Academia is not what it was years ago when I went to graduate school, when it touted itself as a marketplace for ideas,» Carol Swain, a retired Black conservative professor and prominent media commentator, told Digital. «There would always be a token conservative included. And I have found over the years that conservatives were tolerated less and less. And if they were black, at some point they were not tolerated at all.»

«When you look at an institution like the Smithsonian, that’s supposed to belong to all of us, to all Americans, you would think that it would be open to divergent views,» Swain, who spent her career at institutions such as Princeton and Vanderbilt, continued. «That is not what we find.»

Wall Street Journal columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jason Riley shared a similar perspective.

FORMER DEMOCRATIC STAFFERS, DEI LEADERS SHAPE SMITHSONIAN LEADERSHIP AMID POLITICAL FIRESTORM

«I think the type of people who run the Smithsonian Institute are part of the broader liberal intelligentsia in this country that prevails in academia, prevails and the media. And this is not a point of view. That they take kindness to,» Riley told Digital. «In fact, this film takes some rather direct shots at that group of people. So there might be some self-interest here. It might cut a little too close to these folks.»

«I do think that they have a vested interest in putting forward a narrative out there to advance a political agenda. And I think that’s what’s really going on here at places like the Smithsonian,» Riley continued, citing his experience as a Black commentator who has spent his career sparring with White liberals.

TRUMP V. SMITHSONIAN: A TIMELINE OF HOW THE WHITE HOUSE FIGHT OVER ‘WOKE’ HISTORY UNFOLDED

Both Riley and Swain argued that viewing the film could do a service to White progressives by challenging their assumptions about race and forcing them to confront whether their preferred policies are actually helping Black America. Riley stated that the Black Americans who regularly attend the NMAAHC could benefit from Steele’s film as it challenges the popular assumption that they are blocked from social mobility by virtue of their race.

In recent months, the Smithsonian has been the target of criticism from Republican elected officials, including the president, who argue that the institution has allowed political bias to overshadow the neutral presentation of history, an argument some within the organization reject, claiming that they are simply presenting the good and the bad aspects of the American story. As part of its effort to pressure the Smithsonian over what it describes as ideological bias, the Trump administration has threatened to restrict federal support, including discretionary grants and cooperation from federal agencies.

While Riley and Swain raised questions about the Smithsonian’s motives, the museum told Steele that his proposed dates were unavailable but did not explain whether it would consider alternative dates for a public screening, according to correspondence reviewed by Digital.

Steele and his team reached out to the Smithsonian in late August about a public screening of their film, receiving a response within the day directing them to fill out an event application form, according to correspondence reviewed by Digital. In early September, they submitted a completed application form and provided two possible dates for a screening.

About two weeks later, the NMAAHC responded by informing them that neither date was available for a public screening, according to the correspondence. After Steele’s team asked about alternatives, the museum offered them the option of renting space for a private screening at a quoted cost of $35,000, according to correspondence reviewed by Digital, rather than arranging a museum-sponsored public screening.

INSIDE THE BEHEMOTH SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM NETWORK DRAWING FIRE FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

When Steele and his team clarified that they wanted a public screening and signaled flexibility on their requested dates, they received no response from the museum, per correspondence reviewed by Digital.

«Answering email does not take that much time,» Steele told Digital.

«I watched the film last night. It’s a well-made and powerful representation of ideas that Shelby Steele has been developing over the last 40 years,» Glenn Loury, an African American professor at Brown University who has described himself as «conservative-leaning,» told Digital. «Those ideas — about how racial identity interacts with the pursuit of ‘black power’ and the quest for ‘white innocence’ in the West — are vividly illuminated through the film’s exploration of a number of exemplary cases.»

«The arguments advanced via Steele’s eloquent narration in the film are not beyond questioning, but they are invariably provocative and insightful,» he continued. «It would certainly be an appropriate use of the platform of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture to screen this documentary, as a means of provoking critical engagement with its themes from all corners of the political/ideological spectrum.»

IN PICTURES: HISTORIC SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM PACKED WITH WOKE POLITICAL MESSAGING ON RACE AND GENDER

NMAAHC did not respond to a request for comment when reached by Digital.

«My father, Shelby Steele, was born into segregation and has spent decades examining how America has changed, how far we have come, and what still divides us. ‘White Guilt,’ drawing on his 2006 book, brings that work to the screen,» Steele said in a statement provided to Digital. «We approached the Smithsonian’s African American museum because we believe that conversation belongs there. Sharing his life’s work in a museum dedicated to the history he lived would mean a great deal to both of us.»

«Our proposal remains open, and we would appreciate an answer.»

smithsonian, politics, arts, cancel culture, entertainment, history