How do local political figures feel about Venezuela?

I asked around so you, dear reader, wouldn't have to.

With our country’s recent invasion/presidential kidnapping of another nation, I wanted to find out what our local political leaders think of the whole jam. My favorite take, thus far, came via the great Heather Cox Richardson, who wrote on her Substack: “When [George] Stephanopoulos asked [Marco] Rubio if he was, indeed, running Venezuela, Rubio again suggested that the U.S. was only pressuring the Venezuelan government by seizing sanctioned oil tankers, and said he was involved in those policies. When Kristen Welker of NBC’s Meet the Press also asked if Rubio was running Venezuela, Rubio seemed frustrated that ‘People [are] fixating on that. Here’s the bottom line on it is we expect to see changes in Venezuela.’ Historian Kevin Kruse commented: ‘Yeah, people are fixating on a Cabinet Secretary being given a sovereign country to run because the president waged war without congressional approval and kidnapped the old leader. Weird that they’d get hung up on that.’”

Well said.

Anyhow, without much delay, here you go …

MIKE LEVIN, CA-49 CONGRESSMAN:

“I am outraged by the administration’s actions and I’m working very hard to see what we can do in the coming weeks and months. I put out this statement …

“There is no question that Nicolas Maduro ruled Venezuela through repression, corruption, and the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. Millions of Venezuelans have paid the price, and their country is better off without him. But even when confronting a dictator, the United States remains bound by its own Constitution.

“I am grateful to the members of our military and intelligence community who carried out their duties with professionalism and courage, and I am relieved that no American service members were killed. My respect and gratitude for their service, however, does not change the fact that the President moved forward without coming to Congress to explain the legal basis for this action, define its objectives, or seek the authorization the Constitution requires. Decisions of war and peace do not belong to one person alone.

“The President has now stated that the United States is ‘running Venezuela.’ Under the Constitution and international law, governing a foreign country constitutes an act of war and occupation, not a law-enforcement action. Such an undertaking requires explicit congressional authorization and a clear legal framework. Neither exists here.

“To date, the Administration has not articulated a lawful basis for this operation. Article I of the Constitution assigns Congress the authority to authorize war and sustained military hostilities. Outside of a sudden or imminent attack on the United States or U.S. forces, the President does not have unilateral authority to launch major military operations or assume control over another country.

“These concerns are heightened by the fact that senior Administration officials, including Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, briefed Members of Congress just weeks ago and did not request authorization for the use of force or disclose plans for regime change. Congress was sidelined from a decision of historic consequence, and the American people were denied transparency.

“The Administration has attempted to frame this action as a law-enforcement or counternarcotics effort. That explanation is difficult to reconcile with the President’s recent pardon of a former Honduran president convicted in U.S. court of major drug trafficking offenses. It is further undermined by the President’s own statements emphasizing Venezuela’s oil and the desire to control it.

“Securing access to another nation’s oil is not a lawful basis for the use of military force under the Constitution, nor is it recognized as a justification under international law. When military action is openly tied to control over natural resources, it reinforces the conclusion that this was a regime-change operation, not a limited enforcement action.

“American history is clear: interventions undertaken without congressional authorization do not produce stability or security. They lead to prolonged conflict, regional instability, and lasting damage to U.S. credibility. Bypassing Congress does not make America stronger. It makes our power less legitimate and our outcomes more dangerous.”

•••

HARLEY ROUDA, FORMER CA-48 CONGRESSMAN, 2019-2021:

“My perspective: I think we have to look past whether it was a good idea, or a bad idea, or whether Congress should have been consulted beforehand or not, and focus on the real reasons behind the mission. And I think there are three primary reasons we took the action we did. First and foremost, as often is the case when it comes to U.S. geopolitical strategy, it’s about oil. Venezuela oil sales help support terrorism and support our adversaries—namely China and North Korea. Second, Venezuela has significant critical and essential minerals that the U.S. needs, and access makes us less reliant on China, and also buys time as we continue to develop our infrastructure within the United States to supply the same critical elements. Third, this was a message to our adversaries showing them our capabilities—and perhaps a prelude to additional military excursions such as Cuba and even Columbia.

“Contrary to White House messaging, this was not an interdiction of drugs bound for the United States. Fact is that Venezuela is primarily involved in the cocaine trade to Europe—not the US.”

My follow up: How does Rouda feel about it?

“I think it is hard to be for it or against it until we see how things play out. Lots of people celebrating—just like they did when The Taliban were driven out of Kabul and like when Hussein was overthrown. And we know how those movies ended. I also think it is difficult to second guess military operations when you don’t have full access to intelligence and threat scenarios.”

•••

LISA RAMIREZ, CA-40 CANDIDATE:

“As someone who lived and worked in Venezuela before Chavez was in power, I stand unequivocably with the people of Venezuela and acknowledge the corruption, and erosion of democratic and human rights endured under Maduro’s dictatorship. That being said, the actions of this administration cannot be justified under international law. The American people must hold our elected officials accountable to ensure a quick and orderly transfer of power back to the people of Venezuela and that the natural resources of Venezuela are not exploited for corporate profits. As history has shown us, these quick military actions cost U.S. taxpayers and our military men and women for many years to come. Instead of focusing on kitchen table issues like affordability, the economy and healthcare, this administration has now created a new distraction at taxpayers’ expense. We must continue to stand for democracy, the rule of law, and balance of power that protects the interest of the people whether that be in Venezuela or here at home in the United States.”

•••

ESTHER KIM VARET, CA-40 CANDIDATE:

“Still waiting to see if you’re not a hypocrite. So no.”

[This was a reply to, “Writing a piece about candidates’ reaction/thoughts to Venezuela. You have a statement/thought/opinion you’d like to offer?”]¹

•••

CHRIS KLUWE, ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 72 CANDIDATE

“I think it’s another example of Trump’s extreme lawlessness, and is an indictment on every member of the GOP who refuses to do their constitutionally appointed duties and impeach him. He represents the worst of America, he enables people to be the worst versions of themselves, and there needs to be severe consequences for everyone involved in this literal war crime if we’re ever going to heal as a nation.”

•••

Because this is, obviously, a left-leaning site, I didn’t seek out MAGA folk to get their takes. But if you’re wondering, Young Kim (now desperate to go hard right as her grasp on CA-40 supremacy slips away) is as predictable as a Dollar General paper towel …

… which is understandable, because her main GOP rival, the equally leaky Ken Calvert, would lick Donald Trump’s toes for a dime and a head pat. He had this to say …

And Will O’Neill, head of the OC GOP … well, he posted nothing.

Bro just wants to talk about Charlie Kirk.

Anyhow, there you go.

We’re living in weird times.

Weeeeeiiiiiird times.

PS: This, from the Washington Post, is absolutely insane—and, sadly, believable …

1. I’ll elaborate on this later in the week. But it’s plenty wackadoo.