More and more, the existential threat of another Trump presidency is becoming clear.

Former Vice President Mike Pence just announced he would not support him.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/15/pence-trump-no-endorsement-2024/

Former Vice President Dick Cheney called Trump “a coward “ and  denounced him in the harshest terms.  https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1768742883006308689

Those who know Trump best won’t support him:

Nikki Haley

Former Chief of Staff, Gen. John Kelly

Two of his Secretaries of Defense, Mark Esper and Gen James Mattis

Two of his National Security Advisors, H.R. McMaster and John Bolton

Former Attorney General Bill Barr

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

And there are so many more—Sen. Mitt Romney, former Gov. Chris Christie, Liz Cheney, a host of former Republican Governors, Senators and Members of Congress. People who have served with him and who are loyal to the Republican Party, many of whom are strong conservatives and lifelong Republicans, have simply said enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign

The reasons are obvious.

Donald Trump is going increasingly off the rails with his words and his actions.  He is claiming dictatorial powers, arguing that he is above the law and embracing bizarre conspiracy theories about the 2020 elections that have been proven over and over to be lies. 

He is telegraphing a possible second term by supporting the extreme and authoritarian  policies of Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban; he is snubbing his nose at NATO and rejecting Ukraine’s fight for independence.  He brags about his plans to destroy the 50,000 member civil service and put in place only people loyal to him; he denies climate change and favors abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency and pulling out of international climate agreements;  he supports a national ban on abortion; he will deport or intern millions of migrants who are in the U.S.; he will politicize and weaponize the Justice Department to go after his enemies, including President Biden and his family; he will pardon the January 6^th rioters and continue to encourage violence by his supporters. He is promising all this blatantly and with retribution and recrimination.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trumps-second-term-agenda.html

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-second-term-plans-wildest-proposals-1234947327

We have seven months to ensure that Donald Trump and his MAGA followers don’t undermine democracy and destroy what America has built in the past 250 years.

How important is it to uphold the rule of law, adhere to the constitution, respect the independence of the three branches of government and ensure the freedoms of our people?

I would bet that many former office holders all across our country, Republicans and Democrats, who are experienced in governing and finding common ground and making our great experiment work, aren’t buying what Trump is selling.  

Here is why preserving and protecting democracy may undercut Trump’s message of division and fear. In the summer and fall of 2023 a poll was conducted of nearly 300 former Members of Congress (nearly equally divided between Democrats and Republicans) on issues related to the 2020 Presidential election, the January 6^th attack on the Capitol and political violence. The poll was sponsored by the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC) and done by the University of Massachusetts.  Similar questions were asked of a national sample of the American public.

What stood out in the polling of ex-members was how similar the views were of Democrats and Republicans and how former Republican members differed from current MAGA members and committed Republicans in the general public.

Democratic former members were nearly unanimous in their view that Joe Biden’s victory was legitimate but over 80 percent of Republican former members also held that view.  Only one quarter of voting age Republicans agreed that Biden legitimately won in 2020.

In addition, about two-thirds of Republican former members believe Trump’s efforts to claim he won the 2020 elections threaten democracy. Yet, around 20% or fewer of voting-age Republicans generally said the same. Few current Republican members are willing to call out Trump, but the same may not be true for former members.

The question this survey raises is whether former office holders across the country,

Republican or Democrat, are concerned enough to confront Trump in 2024. A strong argument could be made that former local officials who are still active but have no political ambitions ahead of them would participate in an organized effort to influence the 2024 presidential election and deny Trump four more years. 

In an unprecedented action last fall, 13 Republican and Democratic presidential libraries from Hoover to Bush and FDR to Obama signed a strong statement to warn of the fragile state of American democracy and to recognize the importance of dealing with widespread rejection of our election results, attacks on our judicial system, and propensity for increased violence. This bipartisan effort, of nearly a century of American presidents, sent a clear message outlining the threat we face.

What would be the impact of a 50-state project to bring together ex-elected officials who are free to speak their minds, regardless of party?

In addition to former members of Congress this could include state legislators, former statewide office holders (governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state, etc.), former mayors, city council members, school board members, and other local officials. These would be women and men who care deeply about their country, who are respected in their communities, and who will take a stand as we approach November of 2024. In short, these would be people who are willing to reject the politics and persona of Donald Trump in order to preserve democracy.

Yes, it would take courage for many, but it is a cause worthy of the calling. As we are seeing more and more, leaders of the Republican Party and former aides and confidants of Donald Trump are willing to go public and speak out. In order to prevent a second Trump administration and all the consequences that would result, local former office holders should join those national figures who are making their voices heard.

The key would be to build up this opposition, involve them in grassroots activity, get large amounts of press attention, use their networks, and form a bipartisan coalition to influence soft Republicans and independents. Ads, literature drops, rallies, blitzing news outlets, get-out-the-vote activity — now to November is plenty of time to get it done.

After all, our nation’s future is at stake. The stakes are too high to turn over the presidency and our democracy to Donald Trump.

Israel’s West Bank Settlements—An Obstacle to Peace

First, the story:   In 1978, a group of young aides on Capitol Hill were invited to Israel on a two week visit to meet with top academic and political figures and tour the country.  We represented our members – Senators Kennedy, Cranston, Church, Danforth, Heinz, Baucus, DeConcini and Congressman Ben Rosenthal of New York. We met with, and were briefed by, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, future Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, and Defense Minister and future president Ezer Weizman, among others.  It was a heady trip for a group of 30-somethings!

By the time we got to our last meeting with Prime Minister Begin, we were escorted into the cabinet room and upon entering each had his photo taken with the Prime Minister.  One of the topics we spent a bit of time asking about was the Israeli settlements being built, primarily in the West Bank. How many were there going to be, where were they, how many people, what was the plan for the future, what would be the relationship with the Palestinians, etc.?  The Prime Minister began to get irritated by these young Americans and we saw his staff beginning to shift nervously in their seats.

The next morning at breakfast one of Begin’s aides showed up to join us and remarked that “they had trouble in the darkroom and none of our photos had turned out.”  That prompted one of our group who represented the member of Congress from New York City, to snap his fingers and joke “Damn, there goes my race for Mayor of New York!” 

What led to that we will never know, but a group of staff aides to pro-Israel members of  Congress asking about Israeli settlements clearly did not go down well.

Since that period decades ago, the continuing buildup of these settlements in the West Bank has seriously increased the difficulty of creating a peaceful resolution in the Middle East.  Settlements have also been declared illegal or contrary to international law by every nation except Israel.  The only time the U.S. has changed that position was a few years under Donald Trump. President Biden has reiterated that the settlements are “inconsistent with international law.”

The West Bank right now, with the crisis in Gaza, has certainly taken a back seat.  The horrendous and brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7^th shocked the world, and Israel’s continued military response has created a humanitarian crisis and led to the deaths of over 30,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.  The carnage and the world’s reaction to the daily bombardments has resulted in Israel going from victim to aggressor. There are no winners here.

Nevertheless, the West Bank has not escaped the conflict or the confrontation.  The reports of violence, discrimination and recriminations, and the rising threat levels are making headlines too.  If there is ever going to be a two-state solution in the Middle East there is no doubt that it will involve the land and people of the West Bank.

There are currently about 144 Israeli established settlements, and twelve in East Jerusalem, plus about another 100 not officially sanctioned.   These include about 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and 220,000 in East Jerusalem. Just this month after a violent confrontation at one of the settlements Israel has announced that they will build 3,300 new homes for Israeli settlers.

The growth has been astounding.  Consider this:

Soon after our trip in 1978, there were about 17,400 Israeli settlers.

By 1983, there were 99,765 settlers.

A decade later, 1993, that figure climbed to 264,400 Israeli settlers.

By 2010, there were 512,769 and the total figure now is about 750,000. (Lately, East Jerusalem has accounted for about 200,000+ of the total)

All this to say, it is time for the international community to focus more closely on the situation and the demographics in the West Bank.  The State Department estimates that the population of Palestinians in the West Bank is just over 3 million, many of them poor and unemployed or under employed. They deserve citizenship and jobs and self-determination.

I am sure that none of us on that trip in 1978 who traveled throughout the West Bank to Bethlehem, or Hebron, or Nablus, or the Dead Sea, would come close to recognizing it today.  Everything has changed but, when it comes to a lasting peace, everything has stayed the same, or deteriorated.  And, sadly, the events of the past five months will harden the attitudes and stoke more violence.  The only hope is that new leaders will emerge on both sides to say “enough”; it is time for peace negotiations again, involving all parties, getting beyond the history of the hatred and it is time to create a democratic and demilitarized Palestinian state that can live side by side with Israel.  People want to live their lives, raise their children, pursue normalcy in their communities and build on a peace agreement with lasting power.  That doesn’t seem too much for anyone to ask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-hamas-gaza-war-death-toll-reaches-30000-palestinians-rcna140843

The Threat to American Democracy is Not New, but it has Risen to New Heights

It is now June of 2023.  The US News & World Report column below was written in the spring of 2015, eight years ago, several months before Donald Trump announced for President and a year and a half before he was elected.

Back then, I was tracing the radicalization of the Republican Party, the takeover by the “crazy caucus” of the Grand Old Party.  As I described it in 2015, the hard right movement began in the 1970’s with the advent of the Republican Study Committee in the House.  Make no mistake, these were extremists intent on moving the GOP hard right.  By the time of Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in the early ‘90s it began to take hold.

Now, extremists in the Republican Study Committee have remained at about 175 out of 222 Republican Members.  The big change has been the rise of the Freedom Caucus, the nihilist caucus that was just beginning in 2015—-this is the group that drove out conservative Speaker John Boehner and his successor Paul Ryan.  Cong. Jim Jordan, founding chair, and the past chiefs of staff to Trump in the White House, Mick Mulvaney and Mark Meadows, have led the charge. Ron DeSantis was also one of the original founders.

As John Boehner said about the Freedom Caucus: “They’re anarchists. They want total chaos. Tear it all down and start over.”  (Vanity Fair, 10/30/2017). Newly elected Republicans have gravitated to the Freedom Caucus like moths to a flame – over 70 per cent of the now 49 members have served in Congress for less than six years. (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/23/freedom-caucus-likely-to-play-a-bigger-role-in-new-gop-led-house-so-who-are-they/) The Freedom Caucus now accounts for 22 per cent of all the Republicans in the House. And, of course, it was this group that voted initially against McCarthy for Speaker and took the election to fifteen ballots. They are now basically writing the rules for the House of Representatives and extorted great concessions from Speaker McCarthy.

For all practical purposes, they are now in charge.

My column from 2015 accurately described this dangerous movement but where I was dead wrong was believing that they were so extreme they would lose elections in 2016.  The threat to democracy that Trump and these far-right extremists portend is leading the country toward fascism and rule by demagogues.

Sadly, this is not hyperbole. Donald Trump became a vessel for the beliefs and approach of the most extreme Republicans.  Even those who questioned his veracity, his character, and his competence jumped aboard and drank the Kool Aid.  They became MAGA Trumpers and bought in to the Trump Presidency. 

Truth was the first casualty, starting on inauguration day when he lied about the size of his crowd on the mall, and continued with over 30,000 more lies during his four years, according to the Washington Post.  Facts and reason did not matter anymore, only “alternative facts.”  All this culminated in the “big lie” denying Joe Biden won the 2020 election, inciting a riot and attempting a coup on Jan. 6^th and trying to “weaponize” and take over the Justice Department to undo the election.   

The list of anti-democratic, authoritarian actions are long and the subject of another column but we are now perilously close to the abyss.

If you underestimate the devastation headed our way you haven’t listened to Trump and his sycophants in Congress.  They have made it clear they will stop at nothing, including undermining constitutional order, and even encouraging armed violence, to achieve and keep power. 

I hope this history from 2015 is helpful in understanding the gravity of what we face going into election 2024.

Straight to ‘Hell No’

As the hard right has taken over the GOP it’s gone from very conservative to “Hell no!”

By Peter Fenn

March 3, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.

Straight to ‘Hell No’

More

Rep. Jim Jordan is among those pushing the party far right.MANUEL BALCE CENETA/AP PHOTO

This is a blog, not a history lesson. But I can’t resist trying to make some sense of the current Republican desire for self-immolation.

Where has this so-called “Hell No Caucus” come from? Whether it is refusing to pass bills to fund the government, approve increases in the debt ceiling or provide money for the Department of Homeland Security, the Republican Party has an increasingly apparent and growing antagonism to pragmatic solutions. It has drifted so far right that it is truly in danger of self-destruction. As New York Republican Rep. Peter King, put it on ABC’s “This Week,” “[T]here’s a wing within the Congress which is absolutely irresponsible – they have no concept of reality.” Speaking with MSNBC’s Luke Russert on Friday, he added, “I’ve had it with this self-righteous, delusional wing of the party.”

The GOP has become more and more extreme, to a point where it is barely recognizable from what it was in the 20th century. Even Ronald Reagan, and certainly Barry Goldwater, would not understand their party today.

I remember producing a pamphlet on the rise of the “New Right” in the early 1980s with an analysis of groups like the National Conservative Political Action Committee, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, the Conservative Victory Fund and many others. We argued how destructive the extreme right wing views were at the time but little did we realize how nihilistic they would become.

Here is the history lesson.

A very conservative group formed in 1973 called the Republican Study Committee. They were small, but they were opposed to both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford as too liberal and decided to organize against their policies. Then-Rep. Phil Crane of Illinois and congressional staffers Paul Weyrich, who went on to found the Heritage Foundation, and Ed Feulner, who later headed Heritage, were driving forces, along with several other members of Congress. When Newt Gingrich became House speaker in 1995, he didn’t want a separate group on his flank causing trouble, despite the fact that his conservative views were not too far from theirs. So he abolished it; but it came back.

A National Journal article last year discussed in detail the evolution and rapid growth of this far right caucus. The growth of the Republican Study Committee since 1995 has been truly dramatic – 15 members out of 218 in 1995, up to 72 members out of 220 in 2001 and skyrocketing to 171 members in 2013. The percentage of Republicans who joined this very conservative group went from 7 percent in 1995 to over 70 percent last year. 

It is not too difficult to understand why House Speaker John Boehner, or any speaker, might have trouble with his or her Republican caucus.

Of course, there are other groups. Michele Bachmann helped organize the Tea Party Caucus several years ago, a group more extreme than the Study Committee. And, now, an initial nine members of the Study Committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, have begun to assemble the House Freedom Caucus. More trouble is afoot than Republicans may realize.

The vote last Friday where 52 Republicans bucked the speaker on his effort to move forward on funding for DHS says a lot about the GOP’s direction. The numbers don’t add up for Boehner to move much of anything forward, and the Senate won’t buy what the Study Committee or the Freedom Caucus are selling.

The rapid radicalization of the Republican Party is playing out in the presidential sweepstakes as well. The Conservative Political Action Conference has gone from a fringe gathering to a primary litmus test for most candidates.

There is no such thing as a moderate voice in the leadership of the Republican Party any longer; there is barely a Main Street conservative voice that will get traction within the party that now finds itself in control of the House and Senate. Even the John Boehner’s and the Mitch McConnell’s live in fear of the new suicide caucus.

The problem, as many Republicans know, is that this crowd is ungovernable and ultimately, nationally, unelectable.

https://themessenger.com/opinion/the-last-honest-man-invokes-a-bygone-era-with-lessons-for-today

From The Messenger 5/22/2023

As I sat at the Washington, D.C., bookstore Politics and Prose this week listening to Jim Risen and his son Tom describe their new biography of former Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho), it took me to what seemed a bygone era.

Their book, “The Last Honest Man – The CIA, the FBI, the Mafia and the Kennedys, and one Senator’s Fight to Save Democracy,” is a classic lesson in honesty, integrity and — most important — a working system of holding government and people accountable.

Joined by others who worked for Sen. Church and many who served in governments past, the evening brought back a time and place when office holders challenged past wrongs and tried to make them right, worked to solve the critical problems of the time in a collegial and bipartisan manner, and trusted in truth and the good motives of their adversaries and their friends, despite their political party and their differences.

Jim and Tom Risen described the life and times of a man reared in the mountain west, a man of extraordinary talent, hardened by war like so many others, who got into politics to make a difference. Frank Church was not without fault or ambition, but like others of that era, he was willing to take great political risks to do what he felt was right and important for his country. He and his colleagues came out of World War II changed, and his battle with serious cancer in his early 20s convinced him that life was a gift — and he would not waste it.

Throughout his 24 years in the Senate, Church took on the toughest of fights: civil rights, protecting the environment in a natural resource state, early opposition to the Vietnam War, investigating bribery and multinational corporations, fighting for arms control and passing the Panama Canal treaties. Jim and Tom Risen describe what he did and how he did it, at a time when government worked.

Church is best known for his chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee, on which I served — a special committee that investigated decades of abuse, including assassination plots, coup attempts, spying on Americans, collusion with the Mafia and wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights and anti-war leaders. Church served in intelligence in WW II, and the Risens describe how this affected his perspective on what was right and proper and effective for America in the Cold War era.

That period — one during which many of us gathered at Politics and Prose served in government — was brought back to life by the discussion of this book. The differences are stark. Today, we watch as a debt-ceiling fiasco threatens the economic health of the world; we watch as demagogues take over congressional committees (and tell us theirs is a “new Church Committee”); we watch as the Capitol building, where we worked, is attacked by a mob following a president’s lies about an election.

This is not the America that Frank Church and so many of his colleagues fought for and led during critical times. This is not the democracy that gave us pride, not the system of cooperation and compromise that corrected wrongs and served to produce solutions.

It’s difficult now to acknowledge that what we are going through is not normal.

We do need to learn the lessons and absorb the history; we do need to look to the example of leaders such as Frank Church if we are going to save our country. We should all read the book and start now.

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. He serves on the board of the Frank Church Institute. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

The Hill 1/12/2023. https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3810212-i-worked-for-the-church-committee-what-jim-jordan-is-leading-bears-no-resemblance/

I worked for the Church Committee — what Jim Jordan is leading bears no resemblance 

Peter Fenn, opinion contributor 

Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and firebrand Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) pushed through a party-line vote to create a House committee designed to investigate the Biden administration and defend Donald Trump. 

They call it a “new Church Committee,” after one of the most consequential investigations of U.S. intelligence agencies, chaired by former Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho). That committee was established 48 years ago this month after revelations of spying on Americans and assassination plots against foreign leaders. 

As a young 27-year-old, I served on the staff of that committee, one of the greatest privileges of my life. Later, as an aide to Church, I worked on a number of reforms of the intelligence agencies. 

To compare what is about to take place under Jordan with the careful, bipartisan, results-focused Church Committee is like comparing newly elected Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) with Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas).  

The Church Committee was created in January 1975 by a vote of 82-4 and was composed of some of the most liberal and conservative Senators — who pledged to work together to find solutions to the abuses conducted over decades by Democratic and Republican administrations. There was liberal Frank Church as Chairman and conservative John Tower (R-Texas) as Vice Chairman, Walter Mondale (D-Minn.) and Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), and Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Richard Schweiker (R-Pa.), among others. 

In contrast, the new committee, to be headed by Jim Jordan, was approved by a strict party-line vote of 221-211, with no Democrats in support. According to the resolution creating the committee, it will have 13 Republicans and five Democrats; the Church Committee was six Democrats and five Republicans. Can anyone see the slightest indication of a bipartisan investigation coming from the Jordan Committee? 

The Church Committee, in 15 months, had 126 full committee meetings, 40 subcommittee hearings, interviewed 800 witnesses in both public and closed sessions, and produced six volumes of public reports totaling 2,702 pages. They had seven volumes of hearings and countless transcripts and reports that remained classified.  

There was not one leak attributed to the Church Committee, despite the political atmosphere under which it was working. 

We investigated the secret actions of the FBI to spy on, and undermine, Martin Luther King, Jr. and many other civil rights leaders. We examined “watch lists” of law-abiding Americans whose communications were intercepted and put under surveillance, because they were protesting the War in Vietnam or engaged in the struggle for human rights. We focused on foreign intelligence agencies that engaged in plotting coups, undermining elections abroad and plotting assassinations of leaders. Many of these activities occurred over decades, across administrations, as intelligence agencies illegally expanded and overstepped their missions. 

Most important, the work of the Church Committee resulted in 96 recommendations, many of which were adopted, such as the critical passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requiring warrants on Americans, the creation of permanent Senate and House Intelligence Committees, and internal reforms of agencies like the FBI, NSA, and CIA. 

Who in their right mind would believe that Jim Jordan’s “new Church Committee” is going to — in any way — resemble what took place so many years ago? 

Will this be at all bipartisan? Hard to imagine. 

Will this be a thorough and serious examination of issues covering both Democratic and Republican administrations? Not a chance. 

Will this become a trial of the “weaponization of government” under Joe Biden, as Jordan and McCarthy and the Freedom Caucus promise? You bet.   

As Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass) point out, this committee will itself be a partisan “weapon” and resemble the demagogue Joe McCarthy more than Kevin McCarthy. It will resemble the old House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), not the Church Committee. In a very real sense, this will be a weapon targeting democracy itself, in a crass and partisan manner, not an effort to save our democracy. 

It is sad, really, because one could argue that there is a need for a new Church Committee that looks at legislation of 50 years ago, assumptions about technology and privacy and national security as they have changed so radically over that half century, and the role of our intelligence agencies in the modern age. There are serious issues to explore with a possible joint House and Senate committee, or outside commission, where experts explore some of the complicated issues before our country and seek reasonable solutions. Many of us have contemplated this for some time. 

Unfortunately, what we are faced with over the coming months is not that kind of serious examination, designed to focus on, and solve, real issues.  

Rather, it is vitriolic, attack-dog politics at its worst.  

It is hard to imagine for those of us who worked so hard and with such passion those many years ago to make America better. 

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. He serves on the board of the Frank Church Institute. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn. 

Source: Democrats’ message and communications problem | The Hill

Democrats’ message and communications problem

In March of 2019, I wrote a piece for The Hill on why 2020 might just be Joe Biden’s time. At that point — early in the primary season — many had written him off. Now, as we approach the 2022 elections and polls and pundits are once again writing off Joe Biden, my advice is ­— be careful, be very careful.

Here are 10 reasons why, once again, I urge the chattering class not to count Biden out, should he decide to run.

Reason #1: Low presidential poll numbers in the off year are notoriously unreliable predictors. Just look at 1982, 1994, 2010. Here is the headline from the New York Times from August 19, 1982: “Approval Rating for Reagan is Lowest Ever in Gallup Poll.” Reagan’s job approval rating was a dismal 41 percent — and yet two years later, Reagan carried 49 states against Walter Mondale.

Bill Clinton was in desperate shape in late August of 1994, when his popularity was at 39 percent. Democrats lost the House for the first time since the 1950s, shedding 54 seats, while losing eight Senate seats. In 1996, Clinton came back to defeat Bob Dole by nearly 10 points.

In August of 2010 this was the headline from Reuters: Obama Poll Slide Mirrors Reagan’s 1982 Midterm Woes. Obama’s job performance number stood at 43 percent, Democrats lost 64 House seats in 2010, and yet Obama dispatched Mitt Romney fairly easily, winning 332 electoral votes two years later.

Thus, projecting the outcome of the 2024 presidential election based on what we are seeing today is risky business indeed.

Reason #2: The likely Republican nominee is Donald Trump. Of course, we said he was the easiest to beat in 2016, but now we really mean it. Yet for Biden, who beat Trump once, he should be able to beat him twice. Trump’s negatives are still through the roof, legal troubles abound, his ego runs wild and now he will have Liz Cheney and others nipping at his heels. Plus, there is also the age factor; he is not much younger than Biden.

Reason #3: Critically important: the economy is improving, inflation is coming down, jobs are plentiful, and salaries are increasing, especially for low- and middle-income Americans. Consumer confidence is likely to rise, and — just as in the case of Reagan, Clinton and Obama — voters are likely to feel “they are better off” as we head into the presidential election year. As Democratic policies improve economic prospects for Hispanic and African American voters, their turnout and support will be crucial in key swing states.

Reason #4: Social issues begin to work for Democrats and Biden. Republicans will increasingly be on the defensive on abortion, gun control, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights. The fear of the far right will motivate and sway not only younger voters, but also many older Americans who can remember life before Roe, even life when interracial marriages were illegal (pre-1968) and when gay marriage was prohibited. Once again, the prospect of turning the clock back will not sit well with suburban and ex-urban voters either.

Reason #5: Biden’s advantage — Debates. Although it is possible that there will not be presidential debates, they do almost always happen. Trump is huffing and puffing, but it is hard to imagine that there will be an empty stage. First, Trump’s ego won’t allow it, and second, his advisors will convince him to agree. Biden will be increasingly confident and in control; Trump will be lucky to have read the morning papers. Watching FOX News won’t cut it. Trump has always been ignorant of policy issues, and this year will be no different. It will remind voters of what an empty suit Trump has always been.

Reason #6: Trump’s MAGA playlist is old and tired; Biden is getting things done. The comparison between Biden as solid, competent, delivering on his promises and Trump’s blowhard rhetoric will be clear and convincing. Who delivered on roads, bridges and broadband? Who brought us out of the pandemic? Who moved us forward on climate change? Who got the economy moving again? Not the carnival barker; rather, the experienced leader with an experienced team.

Reason #7: More and more and more legal troubles for Trump. After all, how many presidents plead the fifth over 400 times, with more to come? How many members of his clown-car legal team end up in courtrooms? How many investigations can they all endure? From personal taxes, to conflicts of interest, to shady pardons, to undermining national security and hoarding documents … the list goes on and on. And why would we think Trump is going to change in the next two years?

Reason #8: The Jan. 6 investigation is a serious problem. When the House Select Committee hearings began, many were not sure where it was headed and how long and in-depth it would be. This is like peeling back the onion. Trump looks worse and worse, and the far-right Republicans can’t ignore it or explain it away. When you have America’s generals opening up to reporters, more close White House aides telling the truth, and revelations taking all this to Trump’s door, it makes Watergate look like child’s play.

Reason #9: Watch the independents and some moderate/conservative Republicans. There is no question that most Americans are pretty locked in to their political preferences; however, there are clearly persuadable voters, less interested voters and those that move, especially with high turnout elections like we had in 2020. Winning by 7 million votes isn’t exactly chump change, and 2024 may see critical states where Biden increases his narrow lead because he gains support from independents and some Republicans who can’t force themselves to back Trump. And, in the case of Republicans, it won’t take that many!Trump may not be able to control the narrative this timeWhat if Gorbachev had been president of the United States?

Reason #10: Finally, there’s the spoiled child syndrome. Let’s face it: Throwing his lunch and ketchup against the wall, really? The constant tantrums? More and more people close to Trump admit they were forced to deal with a man-boy, with a toddler mentality, who constantly needs diversions, cajoling and convincing. Trump defiled the presidency. Do we want to go through all this again?

The contrast between a Joe Biden Presidency and a Donald Trump Presidency could not be more clear. A re-match between these two would bring that to full flood-light. Just like four years ago, don’t count Joe Biden out.

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. He serves on the board of the Frank Church Institute. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

Why 2024 may be Joe Biden’s time — again!

Trump’s January 6^th War Room —  A Real Declaration of War on America

Over the years, many of us in politics have used the term “War Room” to denote the place where decisions are made to win a political campaign, or to pass critical legislation, or to organize around an important issue, from impeachment to civil rights. There was an Academy Award-nominated documentary about the 1992 Clinton Presidential campaign featuring James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, “The War Room.”

My Macalester College classmate and longtime friend, Vietnam veteran Tim O’Brien, is probably the most celebrated author of our generation writing about war (The Things They Carried; Going After Cacciato).  In his latest Dad’s Maybe Book, dedicated to his sons, O’Brien discusses the use of the word “war” and why it should be eliminated from our vocabulary.  His notion is that politicians should be transparent when using the word – it is about “killing people, including children.”

Tim and I have had conversations about the use of the word “war” —  the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, yes, now the much over-used “War Room.”  Tim O’Brien is a master of words,  their intent and meaning, and he raises the bar on how to tell stories that expand our minds, our emotions and our understanding.

As we begin to dig deeper into the events before and during January 6^th it is becoming increasingly clear that what was taking place was a true declaration of war against the United States. This was violence, this became about killing people, up to and including even the Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence.

When Trump advisor John Eastman describes the effort to perpetuate the big lie of election fraud, to overturn the 2020 Presidential election, to orchestrate armed insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6^th, and to coordinate what amounted to a coup, he says. “we had a war room at the Willard (Hotel)…kind of coordinating all of the communications.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/willard-trump-eastman-giuliani-bannon/2021/10/23/c45bd2d4-3281-11ec-9241-aad8e48f01ff_story.html)

Shortly after the election in November, Eastman and Rudy Giuliani and others, set up shop for their activities at the Mandarin Oriental, another posh hotel in Washington. By December 18^th they moved their war room to the Willard Hotel, a block from the White House, where they stayed at least through January 8^th.  The Trump campaign picked up the $55,000 hotel tab.

It turns out that December 18^th was the fateful day of the six hour meeting in the Oval Office.  Described as “unhinged” by Cassidy Hutchinson it pitted Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell and Michael Flynn, among others, against White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his team of lawyers.  As the House hearing of July 12, 2022 made clear, efforts failed to succeed to appoint Sydney Powell as a Special Counsel, and Trump did not issue an Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines.  Rather, at 1:42 am on December 19^th, after the marathon meeting ended, Trump issued his call to arms, “Big protest in DC on January 6^th. Be there, will be wild.”  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/12/january-6-hearing-trump/

The War Room at the Willard swung into action; the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers began coordinating their operations and communications; the internet lit up, hash tags and web sites were created and the focus became January 6^th.  Many participants have been charged with “seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.”

Trump called in to his War Room and met in the White House with many of the participants.   According to Cassidy Hutchinson, she dissuaded Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from going over on January 5^th for meetings, instead he also called in to them by phone that day.  Steve Bannon was there, Giuliani aide Bernard Kerik was there,  Boris Ephshteyn, One America News Reporter Christina Bobb, and many others were part of the “Trump War Room”, as we are beginning to learn. Old hands such as Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, Peter Navarro, Corey Lewandowski, David Bossie, Mike Lindell (My Pillow), Sen. Tommy Tuberville, Nebraska gubernatorial candidate Charles Herbster and even Trump’s sons, Eric and Don, Jr.  (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/us/politics/jan-6-subpoena.html)

Cassidy Hutchinson testified before Congress that Rudy Giuliani told her about the plans for January 6^th in a conversation on January 2nd as she walked him to his car:

“As Mr. Giuliani and I were walking to his vehicle that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of ‘Cass, are you excited for the sixth? It’s going to be a great day.’ I remember looking at him and saying, ‘Rudy, can you explain what’s happening on the sixth?’ And he responded something to the effect of ‘we’re going to the Capitol. It’s going to be great. The President’s going to be there. He’s going to look powerful. He’s going to be with the members. He’s going to be with the senators. Talk to the chief about it. Talk to the chief about it. He knows about it.'”

When Ms. Hutchinson brought it up to Mark Meadows, she testified that Meadows said “something to the effect there is a lot going on…but things might get really, really bad on January 6.”  (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_d1ca49d1f3e1c58651a882206551eeae)

Really, really bad — that is the least of it.  What we are learning is that the Trump War Room at the Willard Hotel was certainly aptly named. Steve Bannon said on his January 5^th podcast, ironically also called War Room — “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”

Michael Flynn told Alex Jones in an interview at the Willard Hotel on January 5^th that “we are essentially in a national emergency.  The truth is going to come out, Donald Trump will be president of the United States for the next four years.”

This is the man who pled the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination when asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he believed in “the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyg60yZhdy0  This is the man who was fired as Trump’s National Security Advisor after lying to the FBI.

This War Room was the command post for the coup plot where, just steps from the Oval Office, violent mobs, armed and ready, were called to the Ellipse.  Trump knew they were armed; Trump was ready to lead the assault on the Capitol if only the Secret Service had allowed it; Trump endorsed the calls to hang Mike Pence and no doubt supported a similar fate for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

This was, no doubt, the final solution to stop the peaceful transition of power to the man who won the election by over seven million votes and over 300 electoral votes, Joe Biden. 

From December 18^th on, President Trump and his participants in the War Room plotted and coordinated the effort to keep him in power by taking over the peaceful transition to Joe Biden on January 6^th.  If Vice President Pence was not going along with their plan, they were going to storm the Capitol. This was what the War Room at the Willard was all about.

The phrase War Room and the use of the word “war” has a particularly terrifying meaning now in the United States – it is the end of democracy as we know it and came within 40 feet, a whisker, of becoming a reality. Trump’s War Room, as it was unfolding, was about killing people at the Capitol, and also killing democracy. War as my friend Tim O’Brien makes clear, has consequences — devastating consequences. We all might want to take a moment and reflect on who we have become.