Riding to the rescue: Republicans may save us from Trump
You can't make this stuff up. Donald Trump, who's tried unsuccessfully to sell everything from steaks to sneakers ... Donald Trump, who's already been found liable of sexual abuse and will soon start trial on charges of paying hush money to a porn star to keep their sexual romp secret from voters ... That same Donald Trump is now hawking Bibles!
This week Trump announced his latest business venture: a partnership with country singer Lee Greenwood to sell the "God Bless the USA Bible" - the King James version of the Bible interspersed with copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Pledge of Allegiance - for only $59.99, plus shipping. It's just what every MAGA warrior needs in his pocket as he storms the steps of the U.S. Capitol to kill members of Congress, starting with Vice President Pence.
"All Americans need a Bible in their home, and I have many," Trump declared on Truth Social. "It's my favorite book." Which, you must admit, is LOL. It may be Trump's "favorite book," but it's doubtful he's ever read it. As former Congresswoman Liz Cheney posted on X: "Happy Holy Week, Donald. Instead of selling Bibles, you should probably buy one. And read it, including Exodus 20:14, which commands 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.'"
But, of course, watching the Orange Huckster con people into buying his steaks, vodka, playing cards, sneakers, or Bibles is one thing. Conning enough people into voting him back to the White House is a far more dangerous matter. And now it turns out that the key players in preventing Trump from getting re- elected, as strange as it seems, may end up being not Democrats, but Republicans.
One of the newest players on the 2024 scene are "Republican Voters Against Trump." Who are just what they profess to be: Republicans. Who once voted for Trump. And whose mission now is to convince fellow former Trump voters never to vote for him again - and, hopefully, to vote for Joe Biden.
Significantly, their ranks include many former members of Trump's White House, starting with Vice President Mike Pence. But also: Chiefs of Staff John Kelly and Mick Mulvaney; National Security Advisers HR McManus and John Bolton; Defense Secretaries James Mattis and Mike Esper; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley; Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Matthews; and Executive Assistant Cassidy Hutchinson, among others. Their message is: We served close to Donald Trump. We know him well. And to know him is to loathe him.
That's powerful. But even more powerful are the hundreds of testimonials featured on their website, rvat.org. These are not the voices of politicians or paid political consultants. These are videos posted by average voters: nurses, teachers, construction workers, lawyers, doctors, clerks, and police officers. Most of them are from red states. And, in their own way, they issue the same warning: We voted for him once. But he betrayed us. He betrayed his country. And we'll never vote for him again.
Here's Hank, a retired Air Force officer from Nashville: "I could never vote for him again ... I don't think the man has the moral character required to function in the Oval Office." And Elizabeth from Texas: "I would vote for Mickey Mouse before I voted for Trump. He definitely wants to be a dictator." Or Rhonda from North Carolina: "I think that we could lose our democracy if he is president."
Now here's why this Republican-led effort against Trump is so important. First, because many studies have shown that personal, neighbor-to-neighbor testimonials are much more effective in persuading undecided voters than slick, polished TV ads. Plus, they're a lot cheaper to produce and can reach millions of people on social media.
Second, because of their potential impact. In 2020, only a razor-thin margin of 40,000 votes in Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona separated Biden from Trump and prevented a tie that would have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. This year, if Republican Voters Against Trump can persuade only half of 1 percent of Trump's 74 million voters not to vote for him again, they alone could decide this election. That's not an impossible goal.
And who knows? Then Trump might even stop lying about it. After all, "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord." And "You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another." Trump must have read that. It's in the Bible.
(C)2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
It's now official. The votes are in. The delegates are assigned. It's the rematch nobody wanted: Republican Donald Trump, again, for the Republican Party; and Joe Biden, again, for the Democratic Party. The race is on.
And Donald Trump can't wait to debate Joe Biden. On Truth Social this week, he challenged Biden to debate him "ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE." It's important that we debate, he piously pledged: "We owe it to our country."
Which is laugh-out loud funny because, as we remember, there were five debates in the 2024 GOP primary - for each of which, as the leading candidate, Donald Trump qualified and was invited. Yet he refused to participate in any one of them. He ducked all five. But now he's practically begging to get on stage with Joe Biden.
There's plenty of opportunity. The nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which has sponsored every presidential debate since 1988, has already announced three dates for 2024: Sept. 16, Oct. 1, and Oct. 9.
But that doesn't resolve the issue. That only sets the stage by raising an important question the Biden campaign is currently struggling with: Should President Biden agree to debate Donald Trump? To debate or not to debate? That is the question!
For me, it's personal. I love debates. I was on the debate team in high school and college. For years, I made a living debating politics on local television in Los Angeles, on CNN's "Crossfire," and with Pat Buchanan on MSNBC's "Buchanan and Press." I still occasionally debate with Republican strategist Alice Stewart on NPR's "Here and Now."
I especially love presidential debates. They're the only chance most of us get to see candidates unscripted and off the teleprompter. We can judge how well they know the issues and how quick they are on their feet. Or not. In front of a huge audience. In 2020, the first Biden/Trump debate attracted a Super Bowl size crowd of 73.1 million viewers.
And, sometimes, presidential debates can make a difference. While most merely reinforce impressions supporters or opponents already have of their candidates, there are exceptions. In 1984, Walter Mondale lost the age issue with Ronald Reagan's devastating promise: "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." In 1988, VP candidate Dan Quayle never recovered from Lloyd Bentsen's withering retort: "I knew Jack Kennedy. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy."
So, in normal times, when it comes to presidential debates, my answer is: Yes! Bring them on. The more, the merrier.
But these are not normal times. When it comes to whether Joe Biden should agree to debate Donald Trump, my answer is different. It's not "No." It's a loud, emphatic " HELL, NO!"
Of course, Trump will accuse Biden of being chicken, but so what? Trump can hardly make that claim after not only chickening out on all five debates in the Republican primary, but also chickening out on the second debate of the 2020 presidential campaign.
No, there's only one reason for Biden to refuse to debate Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump is not worthy of appearing on the same stage with the president of the United States. He is not a legitimate candidate, and the media should stop treating him as a legitimate candidate.
How can you seriously accept as a candidate for president a man who still refuses to accept that he lost the last election and promises a "bloodbath" if he loses this one? Who ordered an armed mob to attack the United States Capitol and now praises those who stormed the Capitol as "patriots" and promises to grant them a presidential pardon?
How can you give equal billing to a man who claims he'd be above the law as president and could even send a Navy Seals team to kill his political opponent? Who's already been found liable for sexual abuse and fined $92 million? Who's already been found guilty of massive financial fraud and fined $464 million? And who by
Election Day will most likely be a convicted felon many times over?
The MAGA Party can nominate whatever scoundrel they want. But that doesn't mean we have to sink to their level and accept Donald Trump as a legitimate candidate. We're better than that.
Donald Trump's not worthy of the Oval Office. And he's not worthy of appearing on the debate stage with Joe Biden. Joe, just say no.
(Credit: Tribune Content Agency
Blame Robert Hur - but blame the media, too
Maybe we need a new law: Ban the Justice Department from meddling in presidential politics!
That law should have been passed in 2016, when FBI Director James Comey blew up the presidential election - twice! - with his ridiculous investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. First, on July 5, when clearing Clinton of any legal wrongdoing, but going out of his way to accuse her of being "extremely careless" in handling classified information. Then, on Oct. 28 - just 11 days before the election! - telling Congress he was reopening his investigation. Which he shut down again, filing no charges, on Nov. 6, just two days before election day. Many observers blame Comey and the resulting media firestorm for costing Clinton the election and saddling us with Donald Trump.
And now comes Special Counsel Robert Hur. Why Attorney General Merrick Garland even appointed a Special Counsel to examine President Biden's earlier handling of documents is one question. Why he named Hur, a former Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, to investigate Biden is another question.
But the fact is that, like James Comey before him, Robert Hur improperly injected himself into presidential politics.
In the Feb. 8 release of his report, Hur was not content with clearing Biden of all charges. As if to show how disappointed he was that he couldn't find any evidence to charge Biden with a crime, he added his now infamous, gratuitous comment that one reason he didn't press charges was because he was convinced no jury would convict such a " well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Biden couldn't even remember when his son died, Hur sniffed.
But, as we learned this week with the release of the transcript of Biden's deposition, Hur's smear on Biden's mental capacity was not only gratuitous, it was misleading. It was wrong. He lied about it.
Take Hur's most damaging comment. In releasing his report, Hur wrote: "He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died." In fact, the transcript shows it was Biden, not Hur, who raised the issue of Beau - with the following exchange. Biden: "So, what was happening, though - what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30?" (Two aides chime in with the year, 2015). Biden: "Was it 2015 he had died?" Unidentified aide: "It was May of 2015."
In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Hur insisted that he'd been "fair" to Biden in describing this exchange. The transcript proves otherwise. When Biden volunteered the exact month and date of Beau's death correctly, and readily accepted 2015 as the year, it's hardly "fair" to say he couldn't remember his son's death "even within several years."
As Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) pointed out at the Judiciary Committee hearing, Hur deliberately chose to add that partisan, explosive language in the middle of a presidential election. "You understood that you made a choice. That was a political choice. It was the wrong choice."
But, of course, while slamming Biden's poor memory, Hur didn't mention the one time in the interview he praised Biden's memory. Again, from the transcript. When Biden finished describing his Wilmington, Delaware, home, Hur volunteered: "Understood. That was very helpful. We have some photographs maybe to show you, but you have - appear to have a photographic understanding and recall of the house."
Wow! Joe Biden has a "photographic memory." You never saw that in Robert Hur's report. The problem is, you never saw it in any media coverage of Hur's report, either. In fact, this week's Judiciary Committee hearing was, more than anything else, an expose of the media's failure to tell the truth about Hur's investigation.
The media went berserk upon the release of Hur's report. Headlines screamed "political disaster" and "devastating portrait." As documented by Popular Information, between Feb. 8 and the March 12 Judiciary Committee hearing, no fewer than 66 articles about the "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" were published by the New York Times (34), Washington Post (18), and Wall Street Journal (14).
Only after release of the transcript did all three publications belatedly attempt to correct the record. The Journal admitted the transcript painted a "more nuanced picture" than originally reported. Which, if you ask me, is too little, too late.
Shame on the media for running with Hur's explosive comments without checking the facts. There's only way for them now to regain any respect: start focusing less on Joe Biden's memory, and start focusing more on Donald Trump's. At least Biden remembers his wife's name.
Credit: Tribune Content Agency
Hello. Time to get real. It's Biden vs. Trump
What a non-event! This year's Super Tuesday was the most boring ever. Despite all the efforts of TV networks to make March 5 a night of "breaking news," it was more exciting watching the Discovery Channel.
Forget all the hype. When it was over, Super Tuesday could be summed up in three short sentences: There were only two candidates. Both won. The primary's over.
But if Super Tuesday provided no surprises, it should serve as a wake-up call, e specially for Democrats. And here's the message: It's time to stop living in a make-believe world and face reality.
For months, wherever Democratic voices were heard - in newspaper columns, on radio and TV, on Facebook, X, and Instagram, on podcasts, at bars and restaurant tables - the most common refrain was some version of this: Biden's too old. If only he'd step down and throw the field open to younger Democrats. Where's Michelle Obama?
Which prompted a Niagara of wild scenarios. Like: Over Christmas vacation, Jill was going to talk him out of running again. Or Biden would make a deal with Republicans whereby he'd step down and they'd drop all charges against Hunter. Or Biden would wait until summer to resign and let the convention choose the party's nominee. Or Biden would use his State of the Union address to announce his resignation.
Guess what? Even though we might all agree it'd be better to have a younger, more attractive, more articulate candidate to lead the party, Super Tuesday made it clear: That's not going to happen. It might have been fun to speculate for a while, but now's the time for Democrats to get their head out of the clouds and face reality. Nobody else is going to jump in. And no, Michelle Obama's not going to run, either.
Here it is. Deal with it: Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2024.
And deal with this, too: Donald Trump's going to be the Republican nominee.
That's the existential choice facing the American people. And it may be the most important choice we ever make, because the future of our democracy depends on it. But it should also be easy to figure out. Biden and Trump have both been president for four years. So let's put their records side by side.
For his part, no matter how old he is, Joe Biden's accomplished a great deal as president: leading us out of the Covid-19 pandemic; $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill; 11 million new jobs; first gun violence legislation in 30 years; more people with health insurance than ever before; relief for 40 million Americans with student debt; biggest investment ever in green energy and climate change. He's delivered a robust economy - the strongest in the world - with the stock market at a record high, unemployment at a record low, and inflation all but disappeared.
Biden's also presided over an administration that's scandal-free. The only so-called Biden "scandals" in the last four years are those manufactured by House Republicans, all of which collapsed for lack of evidence.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, accomplished very little as president, other than a massive tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans. He brags about delivering the strongest economy ever, but that's not the case. According to FactCheck.org, America lost 7.8 million jobs under Donald Trump, the market tanked, and unemployment soared to 11.1 percent.
Plus, far from being "scandal-free," Donald Trump's a walking crime spree. He's the first former president to be charged with a crime, and the first to be tried in a court of law. He's already been found liable for sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case and ordered to pay a$5 million dollar judgment. When he continued to defame her, Carroll sued Trump again and was awarded an additional $83.3 million in damages. He's already been found guilty of massive financial fraud in New York and ordered to pay another $450 million. Plus, Trump faces 91 felony charges in four more criminal trials this summer that could make him a convicted felon or put him behind bars.
Then, of course, there's the age issue. Which cuts both ways. Biden's 81, and looks like it, but his mind's still sharp. Trump, 77, looks younger, but makes multiple mental blunders in every speech. Neither's a spring chicken. Age alone won't decide this race.
Bottom line. Heading into the general election, Democrats have a clear advantage and an important imperative: Stop whining about Joe Biden and start defending him. Stop beating up on Joe Biden, and start beating up on Donald Trump.
Credit: Tribune Content Agency
The supreme surrender to Donald Trump
In case you still had any faith in the Supreme Court. In case you thought the Supreme Court, even under Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, was capable of deciding the law fairly and objectively. FUHGEDDABOUTIT!
There is no justification for the Supreme Court's decision to consider Donald Trump's absurd claim that, as former president, he should be "totally immune" under the law. No justification at all except that members of the nation's highest court - like the Senate Republican Caucus and the House Republican Caucus - have adopted the role of eunuchs in the temple of Donald Trump. There's nothing he can say or do that they won't embrace.
As it turns out, maybe the only true thing Donald Trump ever said was on Jan. 24, 2016, when he told a rally in Sioux City, Iowa: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." Little did we realize how prophetic that was.
Now Donald Trump's making a far more serious claim: I could send an armed mob to attack the United States Capitol, threaten the lives of every member of Congress and the vice president of the United States, and attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election - and I still wouldn't lose any votes. Not even on the Supreme Court.
Granted, the Supreme Court hasn't decided the case yet. They've only decided to consider it. But that in itself is a miscarriage of justice. For one thing, because it plays right into Trump's hands, whose only goal is to delay, delay, delay - until, God forbid, he's re-elected and could grant himself an absolute pardon.
The Supremes have already done Trump a big favor by waiting so long to announce consideration of the case. In 2000, it took only three days for the Rehnquist court to hear, debate, and rule on Bush v. Gore. Yet it took two weeks for the Roberts court to decide whether to even hear the Trump immunity case - which they won't do until the week of April 22, thereby delaying any trial on the Jan. 6 charges until summer, or maybe even after the election. That, in itself, is a huge victory for Trump - whether, in the end, he wins or loses.
But the court's greatest injustice is agreeing to consider this case in the first place. Because it's so patently absurd. In the United States of America, no matter who they are or what office they hold or once held, no one is above the law. That's what makes us who we are.
Trump, of course, insists he should enjoy " complete and total immunity" for any acts committed while in office. Seriously? The man who takes an oath of office to uphold the laws of the United States is exempt from all of them? Or, as Trump's lawyers suggested in court, the president could send a team of Navy Seals to assassinate his political opponent and not be held accountable? That argument's not worth taking seriously - certainly not by the nation's highest court, and especially not after it's been so soundly rejected by the lower courts.
Trump's plea for immunity was first dismissed in December by federal judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who famously concluded that, among other benefits, being former president does not "confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass." Last month, Trump's argument was again soundly rejected point-by-point in a 57-page ruling by the federal court of appeals. "For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump," they reminded him. And us.
Yet the Supreme Court's barging ahead. Now here's the worst part: Clarence Thomas will be on the panel. Even though his wife was directly involved in Trump's efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, Thomas has not recused himself from the case and Chief Justice John Roberts has not demanded that he do so.
Which makes a mockery of the entire court. Think about it. If this case were being decided in any other court of law, there's no way Clarence Thomas, with all his obvious conflicts of interest, would be allowed to sit on the jury. And yet Trumper Thomas will be allowed to cast one of nine votes that could decide the future of our democracy.
Again, it's wrong for the Supreme Court to take this case. And wrong for them to waste their time on it. You don't need a Harvard lawyer. Any fifth-grader could tell you. No one is above the law.
Credit: Tribune Content Agency
Before I'm accused of plagiarism, I want to admit: I stole that line and the very last line in this column from Bill Kristol, former editor of The Weekly Standard, now editor of The Bulwark newsletter. Because they're so good, so true, and so sum up the politics of the moment.
After all, it's already official. The primaries aren't over, but we already know who the two major parties are going to nominate for president. For Democrats, Joe Biden. For Republicans, Vladimir Putin.
Of course, because Putin is not American-born, Republicans can't put his name on the ballot. So they'll put Donald Trump's name on the ballot, instead. Which is the same thing. There's no daylight between the two.
Many people expressed surprise that Trump didn't immediately blame Putin for the murder of Alexei Navalny. Are you kidding? Of course he didn't. Because Trump believes this is what dictators should be free to do, and what he'd like to do if, god forbid, ever re- elected. Only a few weeks ago, Trump's lawyers argued in court that, as president, he should be able to send a Navy Seals team to assassinate his political opponent - and still enjoy total immunity under the law. Just like Putin.
And that's not the first time Trump's defended Putin for ordering the assassination of his political enemies. Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly was surprised on Super Bowl Sunday 2017 when Trump lavished praise on Putin. "But, he's a killer," O'Reilly protested. "There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?" Trump replied.
Trump's never condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine, either. In fact, just the opposite. On many occasions, he's called Putin a "genius" for invading Ukraine. "I'd say that's pretty smart," he told a fundraiser crowd at Mar-a-Lago days after the invasion. "He's taking over a country - really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in." Plus, Trump neglected to say, murdering 10,000 innocent Ukrainian civilians as of September 2023.
Trump and Putin share their disdain for NATO. Putin uses it as a fig leaf for invading Ukraine. Trump just wants to get rid of NATO altogether - with Russia's help! He told a South Carolina rally last week he'd encourage Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to any NATO member country that doesn't pay its dues on time.
Wait! Stop for a minute and wrap your head around that one. Instead of defending our allies, for a former American president to invite Russia to invade one of our allies is mind-blowing - even from Donald Trump!
The autocrat and would-be-autocrat also agree on fair elections. Russia's never had one under Putin. America will never have another one if Donald Trump is re- elected. Trump still claims he won the 2020 election. He still insists that he won the popular vote in 2016, neither of which is true.
Trump also denies he had any help from Russia in 2016. While admitting that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies warned him about Russia's interference in the 2016 campaign, Trump said he believed Putin, instead. "My people came to me. They said they think it's Russia," he told reporters at a Helsinki news conference with Putin in July 2018. "I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." And intelligence agencies report Russia's already meddling in the 2024 election, third one in a row.
Who knows? Whether Trump has a man-crush on Putin or, as many suspect, Putin has something on him, Donald Trump can't quit Vladimir Putin. And, what's even more disgusting, spineless MAGA Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and J.D. Vance have also become Putin cheerleaders. None worse than Speaker Mike Johnson who was once for continued aid to Ukraine before he came out against it. He won't even schedule the Ukraine bill for a vote on the floor because he knows it would pass - and Donny and Vlad would not be happy. They could all take a lesson in courage from Alexei Navalny.
Whatever the reason, that rumble you hear is coming from Simi Valley, California: Ronald Reagan rolling in his grave, watching today's Republicans defend the "evil empire." Here's the issue Democrats can win on in 2024. Thanks to Donald Trump, the party of Reagan is now the party of Putin. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Vladimir Putin.
redit: Tribune Content Agency
New York CD 3: Big lessons for both parties
First, this declaimer. For years, I've cautioned against exaggerating the importance of any one special election. For the most part, they're one and done, I argued. Don't try to draw any wider lessons. And I still, generally, hold that view.
But this one is different. On Tuesday, Feb. 13, Democrat Tom Suozzi won a special election in Long Island's 3rd Congressional District, the seat formerly held by disgraced GOP Representative George Santos. It's a stunning win for Democrats and an embarrassing shellacking for Republicans - with huge implications for both parties in this presidential election year.
For weeks, NY3 had been widely heralded as an election of national consequence. Which, indeed, it turned out to be. Both candidates focused on national issues: immigration, crime, abortion. Both national parties sank millions of dollars into the race. Some reporters called it the one congressional election whose results would predict the outcome of the presidential election in November.
Not only that. Most of the media went so far as to predict a big Republican win. After all, not only had Republicans won every recent Long Island election - for local, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns - this special election was coming in the middle of a crisis at the border and war in the Middle East, at a time when public outrage at the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision has reportedly started to cool, and on the heels of Special Counsel Robert Hur's report which painted President Biden as too old for the job. It was bound to be a bad night for Democrats, they said. Even Speaker Mike Johnson crowed: "If we win big here, we will set the tone for conservative victories across the board in 2024 so we can defend and grow the House Majority."
Oops! Once again, the media - and Johnson - got it wrong. For all the reasons stated above, Republicans could have won this race. Instead, Democrat Tom Suozzi not only won, he crushed Republican candidate Mazi Pilip, 53.9 percent to 46.1 percent. The vaunted Long Island Republican Party machine didn't deliver. And the dreaded Joe Biden curse didn't exist.
Immediately, "Maga Mike" changed his tune, from saying NY3 meant everything to NY3 meant nothing. "It's in no way a bellwether of what's going to happen this fall," Johnson told reporters. GOP pollster Frank Luntz was more honest. This is the "final wake-up call for House Republicans," he warned, explaining: "The issues are on their side. Their congressional behavior is not."
There are three lessons both parties can learn from NY3. First, the candidate matters. Republicans made a huge mistake in nominating Pilip, a largely unknown country legislator. After suffering national embarrassment from electing the fabulist George Santos, voters weren't ready to gamble on another "new face." Democrats wisely went with veteran mayor, county official, and congressman Suozzi.
Second, the campaign matters. Suozzi outgunned Pilip. He campaigned nonstop. Pilip didn't even show up at some of her own rallies. Suozzi raised more money than she did. With the help of organized labor, he ran a massive ground game. And he relied heavily on voting by mail (which used to be a Republican specialty, until Donald Trump denounced it). Before polls opened on Feb. 13, Suozzi had captured 57 percent of votes cast in early voting and mail ballots.
Third, voters have had enough with partisan bickering in Washington. Buoyed by polls showing immigration the issue voters cared about most, with busloads of migrants arriving in New York every day, Pilip blasted Democrats for not doing anything about the border. But Suozzi fired back, correctly blaming MAGA Republicans in Congress for killing the strongest border bill ever, a bipartisan measure which he supported, but she didn't, and Biden had promised to sign. Suozzi beat Republicans on their own issue.
For Democrats, there's one other important message out of NY3: Celebrate! And get to work! Enough gloom and doom. All I've heard from fellow Democrats lately is how worried they are that Trump's so popular, Biden's so old, and all is lost.
Nonsense! Celebrate! Remember: Victory in NY3 doesn't stand alone. It's the latest in a string of Democratic victories under Biden in Virginia, Kentucky, Kansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Voters want results, not political game-playing. And, no matter how old he is, Biden has proven he can deliver.
Democrats have a winning message for 2024: Order, not chaos. Democracy, not autocracy. Experience, not amateur hour. They can win the White House, Senate, and House - if only they stop fretting, get to work, and make it happen.
(Bill Press is host of The BillPressPod, and author of 10 books, including: "From the Left: My Life in the Crossfire." His email address is: bill@billpress.com. Readers may also follow him on Twitter @billpresspod.)
Credit: Tribune Content Agency
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.