A Good President Can Still Lose
Plus: Trump’s 15-week abortion comments and the RINOs he hangs onto for safekeeping.
Donald Trump’s new joint fundraising agreement with the Republican National Committee directs donations to his campaign and a political action committee that pays the former president’s legal bills before the RNC gets a cut, according to a fundraising invitation obtained by The Associated Press.
The unorthodox diversion of funds to the Save America PAC makes it more likely that Republican donors could see their money go to Trump’s lawyers, who have received at least $76 million over the last two years to defend him against four felony indictments and multiple civil cases. Some Republicans are already troubled that Trump’s takeover of the RNC could shortchange the cash-strapped party.
Man, who could have seen that one coming? Happy Friday.
George H.W. Biden?
A good president can still lose re-election.
From 1989 to 1992, President George H.W. Bush managed the conclusion of the Cold War deftly and responsibly. He also defeated Saddam Hussein in the first major challenge of the post–Cold War era.
At home, he signed bipartisan legislation—including the budget deal of 1990, the Clean Air Act amendments, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991—that stands up well today. He competently cleaned up a savings and loan crisis that he’d inherited.
When Bush left Washington in January 1993, after twelve years as vice president and president, the United States and the world were in much better shape than in January 1981.
Bush left, of course, because he’d been defeated for re-election. Handily. In 1988, he’d won 53.4 percent of the popular vote and 426 electoral votes. In 1992, he received 37.5 percent of the popular vote and 168 electoral votes.
Yes, a third party candidate, Ross Perot, took 19 percent of the vote in 1992. Still, Bush had defeated his Democratic opponent by 7.7 percent in 1988. He trailed his Democratic opponent by 5.5 percent in 1992. That’s a pretty big swing.
What happened? Lots of things, but two were perhaps central: People wanted change after 12 years of Reagan-Bush. And above all, the Cold War was over.
George H.W. Bush had accomplished what he was elected to do. No good deed goes unpunished. Voters felt they could afford to turn their attention to domestic policy. They could select a candidate who felt their pain.
I worked in the George H.W. Bush White House, and I’ve never forgotten this lesson: You can deserve to win. And you can lose.
Obviously, the situation in 2024 is decisively different from that of 1992. The most important difference is this: Bill Clinton was a moderate Democrat. Donald Trump is seeking a second term after he tried to overturn the verdict of the voters at the end of his first, an attempted usurpation he continues to justify today and which would be a precursor to a second term featuring truly authoritarian governance, an ambition he makes little effort to hide.
That one difference should make all the difference.
But will it?
To raise this question is not to denigrate democracy. As Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons on November 11, 1947:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Of course, Churchill made this remark as leader of the opposition. He was leader of the opposition because he was no longer prime minister, having been defeated for re-election in July 1945 by over ten percentage points.
The war in Europe was over. Churchill was thought no longer to be needed. As George H.W. Bush was judged no longer to be needed in 1992.
But neither Clement Atlee nor Bill Clinton was a fundamental threat to decency and liberty and democracy, at home and abroad.
Donald Trump is.
—William Kristol
Trump’s Emergency RINO Stash
Yesterday, we wrote about Charlie Spies and Christina Bobb, the new legal odd couple at the Republican National Committee. Though a total RINO squish by Trumpworld standards, we noted, Spies has an encyclopedic knowledge of U.S. campaign finance law that will make him an invaluable asset to the party.
But Spies may be an asset to the RNC in another important way, too, as can be seen in some of the Trumpworld-media coverage of his hiring.
Here was the National Pulse, an outlet affiliated with Steve Bannon: “The Republican National Committee has hired Charlie Spies, a Jeb Bush and Ron DeSantis campaign lawyer who once called Donald Trump ‘thin-skinned’ as well as mocking the idea of a border wall. Spies is also known to be close to leading Mitch McConnell-world figures.”
Over the last few election cycles, Trumpworld activists soured on then-RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel for a few reasons. There was the simple fact that anybody who leads the institutional party for long by definition becomes “establishment”—a cardinal sin to the Trumpy populist. And there was the fact that the GOP kept losing elections—and who were they going to blame for that, Donald Trump?
In the end, McDaniel was a scapegoat of the biblical style: Trump saddled her with the blame for years of Republican underperformance and sent her into the wilderness. But this raised a possible problem: With a party reshaped from top to bottom in Trump’s image, who’s available to take the fall if the party still keeps losing? Better to keep a few RINOs on hand, just in case.
‘Even Hardliners Are Agreeing’
Donald Trump suggested this week he’d back a federal 15-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Here’s the New York Times:
The comments, which Mr. Trump made Tuesday on the WABC radio show “Sid & Friends in the Morning,” are in line with previous reporting that he had privately expressed support for a 16-week ban. But saying it publicly ties him concretely to a position that has been toxic for many Republicans.
“The number of weeks, now, people are agreeing on 15, and I’m thinking in terms of that, and it’ll come out to something that’s very reasonable,” he said. “But people are really — even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be 15 weeks, seems to be a number that people are agreeing at. But I’ll make that announcement at the appropriate time.”
It’s worth taking a moment to note how politically odd this is. A traditional campaign goes through two policy cycles: tacking away from the center during primary season, then back toward the center during a general election.
Here, Trump is operating on the reverse model: His suggestion that he’d embrace a 15-week federal ban comes after a primary season in which he repeatedly attacked his top rival on abortion from the left. The six-week abortion ban Gov. Ron DeSantis signed in Florida was a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake,” Trump said last September.
At that time, DeSantis was hard at work pursuing his ultimately doomed strategy of convincing voters he was the true conservative hero by staking out policy positions to Trump’s right anywhere he could find them. In that environment, Trump’s refusal to chase DeSantis onto the limb was a display of raw strength: He was already thinking about the general. He could afford to let DeSantis outflank him. He’d crush him anyway.
So what’s going on now? Is Trump, winning in the polls, just getting cocky? Have pro-life advocates convinced him a 15-week ban with exceptions is—as they characterize it—a moderate position the majority of Americans could get behind? It’ll be interesting to see how Trump’s comments on abortion continue to evolve in the weeks ahead.
Catching up . . .
Trump leads Biden in four key battleground states, polls find: The Independent
Marco Rubio on being Trump’s VP: “I haven’t spoken to anybody”: Politico
Midnight deadline looms as lawmakers rush to avoid shutdown: NBC News
Russia and China veto U.S-led ceasefire resolution at UN: New York Times
New video shows migrants rushing portion of border fence in El Paso: CNN
Ken Buck’s parting gift to GOP: Signing Democrats’ Ukraine discharge petition: Axios
A modest proposal: No smartphones for kids: Axios
Quick Hits
1. If It Isn’t the Consequences Of My Own Actions
Don’t let the door hit you on your way out, Bob:
Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey announced on Thursday that he would not run for re-election as a Democrat this year, bowing to intense political pressure and federal charges that place him at the center of an international bribery scheme.
But in a nine-minute video posted on social media, Mr. Menendez, 70, reiterated that he would not resign and left the door open to running as a political independent if he is exonerated at a trial scheduled for May.
“I am hopeful that my exoneration will take place this summer and allow me to pursue my candidacy as an independent Democrat in the general election,” he said.
Still, Mr. Menendez’s decision to forgo the competition for his party’s nomination amounted to a painful concession, after months of near total defiance, that his political career was teetering on the edge.
He was all but certain to lose the June primary for his own seat. Nearly every Democratic ally has abandoned him in recent months, and two prominent Democrats—Representative Andy Kim and Tammy Murphy, the wife of Gov. Philip D. Murphy—are trouncing him in primary polls.
It’s worth remembering: There’s no law against a political party cutting its guys loose when they turn out to be big-time crooks!
2. Pour One Out For Kentucky
You know what’s great? March Madness is great. Here’s The Athletic:
March survival is for the dreamers, the big-moment seekers, the heroes who slash toward the basket and aren’t afraid to challenge above the rim.
March staying power—both in this year’s NCAA Tournament and tournament lore—can come from behind the 3-point line, too. That’s where Oakland’s Jack Gohlke lives and operates, and that’s where Gohlke thrived while leading the No. 14 seed Grizzlies to an 80-76 upset of No. 3 seed Kentucky on Thursday night. Gohlke had 32 points on 10 3-pointers, just one short of the tournament record. He shot off the bounce, often from 2 or 3 feet behind the line and even banked in his seventh of the first half.
By then, he’d already become a story. By the end, he’d become one of those stars fans won’t forget—and never saw coming. Oakland’s program had won one NCAA Tournament game before Thursday, a play-in game as a No. 16 seed in 2005. Its second came on a night a high-powered Kentucky team couldn’t keep up with Gohlke.
Roll the tape:
3. Still More On Christina Bobb
Andrew showed up on the New Republic’s Daily Blast podcast yesterday to talk election integrity and the RNC. Check it out if you’re so inclined!
Cheap Shots
Two things about Republican gaslighting over abortion.
1.) 15 weeks isn't a moderate position. It's a ban and this date usually comes about 5-6 weeks before finding out if the fetus is compatible with life. I'd argue forcing women to become 'walking coffins' is quite extreme.
2.) 15 weeks isn't 15 weeks, and it's not simply about abortion. The ultimate goal of the Right to Life-style groups is for no abortions, no fetal testing, no IVF, no contraception, no miscarriage care, and for full fetal personhood. They say that fetuses should have 'equal rights', but you simply cannot give 'equal rights' to one 'person' living inside another. Especially when they are being represented by the government, and the woman is not. In this way, the State manages to end run around the rights of the woman completely. This is a problem for everyone.
"What happened? Lots of things, but two were perhaps central: People wanted change after 12 years of Reagan-Bush. And above all, the Cold War was over.
George H.W. Bush had accomplished what he was elected to do. No good deed goes unpunished. Voters felt they could afford to turn their attention to domestic policy. They could select a candidate who felt their pain."
This is debatable. I think what happened is Grover Norquist happened. A recession hit, which is a president killer, and Bush infuriated GOP voters by doing the responsible thing, reneging on his campaign promise not to raise taxes.
The Trump cheap shot is a perfect illustration of why Trump is not a very smart man. Maybe a very stable genius, but not smart at all. And another illustration of why anyone who agrees to be his attorney is not a smart person, either.
On the Menendez scandal, these charges dropped in Fall of last year, and we're looking at a trial date that's on schedule for the Spring. And yet, far more momentous and urgent trials for a presidential candidate are getting treated like chopped liver and may never even happen. This is corrupt.