Cagle World

There exists an “acute and immediate need” for a border wall in the Rio Grande Valley – Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Oct. 4, 2023.

“No”– President Biden when asked if a border wall was effective in halting illegal immigration, Oct. 5, 2023.

Aside from widening the administration’s credibility gap, the circumstances surrounding the announcement that some 20 miles of border wall construction had been approved revealed yet again the White House staff’s amateurish and clumsy handling of a major national and politically charged campaign issue.

The initial effort to low key the construction plan involved Mayorkas’ Friday night publishing in the Federal Register a waiver of 26 environmental regulations to clear the path for the project, clearly a decision designed to avoid public disclosure for as long as possible.

It was – as Friday night news dumps always become – a triumph of hope over experience.

When the plan was uncovered, the reaction was swift and unsparing. Biden was accused of the rankest hypocrisy, obliterating his campaign pledge – “not another foot of wall will be constructed by my administration” – and callously adopting the anti-immigrant policies of his predecessor.

Mayorkas attempted to walk back his “acute and immediate need” justification, arguing the decision did not represent a change in policy and echoed the president’s claim that additional wall construction would accomplish nothing in the way or border control.

Nearly two days elapsed before the administration settled on a damage control message – that the funds for the construction were appropriated by Congress in 2019 and that a refusal to spend them as directed would violate the law.

Critics were having none of it. The penalty for such a violation – if any – isn’t clear, and any legal challenge by Congress to withholding the money was unlikely or would take years to resolve.

Moreover, the construction could have been blocked by simply refusing to waive the environmental regulations, a step Mayorkas could have taken.

Further, the president could have gone back to Congress and requested the funds be re-directed, an action he said he’d taken previously unsuccessfully.

Only the terminally gullible can accept the administration’s claims.

The decision was an example of the inevitable result of political imperatives colliding with policy determinations.

As border crossings shattered records and migrants flooded by the tens of thousands into places like New York, Chicago, Boston, Denver and Philadelphia, creating enormous fiscal crises and social disruptions, the pressure on the Biden administration to act became overwhelming.

Democratic mayors like New York City’s Eric Adams and Democratic governors like Illinois J.D. Pritzker laid the blame at the White House door and demanded massive federal assistance.

The president’s “no wall construction” rapidly deteriorated and became untenable. Public approval of his handling of immigration had fallen into the mid 20 percent range, dragging his overall approval with it.

Combined with broad dissatisfaction with his performance on the economy, inflation and crime and a growing sense that his physical stamina and mental acuity have waned with age, Biden is increasingly vulnerable despite his determination to seek a second term.

In the early days of his administration, he boasted of the repeal of the border control and immigration restrictions put in place by his predecessor, most notably the construction of the wall which he ridiculed as a waste of money.

He handed responsibility for immigration matters to Vice President Kamala Harris whose first official act was to hand it back, quickly recognizing that it was an intractable and potentially politically damaging problem.

The administration can deny the president caved in to the political pressure – particularly that exerted by leading Democrats – but the cold reality is that stubbornly clinging to his nearly three-year record on immigration policy had lost all viability.

The policy change was handled poorly, to be sure, and the Administration would have been far better served by a straightforward admission that stronger steps were necessary in light of the severity of the crisis. Whether the construction of the wall will be sufficient to quell the critics remains to be seen.

Next time, though, don’t bother with the Federal Register.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Every presidential campaign requires a slogan – a pithy message in six words or less to convey a candidate’s vision, principles and qualifications to serve as leader of the free world.

It must be an instantly recognizable, easy to remember catchphrase that fits neatly on bumper stickers, posters, campaign literature and as the tagline in television, social media and digital advertising.

Some of the more memorable that have stood the test of time and the rush of history:

• In the 1930’s, Franklin Roosevelt promised a “New Deal” to rescue the country from the depths of the Great Depression.

• Dwight Eisenhower pledged “Peace And Prosperity.”

• John F. Kennedy identified “The New Frontier.”

• Lyndon Johnson vowed to create “The Great Society.”

• Ronald Reagan told the nation “It’s Morning Again in America.”

• George H.W. Bush pledged to turn American’s inate goodness into “A Thousand Points Of Light.”

• Bill Clinton reminded the country “It’s the economy, stupid.”

• Barack Obama guaranteed ”Hope And Change.”

• Donald Trump swore to “Make America Great Again.”

President Biden and his brain trust, facing a deeply divided electorate and increasingly dismal polling results on job performance and issues alike, selected “Bidenomics” and, in the most recent critical iteration “MAGAnomics,” to build his 2024 re-election effort around.

While history shows that previous slogans achieved varying levels of success, “Bidenomics” and “MAGAnomics” were box office bombs.

First, neither is particularly catchy or springs instantly to the minds of listeners as encapsulating the vision, principles or qualities of its subject.

The brain trust, it appears, is playing Scrabble with only 14 tiles to spell only “Bidenomics” or “MAGAnomics.” And, while they can justify both as legitimate words, no matter how often they are used, neither will win the game.

The difficulty for Biden is simply he’s attempting to convince the American people that, due to “Bidenomics,” they are inhabiting an economic utopia.

The disconnect couldn’t be more stark. Seventy percent of Americans believe the economy is worsening; 84 percent cite a rising cost of living; 74 percent describe the economy in scathingly negative terms; his handling of the economy is underwater by 34-59 percent and – most cutting of all – responded Trump would be more successful at dealing with economic issues by 47-36.

Rather than the utopia touted by Biden, Americans view themselves as living in a hellscape of chronic and punishing inflation, gasoline inching towards $4 per gallon while a trip to the supermarket must now include a credit card to help cover the costs of everyday staples and necessities.

The average cost of a new car is nearly $50,000 paid by seven-year loans at an average monthly payment exceeding $700.

The great American dream – owning a home – is exactly that for many Americans. Mortgage interest rates have reached a peak not experienced in decades.

“Bidenomics” demands the president convince Americans to disbelieve their daily experiences, deny what their eyes tell them, and put their faith and hopes in esoteric legislative acts – the Inflation Reduction Act, the American Rescue Plan, for instance – neither of which has had any discernible impact on relieving economic distress.

Biden is fond of describing his economic goal as one to “build from the middle out and the bottom up” – an empty, pointless phrase.

The campaign’s shift to “MAGAnomics” is designed to deflect the popular rejection of “Bidenomics” and portray the Republican approach to restoring economic health as involving deep spending cuts on social programs while providing tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations.

Despite its failure to penetrate the political environment and shift the debate dynamics in the president’s favor, the Biden team remains all in on “Bidenomics.”

Barring a seismic shift in the nation’s economic condition between now and the beginning of the intense campaign season in less than six months, “Bidenomics” is destined for the scrapheap rather than the scrapbook.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

As talk builds about whether Joe Biden is mentally and physically capable of withstanding a re-election campaign or serving another four years, it’s only be a matter of time before the most difficult of conversations with the president will occur.

With an astonishing 73 percent of respondents in a Wall Street Journal poll in agreement that the president – at age 81 – is too old to competently serve as chief executive, the age issue has become a dominant matter of debate.

His physical impairments are increasingly apparent – a shuffling gait, stumbles on stairs, and falls – and his cognitive strength has visibly waned under a series of rambling and barely coherent remarks and embellished, fanciful tales of past personal experiences.

The time is approaching for those around him to summon the courage and compassion to talk frankly and honestly with him about withdrawing as a candidate.

His public approval rating is mired at 40 percent. 60 percent of Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track, and Biden is seriously underwater on every major issue.

Political life can be exciting, exhilarating and satisfying, providing a sense of accomplishment and public acclaim. It can also be a cold, cruel and unforgiving world of derision and ridicule, much of it angry, vindictive and deeply hurtful.

His campaign team has struggled to deal with the relentless demands of the re-election effort, crafting a light schedule before friendly audiences, avoiding freewheeling exchanges with the media and eliminating any chances for ad hoc or off the cuff comments.

The strategy risks drawing further attention to their protective efforts and raises questions about the president’s general health and acuity, and whether he’s able to cope with the 15 months remaining before election day.

His vacations have come under scrutiny as well, with critics charging he has spent an excessive amount of time away from office, suggesting he requires the additional downtime to restore his stamina.

The president is still paying the price for the epic failure of his visit to fire ravaged Maui in Hawaii, where he compared the devastation and tragic loss of life to a minor fire that damaged a portion of the kitchen of his Delaware home.

He lamented he nearly lost his home, his wife, his cat and his vintage Corvette and thus could understand the plight of Maui residents who escaped with nothing but the clothes they were wearing.

It is impractical for the president to forego campaigning altogether, and much of the burden for carrying the administration message will be shouldered by cabinet officers, members of Congress and surrogates.

The demands of campaigning and the pressures of dealing with the presidency itself are compounded by the growing questions and allegations of wrongdoing surrounding the business dealings of his son, Hunter.

Never far from mind are the political ramifications of a withdrawal. Attention would immediately turn to the logical replacement – Vice President Kamala Harris – but misgivings about her qualifications to assume the presidency are wide and deep.

The Democratic Party establishment and those who genuinely care about Biden owe it to him to engage in the extraordinarily difficult conversation, to be brutally frank if necessary, and reach a conclusion about his future before it is too late.

He has served his country for nearly 50 years, as a U.S. Senator, vice president and president. Agree with him or not, support his candidacy or not, his commitment to public service is clear.

His close friends and political associates owe him support and consideration, even if the circumstances are painful.

He deserves better than to be subjected to physical harm or personal ridicule by continuing his quest for re-election merely to satisfy the demands of anyone who would place their political status and personal well-being above his.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

When America went to sleep on the night of Aug. 23 following the Republican presidential candidates’ debate, the Real Clear Politics polling averages put former president Donald Trump at 55 percent, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at 14 and the rest of the field between less than one percent to seven percent.

When the sun rose the following morning, Trump was on his way to the Fulton County, Georgia, jail to surrender, be fingerprinted and sit for a mugshot in response to a 41-count indictment alleging criminal racketeering conduct to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

That morning, the Real Clear Politics polling average had Trump at 53 and DeSantis at 14.

A week previously, the averages put Trump at 52 percent, DeSantis at 12 and the rest of the field still between zero and eight.

It showed also Trump in a statistical tie with President Biden.

In what is arguably the most surreal state of American politics in history, nothing has changed.

With a lead between 40 and 50 points over his closest rival, Trump skipped the debate but clouded it with his shadow. He received as much media attention as the eight candidates on the stage.

The loyalty of his party base is unprecedented. Through four criminal indictments lodged against him since April – two Federal and two state – his support has actually increased in some instances.

DeSantis’ performance has been disappointing, a victim of unrealistic expectations, a testy relationship with the media, turnovers in campaign staff and mistakes and missteps of untried and untested candidates on the national stage.

Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie began his campaign with a singular focus on being the leading anti-Trump candidate, convinced he’d discovered the lane to nomination ran through the former president.

Instead of a direct path, Christie is trapped in a cul-de-sac, going around and around hurling personal insults at Trump to little avail.

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy came across in the debate as an over-caffeinated carnival pitchman loudly defending Trump. His latest polling average stood at seven.

Former vice president Mike Pence, former North Carolina governor Nikki Haley and North Carolina Sen. Tim Scott are interchangeable parts with support between two and five percent.

If true that “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings,” she’s warming up to serenade former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson and North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, both of whom have struggled to reach one percent and are in danger of missing the cut for the Sept. 27 California debate.

Troubling as it may be to those in the Republican establishment who fear another Trump candidacy, a sense of inevitably has crept in. The former president holds commanding leads in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and decisive victories there could seal the deal. The window for coalescing behind an alternative is closing and by the first snowfall in early 2024, may slam shut.

The trials facing Trump guarantee years of litigation, absent unlikely plea bargains or early dismissals. The primary season and general election campaigning will play out against a background of motions, hearings, legal briefs, disputes over arcane points of law and appeals to higher courts and potentially the U. S. Supreme Court.

The trial scheduling and the size and complexity of the cases have created the chaos and turmoil in which Trump thrives. He’s seized on the prosecutorial scramble to drive his narrative of government bloodhounds singling him out and attempting to destroy him by whatever means possible.

There is no more vivid example of the depth and strength of his support than his team’s immediately seizing the mugshot taken at his Fulton County appearance, slapping the scowling image on t-shirts, hoodies and coffee mugs and reaping $4.1 million in sales revenue in 24 hours.

Novice lawyers have been advised the following: “When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table.”

There is no more accomplished a table pounder than Donald Trump.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Amid the howls of outrage and shouts of jubilation over the indictment in Georgia of former president Donald Trump on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, a few cautionary voices were raised quietly expressing concern that government prosecutors appear to be piling on the ex-president and creating sympathy for him.

The Georgia indictment is the fourth this year, and at 41 counts and 19 named defendants, it’s by far the most extensive and complex.

The concerned expressions mostly came from individuals who’d already judged him guilty of accusations he interfered in the election process by demanding the results be changed by whatever means to declare him the victor. They continued to discredit his assertions the election was rigged, despite no evidence to the contrary, and publicly characterized him as a serial liar.

It was an acknowledgement of the risk of a backlash, conferring martyrdom on Trump and fueling the conspiratorial belief the indictments represented a deliberate and relentless use of unfettered government power to destroy a political opponent.

Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis obviously believes her case is compelling and will win guilty verdicts.

There exists, though, a hint of self-aggrandizement – a desire to seize and hold the center of attention – surrounding her actions in announcing the indictment.

At 19 defendants, it is more than the others – two Federal and one state – and is unique in that it alleges a violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, a 1970 law used primarily to bring charges against organized crime figures. Georgia is one of seven states with a version of the RICO law.

Her demand that all defendants stand trial together guarantees high intensity media coverage, with Willis at the center. Legal scholars have questioned the wisdom of such a massive trial and the potential for a carnival atmosphere – particularly if televised – and a logistical nightmare.

Willis’ further demand for a March 4 trial date establishes her as the first prosecutor to place Trump in the witness chair, leapfrogging ahead of the Federal cases and placing her squarely in the center of attention.

Once again, legal experts have opined that her insistence on a start date is unrealistic given the preparatory time necessary, size and complexity of the charges, and its potential to consume many months to the exclusion of the other pending cases. With as many as 19 attorneys involved, the number of motions, objections, and hearings will be staggering, dragging the proceedings out through the primary election schedule and possibly the November election.

Willis has amassed an enormous cache of evidence – much of it damning by Trump’s own words – and is convinced of the strength of her case. She may very well be correct but avoiding any further actions or comments that could be construed as motivated by ambition or self promotion would be in her best interest.

Willis would not be the first to use an anti-corruption platform as a path to a political career – an accusation sure to be leveled by Trump supporters. It is ironic that one of the defendants, Rudy Guiliani, used his U.S. Attorney’s office in New York to wage war on organized crime and rode it to the mayor’s office in 1993.

Trump has mastered portraying himself as a victim and can just as seamlessly slide into aggressor mode. He will use the Georgia indictment to support his contention of out of control government prosecutors engaged in political persecution (victim) while continuing to attack it as a witch hunt with no legitimate basis (aggressor).

He can play the martyr with equal aplomb.

His political support will not waver; he’ll continue to lead the field for the Republican presidential nomination and may, in fact, secure it.

The perception of an overreaching government that will stop at nothing in its quest to destroy him personally and politically – a perception he will actively and relentlessly promote – will solidify his support.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

“The Trump Trials,” a multi-act drama of intrigue, deception, ego and struggle for power, is scheduled to debut off Broadway in March, opening what will likely experience a longer run than “Phantom of the Opera.”

It will go on the road during 2024 with engagements in Washington, D.C., Florida and probably Georgia, where it will play to packed audiences in courthouse venues.

Its lead actor, former president Donald Trump, will head a cast of dozens of household names from the political, legal and academic worlds as Federal and state government prosecutors strive to win guilty verdicts on a staggering array of charges arising from Trump’s actions in the aftermath of his 2020 loss to President Biden.

With Trump enjoying a commanding lead in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, the impending trials create an unprecedented and surreal circumstance for prosecutors – placing on trial a candidate for president and potentially a president-elect.

It must be asked, though, whether the patience of the American people will grow thin and their interest dissipate over courtroom dramas playing out in the midst of the most significant exercise of national participatory democracy – the popular selection of a president.

That the wheels of justice will grind slowly on for years is certain as Trump confronts two Federal indictments, one in New York and likely one in Georgia.

The New York charge of business fraud for allegedly disguising hush money payments as legal expenses to conceal an extramarital affair is by far the least consequential, dismissed by some as the equivalent of overdue library books. The potential for salacious testimony, though, holds some appeal.

Far more serious are the Federal indictments charging Trump with illegally retaining classified government documents and obstructing efforts to retrieve them from his Florida home and the allegations that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election by spreading claims he knew to be false.

The indictment anticipated in Georgia is based on Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn its’ election outcome a declare him the victor.

The sheer volume of motions, hearings, arguments and appeals – many of which will be disputes over arcane points of law – could well create a boredom that will test the theory that the only thing shorter than the public’s memory is the public’s attention span, particularly with the distraction of a presidential campaign.

Trump’s legal team will use time to its advantage, convinced their client will benefit from a trial and the carnival-like atmosphere it will produce.

It is a given the process will drag on for years and – in the event of convictions – eventually reach the Supreme Court.

While guilty verdicts are certainly a possibility, it will likely be years before final adjudication by which Trump will have reached his early 80s.

The odds of any judge imposing jail time on an 80-plus-year-old man are exceedingly slim. Rather, significant monetary penalties along with non-incarceration punishments are likely upon conviction.

At the same time, acquittals will deal incalculable damage to the Department of Justice, validating accusations by Trump and his supporters of a government witch hunt and abuse of power to destroy a political opponent.

No matter the outcome, it will accomplish little to heal the deep divisions and polarization gripping the country. A finding of guilty or innocent will not sway either faction.

Public interest is certain to diminish over the many months of trials and years of appeals and once the presidential election concludes will fade even further.

It is, however, intriguing to envision a scenario in which Trump is the Republican nominee and — despite the odds – defeats Biden in November, leaving prosecutors in an uncharted no man’s land in search of their next step.

Do they continue the process of pursuing a sitting and duly elected president or simply withdraw the cases believing that the occupant of the office is immune from criminal prosecution?

In seven months, the curtain will go up on opening night of “The Trump Trials.” Long lines at the box office are anticipated and curtain calls are certain.

Look out “Phantom.”

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

In the Democratic’s stepped up offensive against presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a faint whiff of panic is in the air, a stirring of concern that no good can come from one of the nation’s most storied political names lingering on the fringes of the party’s President Biden re-election strategy.

Conventional wisdom has it that a candidate trailing by as much as 50 points should be ignored. Punching down is considered a foolish and counter-productive strategy.

The issue is not in doubt – the presidential nomination is hopelessly beyond Kennedy’s grasp. His high point came early in his campaign – reaching 20 percent in some polling – but has since settled into the low teens.

Given Kennedy’s standing and failure to gain ground, the establishment has embraced a broad and orchestrated attack not merely to marginalize him, but to toss him into the “kooks and cranks” bin and convince Democrats who might be enamored of him that he’s lost his grip on reality.

The ferocity of the attacks – accusing him of antisemitism and racism, for instance – is indicates a belief that he should be crushed rather than merely damaged.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York characterized Kennedy as a Republican pawn of right wing political operatives, not so subtly tying him to former president Donald Trump, the Democratic Party’s anti-Christ.

The onslaught begs the question: Why go nuclear on a candidate who is 50 points behind, who’s lost much of the support he began with, has failed to gain any traction and cannot possibly win the nomination?

In what political universe and under what logic does Kennedy represent a threat to Biden?

To be sure, he’s given his critics ample opportunity to raise serious doubts about his fitness to lead.

His long history of claiming vaccines cause childhood ailments and psychological damage has placed him on the scientific fringe. His recent suggestion that the COVID-19 pathogen was bio-engineered to spare Asians and Jews while infecting Caucasians and African Americans was totally lacking in any foundation and brought well-deserved criticism raining down on his head.

It is difficult to regain credibility and convince others of seriousness of purpose and thought while burdened with a long history of out of the mainstream beliefs.

For the most part, the White House and the Biden campaign have wisely refrained from the attacking Kennedy, relying instead largely on Congressional surrogates to carry the message while remaining aloof and promoting the president’s agenda.

The president’s campaign has dismissed talk of a debate and the intensified focus on Kennedy’s conspiratorial ruminations provides further justification for refusing a one on one confrontation.

It also allays fears of many that Kennedy would hold his own in a debate while the Biden team would hold its collective breath hoping the president will avoid responses trailing off into mumbling, forget names and places, utter disconnected phrases or veer off into reminiscing.

Team Biden will argue that it would be dangerous to give Kennedy a national platform alongside the president to spout his wild-eyed debunked theories.

Moreover, if Biden chooses to withdraw – a matter of continued speculation despite being unlikely – it is crucial to prevent the party turning to Kennedy as a viable alternative.

While secretly longing for a 2020 reprise of a campaign from the basement, the Biden team has carefully placed him in front of friendly audiences and avoided any freewheeling interaction with the media.

The strategy recognizes that Biden’s public approval remains in the low forty percent range, a majority disapproves of his handling of inflation, and more than 40 percent of self-identified Democrats would prefer a different candidate.

Convincing voters conditions under Biden are far more comfortable than their real life daily experiences will be difficult. Erasing that disconnect will require more than selling “Bidenomics” – it will demand visible economic improvement, easing inflation and bringing the cost of living into alignment with personal income and ability to pay.

Achieving those goals should take precedence over tamping down misplaced and imaginary panic about a candidate with a legendary name but whose impact and influence are those of someone named Smith or Jones.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

While the field of participants in the first Republican presidential debate on Aug. 23 in Milwaukee is essentially settled, the run up to the event is overshadowed by who might ditch it altogether and turn it into a meaningless gathering.

It is yet another instance of the long shadow cast by former president Donald Trump – the runaway leader in polling – who stands astride the political landscape sucking up the oxygen and blotting out the sun his competition desperately needs to remain viable.

Greater media attention has been directed toward Trump as a potential no-show rather than the other six candidates who appear to have achieved the fund raising and poll support criteria to qualify.

Trump – in character – has milked the speculation for all it’s worth, hinting he is inclined to skip the event rather than attract an audience for competitors who trail him by as much as 30 to 50 points and who will gang up on him on the debate stage.

As conventional wisdom strategy, it makes sense, unlikely to undermine his base of support while portraying the debate as a group discussion of also-rans.

There is, though, the matter of Trump’s massive ego, a personal trait so dominant it could convince him to take the stage and prove he can overcome a deck stacked against him.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – Trump’s erstwhile best buddy turned most severe antagonist – is of that view, seeing a debate format as his opportunity to separate from the rest of the field by laying into the former president on policy, issue and personal grounds.

The former New Jersey governor has spent every working day since his June 4 candidacy announcement ratcheting up his attacks on Trump, often in highly personal terms while justifying his rhetoric as the only behavior the ex-president understands.

Christie is the more accomplished and polished debater – glib, rhetorically nimble and with a matching ego. He and Trump both possess hair trigger tempers and flamethrower vocabularies which – when stoked – place the debate in peril of devolving into a cacophony of shouts, interruptions and talk overs while the remainder of the field are turned into a chorus of supporting bystanders. Their already steep hill to climb will be made even steeper.

To be sure, watching Trump and Christie go nose to nose is more compelling than an exchange between former vice president Mike Pence and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott over the most effective method to address climate change.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s closest competitor at 30 points behind but the only other candidate with double digit polling support, will likely attempt to join in pummeling Trump, but his will merely be another voice playing second fiddle behind Christie.

Executives at Fox News Channel, the debate hosts, surely must send up a prayer each morning that Trump will participate, understanding that his absence will seriously diminish interest and whatever credit the network receives for hosting the first debate of the 2024 campaign season will slip quietly into irrelevancy.

If his lead holds up and he loses no significant ground, Trump’s presence at future debates is very much in question; a simple matter of nothing to lose and much to gain by sitting them out.

A mercifully anonymous reporter long ago explained political debates this way: “People watch them the way they watch the Indy 500; not to see who wins but who crashes and burns coming out of the fourth turn.”

If Trump shows up, the debate moderator might want to replace his welcoming remarks to “Gentlemen, start your engines.”

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

With two-thirds of the country disapproving of the Biden administration’s handling of the economy and inflation and an equal ratio believing the nation is on the wrong track, the White House and campaign team have settled on a reboot strategy to change the frame of reference of the debate.

Rather than respond to partisan criticisms and popular discontent with inflation, rising mortgage interest rates and anemic growth, the administration has set out to convince Americans that steps it has taken are paying dividends in the quest for a robust economy and an affordable cost of living.

It smacks of a make lemonade out of lemons strategy after a rising number of Americans have confessed they’ve been forced into living paycheck to paycheck and turning to credit cards to cover expenses.

The shift in strategy is an acknowledgment that inflation and economic distress can’t be ignored or supplanted by other issues and that a major public relations offensive is crucial to at least neutralize it as the turning point in the 2024 election.

The magnitude of the task is easily seen in the brutal polling results: On handling the economy, the president is down 38-57; on inflation, he’s on the wrong side 31-63, and on the nation’s direction, he fails by an astounding 22-66. His overall approval rating remains mired in the low 40 percent range.

The president’s team settled on the term “Bidenomics” as its initial step in re-framing the debate parameters and concentrating on the administration’s legislative accomplishments as proof that he’s turned the ship into calmer waters.

They cite passage of the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment Act, the Buy American Act and the Inflation Reduction Act as significant, if not historic, anti-inflation and economic growth steps.

A clever and catchy one word description is helpful in drawing attention, but “Bidenomics” is neither one. In fact, it is somewhat counterproductive in that combining his name with economics ties him directly to the angst and unease prevalent in the country.

Republicans have rebutted each of the administration’s claims, accusing it of highly selective and misleading use of economic data and outright falsehoods in claiming credit for deficit reduction and job creation.

The impact of the legislation cited by the president – while significant – was, for the most part, not immediate and likely will not be fully felt by the broader national electorate for many months. It is a policy and public relations hill that must be scaled.

Each visit to the service station gasoline pump or the grocery store or the auto dealer is an immediate and disconcerting reminder of inexorably rising costs. Against that consumer experience, the christening of a new bridge constructed over a river somewhere in Kentucky under the infrastructure act is hardly a compelling argument.

To be sure, there will be other issues impacting the political and campaign landscape leading to November of 2024 – abortion rights, immigration reform, rising crime, student loan forgiveness, the ongoing media attention to the business activities of the president’s son, to name a few.

Added to the environment will be the continued attention to Biden’s age as well as his physical stamina and mental agility. Should former president Donald Trump secure the Republican nomination – a contest in which he continues to lead – the campaign will be spiced by the unprecedented question of whether voters feel indictments are a disqualifying trait.

The president’s team has put “Bidenomics” in play, though, and it will continue in a dominant place as the campaigns gather momentum.

The jury is out on its viability and a final verdict won’t be returned for more than a year. Any cooling of inflation, a decline in interest rates or an easing of the cost of living will be heralded by the administration as evidence of strong leadership which should be rewarded by the voters just as continued stagnation will be punished.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

While the internet continues to dissect the 37-count federal indictment against former President Donald Trump for retaining highly classified government documents after leaving office, one of the more intriguing questions is why anyone would do this in the first place.

What was the point in filling 300 cartons with secret official papers and spiriting them off to Florida, where they were stacked haphazardly in a storage room at Trump’s resort in Palm Beach?

In the waning days of the Trump administration, when presumably the material was gathered, was there no one in the room who spoke up and warned it was a bad idea to carry out the plan?

Did all involved agree to it or were those who had doubts fear speaking up and incurring Trump’s wrath?

The notion promoted by some that Trump intended to sell the documents to a foreign power is beyond absurd. The indictment does not allege that nor has the Department of Justice suggested it. Even Trump’s most fevered supporters would have quickly abandoned him if dealing the material in some sort of international clandestine blackmarket was under consideration.

The answer to the why of it can likely be found in Trump’s personality, an individual whose turbo-charged ego matches his turbo-charged libido.

Call it self-absorption or uncontrolled narcissism, but Trump is obsessed with being someone no one else can be, knowing something no one else knows and possessing something no one else possesses.

He has placed his name on everything from office buildings, hotels, gambling casinos and airlines. The brand and the man have merged into a single entity.

Given his history, it is logical and likely he retained the documents to triumphantly pull out of a desk drawer and wave them around to visitors while bragging they contained some of America’s most closely held secrets. There is some evidence that he did exactly that on more than one occasion.

Bragging rights mean a great deal to him and what better to brag about than personal possession of material involving nuclear war, international intrigue, intelligence gathering, insight into foreign leaders and national security.

The Department of Justice indictment is a damning list of allegations, an existential threat to Trump that far outweighs the wafer-thin indictment for business fraud brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in April.

Trump, according to the indictment, stored the cartons of documents in an unsecured area, potentially exposing them to anyone without need or authority to view them.

He also is accused of refusing to return the material to the government and of lying to the FBI concerning their whereabouts.

His defenders, including some in Congress, argue that President Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence kept and stored classified material in their homes or offices while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stored classified material on a private e-mail server in her home.

Those, however, are arguments to be made in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law. A defense that concedes one’s client may have broken the law but others committed similar egregious acts without consequence will not travel well before a judge and jury.

Biden and Pence returned the material once it was discovered, and while the FBI accused Clinton of gross carelessness in her handling of sensitive material, her transgressions were not criminal.

Despite what appears to be a rock solid case against Trump has not, however, impacted the support of his Republican base which continues to stand firmly behind him in his quest for the presidential nomination.

He’s maintained a lead of as much as 40 points in polling and appears to be holding steady. His claims of a hyper-partisan band of prosecutors determined to destroy him has resonated with his base, to the dismay of Republican leaders who fear he is so deeply wounded by his legal troubles and criminal accusations that his defeat and those of the congressional ticket in 2024 is assured.

His ego and his desire to be, know and possess what no one else has or does has brought him to the brink of decades in prison.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.