Cagle World

By all accounts, it is a near certainty the Republican Party will regain control of the House of Representatives this year and is well-positioned to gain one seat and secure a Senate majority.

The only thing standing in the way is Donald Trump.

If the national party leadership enters the midterm campaign season as the cult of Trump, the odds of returning to congressional power for the first time since 2014 will plummet.

With an unpopular President Biden, a bitterly divided Democratic Party and national dissatisfaction with the country’s direction, the Republican future is bright.

It is time to cut ties with the ex-president and halt the damaging debate over his insistence he was cheated out of re-election in 2020.

His recent unhinged rally harangues have astonished even many of his hard-core supporters and created a narrative that, left unchecked, will turn voters away from the party’s congressional candidates.

For more than a year, Trump has insisted the election was stolen despite not a shred of credible supporting evidence has been presented in the more than 60 court challenges.

His response has been to stoke outrage by claiming Vice President Mike Pence had the unilateral power to overturn the election results – an argument with no constitutional or statutory foundation.

He most recently urged his followers to erupt in national mass protests if charges are lodged by “vicious, racist prosecutors” investigating allegations of illegal activities by his private businesses as well as by accusations he interfered in the balloting process in Georgia.

It was a call to arms to promote civil uprisings to discredit the established legal system if he or his businesses are found culpable. He followed by pledging that if elected president in 2024, he would issue pardons to anyone found guilty of Federal charges for participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U. S. Capitol building.

It was the kind of fist-shaking rant history has recorded as shouted from balconies to mass audiences below.

Republican leaders are likely aghast at Trump’s language and threats, but those few who have spoken out have been measured while the vast majority have remained silent.

It is indicative of Trump’s iron grip on that portion of the party base that shouts in agreement when he speaks and it creates a fear that crossing the former president would alienate his dedicated followers.

His calls to cast aside the constitution and place his interests above it, incite potentially violent street protests and abuse presidential pardon authority to absolve rioters who threatened duly elected members of Congress, can no longer go unanswered.

Dismissing his actions as simply “Trump being Trump” is wishful thinking, a belief that Americans will grow weary of his histrionics, and he’ll fade into irrelevancy. They rightly point out that without the national stage given him by the White House, his voice and authority are seriously diminished. His banishment from social media platforms has hampered his reach as well.

He remains, though, a shrewd manipulator of the mainstream media. They cover his rallies, tout his fund-raising prowess and assess the strength of his candidate endorsements.

Trump’s guiding principle is that the American people can never hear enough from him and the media is a willing accomplice in achieving it.

He understands that the greater his outrage, the more inflammatory and personally coarse his language, the more widespread is the coverage.

The damage inflicted on the Republican Party, though, will continue to pile up and, in the absence of a response, will become a crushing burden.

While Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell – a frequent target of some of Trump’s cruelest attacks – has ignored him, it is a position that will become untenable over time.

It is time to acknowledge that Trump will not go away anytime soon, he’ll not retire gracefully like his predecessors and will continue to strew political havoc throughout the Republican Party.

Congressional elections are 10 months off, but serious campaigning and fund raising have already begun.

The party leadership can no longer afford a delay and drift strategy and hope Trump will talk and bluster his way out of relevancy.

The leadership must move decisively to isolate Trump and break cleanly from his incendiary rhetoric.

If not, Trump will isolate the party.

–

Copyright 2022 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 President Biden’s downward spiral in public approval continues, nervous Democrats have sought to reassure one another to remain calm, insisting there remains ample time for the administration to right the ship and bring the American people on board.

Signs of desperation have crept onto the horizon, and none more politically fraught than rumors that Bill and Hillary Clinton will re-emerge to rescue the party – he as strategist and she as candidate for president in 2024.

That Democrats would turn for salvation to the most self-absorbed individuals in recent American history is compelling evidence that faith in a Biden administration rebound is fast disappearing, likely costing Congressional majorities this year and the White House in three years.

Twenty-eight House Democrats have already announced retirements, preferring to leave voluntarily rather than be swept out by an incoming red tide in November.

In the span of one year, Biden has plunged in public approval – as low as 32 percent in one survey – while struggling on every front.

His signature domestic agenda item, a $1.75 trillion expansion and creation of new social welfare entitlement programs lies in ruins. His response to the rise in the economy-sapping rate of inflation has been to dismiss it as temporary, while illegal immigration over the southern border remains out of control. A much-touted effort at rewriting election law appears doomed, and the pandemic continues to establish record infections amid criticism the administration acted late and weakly to control it.

And the chaotic and deadly military withdrawal from Afghanistan last August remains a global embarrassment.

Kamala Harris is a walking public relations nightmare, her bizarre and often incoherent public utterances have secured her place on the roster of America’s most inconsequential vice presidents.

Speculation will continue to swirl around whether Biden, at 82 years of age, will forgo a re-election effort in 2024, leaving Harris as the heir apparent – a prospect terrifying Democrats while delighting Republicans.

Enter Bill and Hill, the answer to the short bench bedeviling the Democrats in search of a candidate with a chance of winning but who, at the least, will avert a landslide loss and maintain a competitive position in Congress.

Hillary has maintained a presence on social media and in select interviews, offering suggestions and analyses while attacking Republicans as an existential threat to democracy.

Her overwhelming desire for relevancy emerged in her recent subtle swipe at progressives who, she said, have concentrated mistakenly on driving a left wing agenda rather than on areas of the country where victory is possible.

Translation: Socialism is a loser, centrist moderation is a winner.

Her bitterness over her 2016 loss to Trump comes through occasionally as she continues to blame it on Bernie Sanders, former FBI Director James Comey, and a gang of shadowy Russian operatives working on Trump’s behalf.

If her introspection equaled her self-absorption, she could discover the answer.

Bill Clinton is one of the most insightful and shrewd political figures in recent memory. Hillary Clinton is not.

She remains a polarizing figure among those who find her arrogance, condescension and superior attitude off putting, often pointing to her “basket of deplorables” description of Trump supporters as damaging evidence of out of touch elitism. Even her campaign slogan “It’s Her Turn,” reeked of personal privilege.

There’s little doubt that, at age 77, she would find another run for the presidency intriguing, a redemption of her 2016 loss of an election she was universally predicted to win.

However, it’s likely she would resist competing in exhausting and costly primary contests and insist on a clear field to the nomination. While moving Harris aside may be painful, the party establishment – hungry and desperate for a victory – wouldn’t hesitate.

They are willing to swallow hard and deal with the self-centeredness of the Clintons if it puts the White House within reach.

Is the nation, though, prepared for a Clinton-Trump rematch?

–

Copyright 2022 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.

Build Back Better, the centerpiece of President Biden’s ambitious domestic legislative agenda, has become Build Back Later…maybe.

What was to have been the administration’s history-making signature accomplishment – a $1.75 trillion expansion of existing social welfare programs and the creation of new entitlements – now lies in ruins and the odds of its resurrection are beyond bleak.

What was to have arrested the president’s downward spiral in public support resulted instead in a further erosion of confidence in the administration’s competence. (The Real Clear Politics polling average, for instance, places Biden’s approval at 42 percent and disapproval at 53 percent.)

What was to have provided a record of achievement for Democratic congressional candidates to campaign on this year has instead highlighted the internal fissures in the party while adding greatly to their fears of a Republican sweep and seizing control of Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer’s confident prediction that the program would reach the president’s desk in September was wishful thinking rather than achievable reality as his self-imposed deadline was postponed time after time.

The warning signs were clear and persistent, yet seemingly ignored by Schumer and the White House.

For months, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Arizona Sen. Krysten Sinema were steadfast in their opposition to the infrastructure proposal, citing the adverse impact of massive additional government spending at a time of unprecedented debt and a perilous upsurge in inflationary pressures.

In an evenly divided Senate, both held make or break leverage, eventually invoked by Manchin’s televised announcement he intended to vote against the bill after prolonged negotiations with the Administration and the president personally broke down.

Schumer acknowledged he’d lost the high stakes contest and further efforts to resolve the differences were futile. He conceded that BBB, in some form or other, may be considered in March – six months past his deadline – and well into the 2022 midterm election season.

In the meantime, he strove to save face and offer some degree of optimism by declaring both sides had agreed to a “cooling off period” and negotiations would resume at some undetermined point.

Manchin appeared less urgent, pointing out no further talks had been scheduled while reiterating his opposition and again suggesting major revisions – read, reducing the cost – would be the crucial factor in winning him over.

There appears to be growing sentiment for separating the major components and bringing each to the floor to stand or fail on their individual merits – a tacit admission that stuffing dozens of programs into one massive bill and cooking the books to maintain the fiction of cost-consciousness was a strategic blunder.

It was a case of kitchen sink legislating, throwing program after program into the proposal and believing support for some would be sufficient to overcome misgivings about others.

The White House messaging was flawed as well, particularly the glaringly absurd insistence by the president and his communications staff that the bill would cost “zero dollars,” that it would be fully paid for raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

It was the level of simplistic thinking usually found in a contest for the presidency of the sixth grade class in elementary school.

Taxpayers instinctively understood that the no cost rationale was patently silly, that raising corporate taxes would result in the cost being passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

There existed a level of hubris as well on the part of congressional leadership and the White House, a belief that a new president would enjoy a period of unfettered support, that his agenda would be automatically accepted for the asking by a unanimous Democratic party, particularly contrasting sharply with the chaos and uproar that occurred daily in the prior Administration.

Irresistible momentum would be built, they believed, carrying even doubters along toward an eventual celebratory Oval Office bill signing ceremony.

Falling under the spell of political hubris too often skews its victims’ perspective and the jolt back to reality can be painful, indeed.

It is certain that whatever the outcome of negotiations and whatever final form BBB eventually assumes months from now, it will bear scant resemblance to Roosevelt’s New Deal or Johnson’s Great Society.

–

Copyright 2022 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.

For years, it’s been black letter law in journalistic ethics: Never use your position, insight or knowledge to aid or advise public figures – particularly politicians – in return for something of value.

It was a bright line to be crossed at significant personal and professional peril.

Over the years the line had been blurred by some in the media who self-rationalize their actions, embracing a delusion their transgressions would escape discovery.

Today, the line is no longer blurry – it’s been erased altogether, expunged by self-aggrandizing journalists blinded to their ethical obligations by their exposure to power centers and taken in by the attention paid to them by those who occupy those centers.

CNN news anchor Chris Cuomo paid with his $6 million a year job for advising his New York Gov. brother, Andrew Cuomo, how to deal with the media over allegations of sexual harassment.

He was protected until revelations he used his position to gain knowledge from other reporters and sources to pass along to his brother – information valuable to the governor’s damage control efforts.

The backlash over the disclosures and the embarrassment it threatened proved more than CNN could tolerate. It was time to cut their losses. Cuomo was dismissed within days.

The recent disclosures of text messages sent by the hosts of two leading shows on Fox News Channel to the chief of staff to President Trump urging a speech to the nation at the height of the Jan. 6 assault on the U. S. Capitol has again raised ethical questions over personal involvement in presidential decision-making.

Both Sean Hannity and his colleague Laura Ingraham sent frantic messages to chief of staff Mark Meadows, imploring a presidential address urging the protestors to leave the Capitol.

Their messages warned the riot was inflicting major damage on Trump and would destroy his legacy.

Both justified their private messages as nothing different from what they’d already said repeatedly on the air. Why, then, did each feel it crucial to use private back channels to offer advice if not for a self-serving desire to play a significant role in a history-making – albeit disgraceful – event?

Granted, neither Hannity nor Ingraham went as far over the line as Cuomo, but their efforts to insert themselves into the center of the riveting events swirling around them smacked of personal aggrandizement and self-promotion.

That both were long time supporters of Trump and used their platforms to advance his agenda while belittling his opponents does not excuse privately serving in an advisory capacity to him.

Cuomo, Hannity, Ingraham, along with their colleagues at competing networks, would refer to themselves as journalists but they are not reporters in the traditional sense.

Rather, they are editorialists and polemicists who are paid handsomely – not to mention book deals and lecture fees – to deliver ideologically-driven and frequently inflammatory dissertations to audiences receptive to their messages and who tune in faithfully as a form of validation for their rigidly held views.

There is no objectivity in their harangues, no recognition of valid contrary points of view, and no understanding that opinions different from theirs deserve attention.

In other words, none of the components traditionally present in news are found. It is opinion only, one individual’s interpretation, ideologically right or left, of national and international events.

The communications revolution upended the media landscape, overwhelming the print press and driving much of the traditional news outlets into financial oblivion while hastening the arrival and dominance of opinion-based programing.

It created an environment for points of view to masquerade as news free of the obligations and responsibilities which historically governed the industry.

The line that had always separated the news media from involvement in the political universe was disparaged as a quaint notion no longer relevant. It produced the kind of entanglements that brought down Chris Cuomo and legitimized the actions of Hannity, Ingraham and others who see nothing untoward in adopting roles as advisors and strategists for political figures.

Public confidence in the news media is at an all time low and critics scornfully refer to journalistic ethics as an oxymoron.

It is time for many in the media to engage in self-reflection and cease contributing to the scorn.

–

Copyright 2021 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 Republican victories narrowed the partisan gap in the House of Representatives to eight seats in 2020 (221-213) and followed it this year by prevailing in the Virginia gubernatorial race, the party was positively ecstatic about its ever-brightening future and enormously enhanced odds of winning Congressional control in the 2022 midterms.

With those gains in hand, coupled with the sinking public approval ratings of President Biden, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy could now spend more time and energy auditioning for the role of House Speaker, leading a Republican majority when Congress convenes its 2023 session.

Thus far, though, McCarthy’s audition seems more like a third-rate vaudeville act.

His members have fallen to remarkably tasteless infighting, flinging cringe-worthy and profane invective at one another amid demands that the handful of Republicans who supported the trillion-dollar infrastructure legislation be drummed out of the party.

McCarthy’s efforts to restore some sense of order to his raucous caucus haven’t achieved a great deal, evidenced by his frustrated appeal for behavior because “this isn’t junior high school.”

One of his protagonists, Georgia’s conspiracy theorist Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, responded by boldly declaring that McCarthy had not locked up the votes to ascend to the speakership and hinted that he’d face serious challenges should the party regain control.

Greene, along with equally outspoken colleagues Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Paul Gosar of Arizona, have created a massive political and public relations headache for McCarthy by stoutly defending their controversial comments and ratcheting up their already overheated rhetoric, keeping the issue alive in the media and drowning out any Republican issue-oriented messaging.

Greene and Gosar were removed earlier from their committee assignments for their public comments ridiculing and threatening Democrats while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is under increasing pressure to impose similar punishment on Boebert in response to the Colorado representative’s recent remark hinting that Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Muslim, was a terrorist.

When South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace criticized the anti-Muslim comments, Greene pounced on her, calling her “trash” to which Mace responded by calling Greene “crazy.”

When the House approved one part of the Biden administration’s infrastructure package with 13 Republican votes, it produced demands from the right the 13 be expelled from the party, a self-defeating insistence from a party already in the minority and trying to claw its way out in a favorable political climate.

While the Biden administration is under siege for its decisions on issues both foreign and domestic – including stubborn inflationary pressures on the economy and a resurgent COVID-19 pandemic – Republicans have been unable to take full advantage of the president’s troubles and instead are bogged down in a family brawl which shows no signs of abating.

McCarthy seems reluctant to move more decisively to rein in the far right elements, partly out of concern he’ll need their support in his campaign for Speaker and – more politically fraught – out of fear of offending former President Donald Trump, whose grip on the national party seems to tighten with each passing week.

McCarthy has stepped carefully in Trump’s presence, recognizing the ex-president’s popularity with the party base and understanding the influence he wields could block his path to the speaker’s post.

If Republicans regain control of the House next year, Trump will take a victory lap whether he deserves to or not and could play a decisive role in the leadership selection process.

McCarthy understands the delicate spot he occupies and appreciates the balancing act necessary to create at least of semblance of internal peace and calm.

Should the open combat continue, though, it is inevitable that the American people will begin to wonder whether a Republican Party unable to unify itself can be trusted to lead Congress and deal effectively with a president who is likely to be a lame duck, choosing to step down after the final two years of his first term.

While Democrats, too, have suffered under ideological clashes with its vocal and frequently demeaning rhetoric of its far left wing, it is the Republicans who will continue to draw greater media attention and absorb more damage to its quest for partisan advantage.

McCarthy’s audition for the speaker’s role has not gone well up to this point. A strategy of indecision and efforts to keep all party elements happy will only result in his opening night followed immediately by closing night.

–

Copyright 2021 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.

A desperately needed bounce in public acclaim following President Biden’s signing of the $1 trillion infrastructure proposal has yet to materialize, leaving the president wallowing in the low 40 percent range in job performance approval from a discontented and dispirited nation helpless in the face of out-of-control inflation.

Warned each day of a supply chain choked off to the point of paralysis, Americans were also pummeled by reports of double-digit percentage increases in the cost of virtually every essential item, including heating bills just as the winter season descends.

The administration response that the inflationary pressures were temporary, caused by recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, didn’t square with the real life experiences of the American people.

For months, the administration assured the party establishment that once the warring factions in Congress called a truce and approved part one of the infrastructure package, all would be well.

But the American people did not rise to their feet in a spontaneous display of thanksgiving for the enactment of a plan to spend $1 trillion on construction and rehabilitation of roads, bridges and the like, dealing a crushing blow to Democratic hopes for reversing the growing speculation that the 2022 midterm elections would return Republicans to majority power.

Not only did the theory turn out to be badly flawed, but the $1.75 trillion second act in the infrastructure drama appears in jeopardy as progressives and moderates appear poised to clash once again over the cost and scope.

The House-approved plan is certain to be changed in significant measure by the Senate exclusively with Democratic support, teeing up yet another confrontation with the party’s strident left wing, who’ve made it clear it is prepared to leave blood on the conference room carpet if it doesn’t get its’ way.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer has established a timetable of the Christmas holiday for final Senate action. At the same time, New York Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, leader of the House progressives, warned any delay in Senate action or dramatic changes in the legislation could lead to a refusal by the progressives to support other administration initiatives in the future.

How much of her remarks are bluff and bluster and how much are threats and promises remains to be seen.

The outlook in the Senate for the social infrastructure bill is reasonably optimistic, a reflection of the urgency to deliver a major victory to the administration.

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, key to success in the evenly divided Senate, is opposed to the bill’s paid family leave provisions and has continued to express concern over the proposal’s cost and the tax increases to fund it.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has remained adamant that the bill include an expansion of Medicare to cover vision, dental and hearing treatments. He has been equally resistant to raising the cap on income tax deductions for state and local taxes (SALT), ridiculing it as a giveaway to the rich. In Bernie world, there is no great sin imaginable than coddling the wealthy.

While the effects of inflation on the country have dominated the political climate, it follows a series of mishandled issues which has called the competency of the administration into question.

The crisis of illegal immigration at the southern border, the messy and tragic withdrawal of U. S. military forces from Afghanistan, rising violent crime in many cities and the often disjointed response to meeting the COVID-19 pandemic have all contributed to the perception of an Administration in disarray.

Democrats foresee a disaster on the horizon. For the first time in decades, Republicans lead in the generic ballot – one party versus the other rather than a specific candidate matchup – an ominous portent that a landslide loss is in the making.

Supporters are fond of using the phrase “putting shovels in the ground” to describe the crucial need to restore the nation’s infrastructure to the excellence it once possessed and the envy it once attracted.

They can only hope the shovels aren’t used to prepare the final resting place for their political fortunes.

–

Copyright 2021 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 Republicans are positively giddy over the party’s sweep of Virginia and the near miss in reliably blue New Jersey, Democrats have succumbed to public bickering and finger pointing over who and what was to blame.

Whatever détente was possible between the party’s progressives and centrists vanished on the morning after the election, as leaders of both factions gazed at the smoking rubble that once was their party.

Overjoyed Republicans immediately touted the election of Glenn Youngkin as Virginia’s governor as an unmistakable harbinger of an inevitable blowout in next year’s Congressional midterms. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, caught up in the euphoria of the moment, predicted a Republican gain of as many as 60 seats in the House in 2022.

Republican optimism has been growing steadily and, even before the favorable outcome in Virginia and the close call in New Jersey, regaining control of the Congress next year shifted from possibly to assured.

Moderate Democrats attributed the poor showing to voter perception that the party had careened too far to the left, that it had become synonymous with radical ideas that a majority of Americans found unacceptable if not frightening.

Progressives responded by insisting that the party had become too timid, that failing to embrace major new spending and tax increases to finance vastly expanded social programs doomed its chances.

The prevailing mood of the nation suggests strongly that the progressives are on the wrong side of the debate, and that the party failed to recognize or respond to the trend toward centrist policies with broader and deeper support in the country.

The leftists had created a context in which the Democrats were the party of de-fund the police, open the borders, and cancel culture, as well as appearing to sympathize with violent street protesters and replace capitalism with socialism.

Fairly or not, the perception stuck, helped by the ceaseless social media drumbeat by progressive leaders’ relentless assault on those who counseled middle of the road moderation.

The rhetoric turned harsh, attaining a new plateau of fury when longtime party strategist and Clinton family confidante James Carville attributed the Democratic losses to “stupid wokeness,” a direct shot at the progressive faction.

New York congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, a leader of the left, fired back at Carville, declaring his day had come and gone and his brand of politics was no longer relevant.

Carville, though, identified the discontent abroad in the nation, a sense that government and its leaders are indifferent to concerns and frustrations of a populace who feel ignored by a dismissive and condescending ruling class whose principal concern is to remain in power.

The woke movement Carville referred to had inflicted serious damage on the party by espousing causes which were discussed in faculty lounges of academia and had no place in the lives of everyday Americans.

The Biden administration’s stumbles and the free fall in public approval has only added to the sense of a government in disarray, one which, when confronted by a crisis, denies the existence of one, minimizes it as inconsequential or offers assurances that it is under control and no cause for concern.

The agonizing, protracted debate over the bipartisan infrastructure bill, pitting moderates against progressives, embarrassed the president and the congressional leadership and cast doubts on their ability to deliver anything of consequence.

Even Democrats fretted aloud that McAuliffe would have benefited enormously – perhaps, even won – had the infrastructure bill been approved prior to the election and given him a significant talking point about successful governing.

The Democratic defeats was a tale of voter anger and disappointment. The party presented a large and inviting target to focus on and send a message: There’s more to the country than New York, California and Bernie Sanders.

–

Copyright 2021 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.

Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the free-spirited tart tongued daughter of Teddy, once described her president father as someone who “wanted to be the corpse at every funeral, the bride at every wedding and the infant at every christening.”

One hundred twelve years after Teddy left the White House, his daughter’s characterization falls on ex-president Donald Trump like one of his finely tailored navy blue suits.

From rallies to candidate endorsements to interviews to commenting on whatever topic strikes his momentary fancy, Trump has filled the roles Alice ascribed to her father. In the process, he’s blocking out the media sun and overshadowing any Republican mulling a run for the 2024 presidential nomination.

For good or ill, Trump in retirement is the same force of nature he was as president. Republican leaders tread lightly around him, conscious of polls that show him by far the first choice of self-identified Republicans for the nomination, even as they worry he’s alienated so many voting blocs that his top of the ticket presence would drag down-ballot candidates to defeat.

His critics in the party speak on condition of anonymity, fearful of offending him and subjecting themselves to one of his tirades while those who choose to comment on the record risk backlash and banishment.

His hold on the party base is extraordinary, driven in part by a conviction he was cheated of re-election in 2020, despite a lack of any evidence to validate the claim of an outcome rigged by sinister outside forces.

His “Stop the Steal” rallies attract thousands and his false claims of electoral theft draw thunderous applause and chants of agreement from the audience.

As the Biden administration continues to slide deeper into negative public standing and seems powerless to halt or reverse it, Trump draws increasing strength from a disappointed nation experiencing what many observers label “buyer’s remorse,” implying that replacing Trump with Biden was a mistake.

In less than 10 months, the Biden administration has lost the confidence of the American people – including independents – falling well below 50 percent in nearly every area of concern: the economy, inflation, immigration, taxes, and foreign policy, the last driven mostly by the debacle of the military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Restive Democrats fret aloud the party will pay a price in the 2022 Congressional midterms, losing their thin House majority and breaking the 50-50 Senate stalemate in favor of Republicans.

Biden’s been unable to reconcile the warring factions in his own party in Congress, endangering his multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure package and undermining his leadership and negotiating skills, qualities he campaigned on as an antidote to the chaos and uproar of his predecessor.

His public appearances are often painful to watch as he stumbles through prepared remarks, misidentifies individuals and forgets names, places and events, leading to awkward and whispered discussions of a cognitive decline.

He’s offended the White House press corps by limiting his interactions with reporters as part of a staff strategy to guard against rambling responses or erroneous references to Administration actions.

The instances of his press staff forced to correct, clarify or walk back presidential musings have grown more frequent. Failure to deliver a coherent message on issues like the immigration crisis at the southern border, how the infrastructure package will be financed and decisions on the Afghanistan military presence have contributed to portrayals of an Administration in disarray.

Trump has gleefully seized on the administration’s missteps and erosion of public confidence and parlayed it into a massive media presence, using it as he’s done for his entire private and public sector career to dominate the debate.

The media, while certainly no supporter of the ex-president, at the same time can’t seem to get enough of him. They can’t boycott him or refuse to cover his appearances, following his narrative and giving him a marquee presence while shunting his potential party opponents off to stage right.

He no longer simply teases the possibility of seeking the nomination in 2024. There’s no element of coyness in his confident predictions that he’d scare off any potential challengers while mopping the floor with those who dare enter the arena to face him.

He’ll continue to play Alice Roosevelt’s corpse, bride and infant and – nominee or not – will use them all to exert outsized and potentially decisive influence on the party.

–

Copyright 2021 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 White House press corps is in a snit again because President Biden, who many reporters openly cheered on in last year’s election, has stiffed them repeatedly, refusing to answer their questions and – most recently – and tossing them unceremoniously out of the Oval Office.

Indignant, the White House Correspondents Association filed a protest with the administration’s communications office, where it will be routinely acknowledged and routinely ignored.

Given Biden’s successful campaigning from the basement of his home in Wilmington, Del., last year while the nation was in the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, his strategists concluded the same approach could be applied with equally favorable results in the White House.

It appears the president’s senior staff reached a judgment that minimizing interactions between the president and reporters is in his best interest. The likelihood of change in the face of media complaints no matter how well founded is nonexistent.

The risk of offending the press corps is well worth it when placed next to the possibility of the president straying off message, rambling, forgetting names of his cabinet officers and foreign leaders, careening off on a rhetorical tangent and telling tales about his various life experiences which his staff later must clarify or walk back.

As harsh as it may sound, a nervous White House staff believes Biden simply cannot be trusted if engaged in freewheeling exchanges with reporters.

They’ve implemented a protective protocol of controlled presidential remarks, usually read from a teleprompter to a sparse audience of reporters or from behind the Oval Office desk.

On those infrequent occasions when questions are permitted, Biden recognizes reporters from a staff supplied list, a departure from the raise your hand systems followed by previous administrations. The time is limited in these sessions before a communications office staffer declares it at an end.

The strategy is reflected also in the frequency of the “no public schedule” notation on the daily list of activities distributed to reporters and by the early in the day announcements of a “lid,” meaning no newsworthy events are planned.

Make no mistake, the priority obligation of a presidential staff is always to him. The first rule drilled into them is “protect the client.” The obligation to the media comes second and, if that translates into shielding him from the media, so be it.

Given Biden’s long history of exaggerations, embellishments and personal reminisces which turn out to be stream of consciousness creations, his staff is hyper-sensitive to speculation about a cognitive decline and a diminished ability to grasp complex domestic or foreign policy issues.

There is, of course, no requirement for a president to grant regular access to the media or respond to questions as part of a public appearance. It is rather an expectation that part of the chief executive’s job description is utilizing the media as a vital conduit to the American people.

This administration has chosen to limit his exposure, preferring the daily press briefing – often including a cabinet officer, depending on the issue at hand – as the less risky method of delivering the message, framing the narrative and satisfying the media’s appetite.

The White House press corps has arguably the most prestigious and coveted assignments in journalism, spending every day of their professional lives at the nerve center of American government and global concerns, flying on Air Force One, witnessing history in the making and sharing their views on television talk and panel shows.

They don’t, however, get to dictate working conditions or make demands on the Administration whose actions they cover. Play the hand you’re dealt rather than whine you want different cards.

Despite unprecedented changes in the media landscape, some of the most incisive, insightful and analytical commentary is still produced by reporters and broadcasters who use their talents and dedication to ferret out information on behalf of the American people.

It is their duty to aggressively challenge misrepresentations and falsehoods and expose them.

Continuing to meet that responsibility will do more to enhance their reputation than complaining they don’t see the president as often as they’d like.

–

Copyright 2021 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 his book “American Lion,” a biography of President Andrew Jackson, author/historian Jon Meacham describes Jackson’s philosophy of governing as presidential primacy. The occupant of the office, he felt, should be granted wide latitude and discretion in wielding executive authority.

As the only official elected by the nation at large, Jackson – the nation’s seventh chief executive – believed the office was not an arm of government; rather, it was the heart of government.

In the wake of President Biden’s extraordinary exercise of power – ordering some 100 million American citizens to accept vaccinations against the COVID-19 virus – Jackson’s theory will be tested.

After months of resisting mandating a mass vaccination program, Biden placed the nation on a wartime footing, ordering private sector employers of more than 100 persons to require workforce immunizations or twice weekly testing for those who refuse. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) will administer the effort.

Violations would lead to fines of $14,000 per case, and those who reject the vaccine and the testing regimen could presumably lose their jobs.

The scope of the order was breathtaking. Gone were months of suggesting, encouraging, recommending and urging, replaced by an order from the occupant of the highest office in the land.

The ink was still wet on his executive order when lawsuits were announced challenging the directive and arguing the president had exceeded his constitutional authority. Republican governors and members of Congress expressed outrage, crying that the president had trampled on constitutionally protected individual and privacy rights.

Much of the backlash involved accusations that the president and, by extension, Democrats were guilty of a concerted effort to accrue greater power and control over the American people and eroding historic freedoms.

Some were more cynical, arguing the administration was engaged in a “wag the dog” strategy, calling for a major policy step to distract attention from the disastrous withdrawal of the American military from Afghanistan, an issue which dominated news and political coverage for weeks and drove Biden’s public approval rating into the 40% range.

Positioning the president as a leader in fighting the most serious public health crisis in a century was the administration’s real goal, critics alleged, to head off becoming bogged down in a never ending, non-winnable debate over the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The president struck back swiftly, challenging opponents to “have at it” if they chose to proceed in the courts.

With the country experiencing 150,000 new COVID-19 cases a day and 1,500 deaths daily, Biden said he concluded that dramatic action was crucial as the virus’ Delta variant overwhelmed hospitals and medical facilities.

Biden accused governors and legislatures that prohibited mask wearing and vaccinations of a “cavalier attitude” toward children in particular, implying they were complicit in risking lives and blamed those who refused the vaccine for the out-of-control virus spread. Their refusal, he said, “has cost us all.

The public seems to agree with him, with a majority supporting a vaccination mandate for people in the workplace, on airplanes and public transportation, and in restaurants and entertainment venues.

The Republican opposition strategy rests on preserving individual freedom to decide medical care, while the administration has framed the debate around government’s responsibility to act decisively to protect public health.

A presumed constitutional right to refuse a vaccine, the administration argued, does not translate into a constitutional right to expose others to a potentially lethal pathogen.

Biden, in effect, has asked the American people to choose between safety for themselves and their families and a desire to keep government out of their personal lives. A majority has opted for the former while softening their view of the latter.

The data has made the choice a bit easier: 40.8 million infections and 660,000 deaths in the United States since the pandemic’s onset – both the highest in the world.

Some Republicans believe the vaccination mandate will harm Democrats in the 2022 midterm congressional elections, that the principles of freedom and a non-interfering government will prove stronger than concerns over a highly contagious but treatable infection.

Jackson left office 184 years ago, and whether his governing theory will be vindicated will likely be decided by the 21st Century judicial system.

–

Copyright 2021 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.