It’s one of the oldest, strongest and most consistent poll findings on record.   

Americans are happy to cut government spending in general, but adamantly oppose cuts in most all specific areas.    

 A few months ago, the Associated Press (AP) and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) examined spending issues and found 60 percent of Americans saying the U.S. government was spending “too much.”   

 Presumably, that majority wants to pare federal outlays.  

 But which spending?  

 Just 29 percent say we are spending too much on the military. Little support for reductions there.   

Social Security and Medicare? Just 7 percent and 10 percent, respectively, believe too much is being spent on those programs.  

 “OK,” you say, “we’re hitting third rails.” True perhaps, but those three third rails, plus interest on the debt, account for over half of federal expenditures.    

 “What about some of President Biden’s favorites,” Republicans might argue. “Should be easy pickings there.”  

 But only 11 percent want reductions in infrastructure spending. Just 25 percent see too much spending on the environment and 20 percent on scientific research. Even fewer, 16 percent, say the same about assistance with child care.  

 “Surely,” GOPers say, “we can demagogue welfare.” But only 18 percent would curtail “aid to the poor” in the AP/NORC survey. In YouGov polling earlier this year, just 15 percent favored cutting Medicaid, 17 percent would cut SNAP, only 16 percent supported cuts to Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the same small number favored cutting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.   

 So, no, voters don’t want to scale down those safety net programs.   

Only 12 percent would countenance cuts to education spending and, GOP efforts to demonize law enforcement notwithstanding, just 23 percent favor reductions there.    

My apologies for the long recitation of numbers, but I hope the point is clear. While voters want to cut government spending generally, large majorities oppose cuts in almost every specific category.   

 Yet, catering to the demands of the Freedom Caucus, McCarthy will force every House Republican to vote for massive spending cuts in each and every one of these programs, alienating the vast majority of Americans.  

 Republican appropriators already proposed cutting education by over $22 billion, which would mean firing 220,000 teachers across the country, increasing class sizes. In addition, they’re cutting over a billion dollars from STEM education.   

 To say voters will be angry about such reductions puts it mildly.  

 Unlike Democrats, Republicans are actually defunding the police, eliminating $1 billion from the FBI, which means fewer agents and federal prosecutors, which means fewer criminals brought to justice.   

 The GOP is backing a nearly 40 percent, $4 billion cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, which translates into fewer resources to clean up the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound, as well as less assistance for clean drinking water across the country.   

 Republicans are cutting cancer research, mental health support and preschool.    

GOP House members will end up voting for these or similar cuts because McCarthy first surrendered to the Freedom Caucus on the debt limit negotiations and then gave them license to cut even more, after the deal was complete.   

 But Republicans are unlikely to stop with votes to slash crowd-pleasing spending. At the insistence of the far right, the GOP will likely shut down the government to force these unpopular cuts.   

 That’s what happened in 1996, and Democrats won races as a result.   

 That year we campaigned against the GOP shutdown and for preventing Republican cuts to Medicare, education and the environment. The result: 18 Republicans lost their seats to Democratic challengers, while only three Democrats were defeated.   

Far fewer would flip the House in 2024.  

 Circumstances and context have changed, but Republicans seem intent on following the far right down the same path toward defeat in response to their effort to slash popular spending.

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, a member of the Association’s Hall of Fame, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.       

Which is exactly like the 2024 Republican presidential primary. There are 10 candidates so far in their own demolition party, each apparently bent on a mission to destroy themselves, but only after destroying the Republican Party in the process.  

In their zeal to capture the nomination by appealing to the most extreme elements of their base, Republicans are upending much of what the traditional Republican Party once stood for.  

Take last weekend’s cattle call in Iowa. Sponsored by the evangelical organization Family Leader as an opportunity for Republican candidates to show off their conservative credentials, host Tucker Carlson instead turned the forum into a test on Ukraine — pressuring each candidate in turn to stand up against U.S. support for Ukraine.  

It's hard enough to understand why evangelicals would take sides with Russia against the United States, NATO and Ukraine, but is this really what the Republican Party wants to run on in 2024? If so, when did the party of Ronald Reagan become the party of Vladimir Putin?  

Of course, that’s not the only example of Republicans turning on the Pentagon. For months, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) has maintained a one-man blockade against military promotions — more than 250 so far — unless the Pentagon drops its policy of providing time off and travel costs to servicewomen, no matter where they are stationed, to seek an abortion.  

The demand was added by Republicans to the House version of this year’s proposed Pentagon budget. Because, in their view, overturning Roe v. Wade did not go far enough.  

In an open letter, seven former Defense secretaries warned that Tuberville’s antics threaten national security and undermine our military readiness. But Republicans have refused to budge. When did the traditional pro-Armed Forces Republican Party become the anti-Pentagon Republican Party?  

It’s not just the military that’s targeted by many Republicans. On several fronts, they’ve gone after law enforcement in general. They hail those who stormed the Capitol and assaulted police officers on Jan. 6 as patriots. If reelected, the Republican frontrunner has suggested he’d issue many of them presidential pardons. Twenty-one House Republicans voted against awarding police officers who defended them on Jan. 6 the Congressional Gold Medal.  

And last week, Washington witnessed an eye-popping spectacle as the Republican-controlled House held a special Judicial Committee aimed at FBI Director Christopher Wray — a lifelong Republican, appointed by Donald Trump — whom Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has accused of “weaponizing” the FBI against Trump and other GOP leaders.  

One by one, Republicans attacked Wray, with some of them supporting legislation to defund the FBI by $1 billion. It’s enough to make J. Edgar Hoover roll over in his grave. When did the law and order party of Richard Nixon become the anti-law enforcement party?  

Admittedly, it’s early in the 2024 sweepstakes. But based on the issues they’ve focused on so far, the Republican Party seems to be telling American voters: We’re the party who doesn’t think overturning Roe v. Wade went far enough. We’re the party that supports Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We’re the party that’s injecting culture war politics into the military. And we’re the party willing to attack law enforcement officers for doing their job.  

Welcome to the 2024 GOP demolition derby.  

Press hosts “The Bill Press Pod.” He is the author of “From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.”    

But what if Trump loses in Iowa?   

That is not beyond the realm of plausibility.   

He lost Iowa in 2016 to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (although he complained that the election was stolen) and there is ample evidence that he could lose there again. 

He has improbably picked a fight with Kim Reynolds, The Hawkeye State’s extremely popular governor who hasn’t endorsed in the race yet and was recently seen sharing a stage with Casey DeSantis, the wife of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. 

Trump also refused to participate in a forum hosted by the Family Leadership Summit. Tucker Carlson did the honors, interviewing the participants and providing a nice platform for Gov. DeSantis, who did a good job of threading the needle between appealing to the hard, isolationist right and not upsetting his big donors. 

Bob Vander Plaats, an influential Iowa conservative, was the brains behind the summit, and he is decidedly not on team Trump. He endorsed former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in 2012 and Cruz in 2016, so he has a pretty good track record of picking winners in his home state. 

Radio host Steve Deace is another conservative who would rather see DeSantis than Trump be the Republican standard bearer in 2024. Deace wrote the best-selling book “The Faucian Bargain” about the role of Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, during the COVID-19 shutdowns and in the federal jab requirements. Deace believes DeSantis handled the pandemic much more professionally than Trump. Deace supported Trump for the bulk of his presidency, but also supported Cruz over the former president in 2016. 

The Iowa caucuses typically go to the candidate who has the best ground game and who has captured the hearts and minds of hard-core conservatives. That’s why candidates such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and televangelist Pat Robertson can win, while more establishment types like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) typically don’t. (Although Romney was initially declared the winner in 2012, Santorum was officially declared the winner after a recount.)  

The rap on Iowa is that as Iowa goes, so goes Iowa. It can knock candidates out of the race, but it rarely crowns the winner, unless it is an incumbent who has no serious opposition.   

But this year, Iowa could play a more significant role if Trump falls and DeSantis prevails.    

Here are a couple reasons. 

First, politics is a game of expectations. In 2016, nobody really expected Trump to win the nomination. By almost beating Cruz, Trump showed the world that his campaign was for real and that he was a force to be reckoned with. In 2024, if Trump doesn’t win, it will be a massive upset. And if DeSantis does beat him, the pundits and donors will see that he has a message that resonates with conservatives. He will no longer be dull Ron but instead the guy who beat the Donald. 

Second, if DeSantis wins, that could inspire the rest to step aside and let him be the sole Trump alternative. The Republican field doesn’t need several candidates to run against 45. It needs one. In 2016, Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) all thought they had enough juice to beat Trump, but clearly they didn’t. The former president polls around 40 to 45 percent of the Republican field, about the same amount that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) got among Democrats against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016. My guess is that if DeSantis is able to win Iowa, he will soon get Trump all to himself.   

Third, a DeSantis victory in Iowa will be a victory for conservative policy, and especially a victory over Trump’s mishandling of the COVID pandemic. The coronavirus shutdowns, the mask mandates, the school closures, the vaccine regime, all of which started under Trump, was the starkest abuse of our collective constitutional rights in our nation’s history.  

Of the current candidates in the field, only DeSantis can run against the COVID regime, and I believe that this is where Trump is most vulnerable. A victory in Iowa would allow that campaign to move forward and I think will catch fire in the rest of the country.  

 Is a DeSantis victory in Iowa plausible? Yes. If he does win, will it make a difference? I think it will. 

Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy, blogs at thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.). 

The first Republican presidential candidates' debate in Milwaukee is just over a month away, and the frontrunner for the Republican nomination says he will not attend. 

"Why would I give them time to make statements?," former President Donald Trump told Reuters last month. "Why would I do that when I'm leading them by 50 points and 60 points?"

There is only one thing that can force Trump onto the debate stage in Milwaukee next month — his ego. Given his need for the spotlight, the odds are good that he will be there.

Welcome to the new age of Republican presidential primary debates. Without Trump, the big audience disappears. With Trump, the audience disappears for any other candidate to offer a vision for the future of the party. 

The current drama surrounding the first GOP debate is also a window into all that ails Republicans in Congress. In the House, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) offered a revealing x-ray of the sickness when recently asked if Trump would be the best nominee in 2024. “Is he the strongest to win the election? I don’t know that answer,” he replied.

He was later chastised for speaking the truth and had to backtrack. The Speaker was reduced to mumbling about Trump being stronger today than he was in 2016 but still not endorsing him.

McCarthy fears losing his job as Speaker if he offends Trump and the 60 House Republicans who have endorsed Trump.

The Speaker’s weak hand reveals that no Republican is able to demand, in the name of party unity, that Trump attend debates or pledge to support the candidate who wins the GOP nomination.

The candidates running against him are caught in a trap, because many of them don’t want to support him if he is the nominee.

“It’s only in the era of Donald Trump that you need somebody to sign something on a pledge,”  former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said recently. “So, I think it’s a bad idea.”

"Nobody is entitled to this nomination," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) recently told a conservative talk radio host. “You have got to earn the nomination." I’ll be at all the debates because the American people deserve to hear from us directly about our vision for the country and about how we’re going to be able to beat Joe Biden.” 

The troubled debate is prime evidence of a party operating in Trump’s shadow. Every other candidate is being buried under the weight of loyalty oaths to Trump’s populist cult of personality and the big television ratings he can generate.

Trump remains the center of attention on the debate stage because he is the centerpiece in the right-wing echo chamber of social media and talk radio. Never mind that his polarizing image led to Republican losses and underperformances in congressional races in 2018, 2020 and 2022.

That record of failure is not Trump’s focus. He is focused on payback for his 2020 defeat, for being twice impeached, for his indictments and for all the former allies, including former Vice President Mike Pence (R), who now feel free to criticize him.

He sees no advantage in sharing the debate stage or any other spotlight with any Republican who is not locked in his grip. Nor does he show any interest in advancing more thoughtful Republicans with greater appeal to suburban voters.

Trump’s self-serving calculations leave the party unable to develop new voices. To the contrary, his ego-driven agenda is a killer for Republicans running for any office in 2024, because Trump is pumping up voter turnout among the legions of anti-Trump Democrats.

Trump’s refusal (so far) to pledge to support whoever wins the 2024 GOP presidential primaries is a reminder of his recent record of failed endorsements.

His demands produced weak candidates in recent Senate races, leading to defeats in races the GOP was expected to win.

When Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned last year that “candidate quality matters” in Senate races, this surely included candidates’ ability to perform in a debate setting. By that measure, Georgia Senate Candidate Herschel Walker stood as proof of Trump’s selection of poor candidates, with his alarmingly poor performance on the debate stage. 

Note that McConnell has not endorsed Trump.

Again, no Republican dares to tell the truth about the damage Trump is doing to the party.

Speaker McCarthy, for example, knows that with the polarizing, twice-indicted Trump as the nominee, Republicans are likely to lose their majority in the House. Republicans have 18 House members in districts won by President Biden in 2020.

The odds of Republicans losing the House have gone up. The Supreme Court ruled last month that Alabama's legislature had violated the Voting Rights Act with its pro-Republican redistricting plan. The new plan is likely to result in one additional district that will likely be held by Democrats.

The same will likely happen in Louisiana.

In New York state, an appeals court ruled last week that new congressional districts have to be redesigned. Again, this is likely to lead to more Democrats in the House.

Trump is offering no help. And even if he shows up for the debate, he has a bad record.

His constant interruptions of Biden in the 2020 debates prompted Biden to let out an exasperated “will you shut up, man? This is so unpresidential.” 

Juan Williams is an author and a political analyst for Fox News Channel.

The reality is simple: President Joe Biden has presided over a uniquely successful economic recovery.  Whether by comparison to American presidents past, or other world leaders present, Bidenomics has proven an extraordinary boon.

Under Biden’s leadership, 13.2 million jobs have been created — more in two and a half years than any previous president created in a four-year term.    

Unemployment has been under 4 percent for 17 consecutive months, a feat unmatched since the 1960s.    

Biden comes out on top not just compared to previous presidents, but also compared to other world leaders confronting the same post-pandemic circumstances. Economic growth in the U.S. since the pandemic has been faster than in any other major developed economy.   

Not only have jobs increased but inflation has receded, cut by more than half.  

The U.S. has also fared better in the fight against inflation than other developed countries. Inflation over the last year has been lower here than in any other advanced industrial economy.   

New business formation also increased to levels well above the pre-COVID trend.  

So, what White House aides Anita Dunn and Mike Donilon wrote recently is surely true: “This progress wasn’t inevitable or an accident — it has been a direct result of Bidenomics.”   

Americans recognize some of the progress made. For example, when Joe Biden took office, Gallup found just 28 percent saying it was a good time to find a quality job. Today 63 percent hold that view — a huge increase.  

Yet, in a broader sense, Americans remain negative about the economy. When Bill Clinton left the White House in January 2001, 82 percent gave the economy positive marks in CNN polling, and it’s never been that good since. It got close at the end of 2019, before COVID shut the world down, and never recovered. Today just 24 percent give the economy positive grades.  

But it’s worth noting that the surveys seem inconsistent.  

While CNN shows almost no improvement over the last year, the Conference Board found, “Consumer confidence improved in June to its highest level since January 2022” according to their chief economist, Dana Peterson.   

Similarly, the University of Michigan recorded a “striking upswing” in economic assessments.   

But public opinion remains out of sync with economic reality.  Why?  

Here are a couple of possibilities.   

One we might call "COVID hangover." The pandemic dramatically and fundamentally altered views of the economy in short order. In December 2019, 76 percent thought the economy was in good shape, a number that fell precipitously to 39 percent in less than four months. Between March and April alone, the number dropped 30 points.   

That suggests trauma, and trauma can have lasting effects, making it difficult for people to see a silver lining in an economy, especially one still struggling.  

That struggle is a second possibility. Most people don’t live in a job-seeking economy — namely, the 161 million Americans who have jobs. The 13.2 million jobs created under President Biden pale in comparison to those already extant.   

Moreover, if your neighbor starts a drywall business and asks you to come work for her, you don’t necessarily look to Joe Biden as the creator of your job.   

The economy most people live in, most of the time, is about wages and prices. It’s about what they can and cannot afford as they walk through the store, be it brick-and-mortar or online.  

The reality is that because of COVID related payments, which ended, real disposable income was higher in 2021 than in 2022.   

Inflation outpaced income gains, so the lived economy of most Americans was worse. But that seems to be changing as wage gains persist and inflation continues to abate.   

Add to that the increasingly partisan nature of the public’s economic assessments, and we might find that the public’s broad economic evaluations have been rendered less meaningful.   

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, a member of the Association’s Hall of Fame, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.    

While the U.S. is not a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which regulates and prohibits the use of these weapons, the move raised serious questions about the morality of the decision — especially given Biden’s administration previously called their use a “potential war crime.” 

“Experts warn that the likelihood of leaving behind dangerous unexploded material is dependent on several factors and potentially much higher than the Pentagon has estimated. The reality is that there is no such thing as a safe cluster bomb — and using or transferring them for use hurts the global effort to eradicate these dangerous munitions, taking us down the wrong path,” nearly two dozen House Democrats released in a statement condemning the move. “We can and will continue to support our Ukrainian allies’ defense against Russia’s aggression. However, that support does not require we undermine the United States’ leadership in advocating for human rights around the world, enable indiscriminate harm that will only further endanger Ukrainian civilians, or distance us from European partners in the conflict who are signatories to the U.N. Convention opposing cluster munitions.”

But another fact about the decision is cause for alarm. The cluster bombs are being transferred because other forms of ammunition and weaponry are in short supply. Worse, the U.S. can’t keep stockpiles resupplied due to slow manufacturing and lack of domestic production. 

“The Ukrainians are running out of ammunition. The ammunition that is, they call them 155 mm weapons. This is a war related to munitions and they’re running out of that ammunition and we’re low on it,” Biden revealed. 

“They are using artillery at a very accelerated rate…many thousands of rounds per day. This is literally a gunfight,” National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby added. “They’re running out of inventory. We are trying to ramp up our production of the kind of artillery shells that they’re using most but that production rate is still not where we want it to be.” 

The shortfall and slow production caught the eye of Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who highlighted U.S. vulnerability to steel supply chain issues due to an outsourcing to China. 

“The fact that we do not have enough conventional artillery to send Ukraine should be a wake up call. Most of the top 15 steel producers now are Chinese & we don’t have a single one. The US urgently needs a strategy to become a manufacturing superpower,” Khanna tweeted. 

But in order to ramp up domestic production of steel for weapons to defend the United States and American allies around the world, the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress are going to have to make a choice between their climate change agenda and national security. Their crusade to decarbonize is at odds with current steel production capabilities and therefore, the ability to produce mutations and replenish stockpiles. 

“As regulatory, investor, and consumer pressures amplify the urgency for industrial decarbonization, the steel industry faces increasing demands for real plans to reduce emissions,” the Boston Consulting Group published last year. “To meet the emissions reduction targets under discussion among regulators around the world, the steel industry would have to undertake a large-scale technological transformation that would affect the entire steel ecosystem. As noted earlier, companies have by and large avoided these approaches, which are not yet perfected, seem very disruptive, and could negatively impact growth.”

The production of steel is carbon intensive, clocking it at 9 percent of total global CO2 emissions. In addition to a few other economic reasons, steel production has been outsourced to China as environmental regulations on U.S. plants have become increasingly unworkable.

“Steelmaking is a truly global industry, and raw materials (such as iron ore and scrap) and steel products are traded globally to a large extent. Today, over 70% of global steel production takes place in Asia,” the World Steel Association states. “The production of steel remains a CO2 and energy-intensive activity.”

The realities of war and what it takes to produce weapons is slamming right into climate change delusions and President Biden’s foreign policy while putting the national security of the U.S. at severe risk.

And while some may argue wind energy does contribute to steel production, wind power certainly can’t produce enough energy on its own, not to mention at a fast pace, to produce the amount of steel necessary to resupply ourselves and allies in need. Not to mention becoming a steel manufacturing “superpower.” Only the use of oil can do that. 

Pavlich is the editor for Townhall.com and a Fox News contributor.

Biden often seeks bipartisanship and has achieved it several critical times in his highly successful first term. 

 Biden understood the requirements of the post, rose to the occasion and unified the American people and NATO with great skill and success. 

 As the U.S. enters one of the most important presidential elections in history, consider the sheer number of dramatic risks that all who govern must address. 

 Under Biden, the U.S. confronted a once-in-a-century pandemic and the disastrous economy that followed.  

We confronted the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, which caused extreme carnage and has resulted in war crimes charges now pending at the International Criminal Court. 

 We are confronted by climate change so extreme that the Earth recently endured the hottest day in recorded history along with deadly floods. The changing climate causes horrifying health care crises in many areas of the country.  

 We are challenged by our previous president, who is facing substantial criminal indictments, may well face significant additional indictments and is using his indictments as his political strategy to divide and gridlock the nation when much of it hungers for unity.

 Biden’s achievements are historic and impressive because they were achieved in large measure through an ardent commitment to bipartisanship — at a time when bipartisanship takes wisdom, judgment, patience and good faith. 

 Biden’s achievements with NATO are historic and unprecedented. Consider the diversity of NATO nations that Biden has brought together and expanded. Consider their different perspectives, difference interests and histories, and the different set of national perspectives to which he has brought leadership and unity. 

 This week, with the agreement by Turkey to accept Sweden into NATO, the alliance now reaches across Europe. It is a historic and profound diplomatic achievement for all concerned. 

 It is no coincidence that bipartisan Biden and the Democrats were on the winning side of elections in 2018, 2020 and even in 2022.  

 Nor is it a coincidence that Trump and other partisan Republicans were on the losing side of many of those contests.  

 It is no coincidence that bipartisan Biden achieved so much on infrastructure, lower prescription drugs, job creation, economic growth, lifting the debt ceiling and other critical matters. 

 Nor is it a coincidence that bipartisan Biden offered and gave substantial bipartisan credit to Republicans who joined Democrats in enacting bipartisan legislation. That is what true bipartisanship means. 

 At a time when a divided America seeks bipartisan unity and a divided world seeks the democratic confidence and faith of a NATO that reaches out across the continent for the shared democratic vision, there is a magic to Biden’s bipartisanship that rings true in 2023. 

 With Biden, bipartisanship is not a tactic or strategy, it is a cause and philosophy and way of political life. 

 In America, bipartisanship is not a convenience or political style, it is the only way to make our democratic nation work as it should, and as it has since July 4, 1776. 

 With bipartisanship, America was what was born on July 4 and destined to get greater and larger as we became a more perfect union. 

 That is what makes America, America. That is what makes America great. 

 The ultimate bipartisan moment occurred on July 4 many years later. From his death bed, John Adams said that Thomas Jefferson lived. From his deathbed Thomas Jefferson died.   

 At that moment that same day they both died, and America lives today. It is better today than yesterday and will be better tomorrow than today. 

Budowsky served as an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the House of Representatives.  

In the meantime, policymakers in Washington should learn from this historic example and pass a D.C. Crime Control Board, based on 1995’s D.C. Financial Control Board.  

Davis, from Fairfax, Va., came up with the idea of the control board, sold it to Eleanor Holmes Norton, who still is the District’s representative in Congress, and they sold it to then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who put it on the suspension calendar where it passed overwhelmingly, to the Senate, where it passed by voice vote, to Bill Clinton, who signed the bill into law, and to D.C.’s notorious mayor, Marion Barry, who largely supported the measure. 

The D.C. Financial Control took the wheel from the corrupt D.C. council and steered the city from certain financial ruin to a vibrant and economically self-sufficient hub that attracted investment, new residents, and increased property values. 

The Financial Control Board sorted out city finances, enacted pro-growth policies, weeded out corruption, vetoed bad spending ideas, and provided grown-up leadership to a city that had spun out of control. Republicans supported the control board because it liked its pro-growth policies. Democrats liked the control board because it meant that the Republican-controlled Congress wasn’t going to repeal home-rule in its entirety. 

D.C.’s finances today are not the disaster that they were in the 1990s but crime is approaching the same levels as the deadly crack wars that swept the city during the Clinton years. And if the nation’s capital can’t control crime, a financial crisis will surely follow.

That’s why I am calling for Congress to pass legislation creating a D.C. Crime Control Board.

A crime control board will have total authority to stop crime in the city. It will do away with the D.C. Council’s ability to pass laws that make the city unsafe. It will directly take control of hiring the police chief and will be primarily responsible for hiring enough police officers to bring the force up to the numbers that it had before the pandemic. It will be directly in charge of D.C.’s attorney general and clean house to get rid of prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crimes. It will directly supervise the juvenile justice program and the youth summer jobs program. It will supervise D.C.’s education system efforts to prevent truancy and stop criminal behavior. 

D.C.’s political leaders, especially at the council level, have brought this on themselves. Phil Mendelson, the council chair, famously said that the district doesn’t have a crime crisis, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Charles Allen, who during the Black Lives Matter riots was the chairman of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee at the Council, proposed cutting millions in funding to the police budget. Other council members have been similarly anti-police in their rhetoric and their votes. Things have gotten so bad at the council when it comes to crime control that even Mayor Muriel Bowser has campaigned against their pro-crime stances.  

The results in D.C. have been frightening, yet predictable. Carjackings are up. Murder rates are approaching crack-war levels. Street-crime is so common that most resident don’t even report them.  

Some of these crimes should shock the public consciousness. A Kentucky teacher in town for a training course at the Library of Congress is slain outside of a residence hall at Catholic University. A Lyft driver who served as a translator in Afghanistan and somehow survived there is killed in Northeast D.C. Teen-agers routinely gunned down. Toddlers murdered in cross-fires.  

None of this seems to shock us anymore. But it should. And it needs to stop. And it is needs to stop now.  

It is time for a D.C. Crime Control Board. Where is Tom Davis when you need him?

Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy, blogs at thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).

Greene is a premier conspiracy theory-spreader. There’s hardly a wacky, totally unsubstantiated theory out there she hasn’t embraced. The avowed QAnon follower once questioned whether a plane ever flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. She claimed California wildfires were started by Jewish-funded space lasers. She accused former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of being a traitor who deserves to be executed. She’s blamed Bill and Hillary Clinton for the murder of John F. Kennedy, Jr., who was killed in a 1999 plane crash. And, of course, she still insists that Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, actually won the 2020 election. 

But at least Greene isn’t running for president. The problem for Democrats is that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is running in the Democratic primary against President Joe Biden. And, on the conspiracy theory front, Kennedy’s just as bad, if not worse, than Greene.  

Let’s face it: Nobody would even be talking about this 69-year-old longtime vaccine skeptic and one-time environmental lawyer except for his last name. Kennedy remains a golden name in Democratic politics, thanks to JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and Teddy Kennedy. The Kennedys are America’s royal family.   

Given the outstanding contributions of the Kennedy family, it’s no surprise that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s candidacy at first attracted a respectable bubble of support. In May, a CNN survey found that a whopping 20 percent of Democratic primary voters said they’d support Kennedy over Biden. But those numbers have since fallen dramatically — Kennedy polls at only 1.6 percent among New York state Democrats in a recent Siena College poll — as voters look beyond Kennedy’s last name and consider what he actually stands for. 

As with Greene, there are few wacky conspiracy theories floating today that Kennedy hasn’t embraced, including these four.  

First, the vaccines. Kennedy has long been America’s leading vaccine skeptic, promoting the widely discredited belief that childhood vaccines cause autism, a notion rejected by more than a dozen scientific studies worldwide. He leveled some of his most severe attacks against the COVID-19 vaccine, calling it the “deadliest vaccine ever made” and accusing the federal government of pushing the vaccine in order to control people via microchips. 

Second, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kennedy has repeatedly endorsed the idea that school shootings have increased only because more students are taking antidepressants. Again, this theory has been disproven by multiple scientific investigations, including a 2019 study that found that most school shooters had not been prescribed with psychotropic drugs before committing violence. 

Third, there’s the Kennedy Assassination. There are few events in American history that have been examined more thoroughly. Most historians accept the conclusion of the Warren Commission that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was not connected to any government agency. But not Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He has long maintained, with no evidence at all, that the CIA engineered his uncle’s murder and has since covered it up. 

Finally, there’s the conspiracy theory of the stolen election — shades of Donald Trump. According to Kennedy, 2020 wasn’t the first presidential election stolen. He recently told the Washington Post, again with no supporting evidence, that George W. Bush stole the 2004 election from John Kerry.  

How sad. The man who started out, to his credit, as an environmental leader cleaning up pollution in the Hudson River, is now, to his great discredit, spreading pollution in American politics and destroying the good name of the Kennedy family. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should not be taken seriously at all. 

Press hosts “The Bill Press Pod.” He is the author of “From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.”   

A University of Massachusetts national poll was headlined “Majority of Americans oppose affirmative action.” Reuters’ headline was similar, “Most Americans think college admissions should not consider race-Reuters/Ipsos poll.” 

By contrast, NBC News headlined their story quite differently— “Majority of Americans favor affirmative action in colleges as Supreme Court seems poised to end it, poll says.” 

Is the polling really that contradictory?  

Although it wouldn’t be surprising to see inconsistent results on complex issues, I’d argue the polling on affirmative action is fairly consistent on three points. 

Americans are uncomfortable using race to determine college admissions. 

Americans see value for society in diverse college campuses. 

Americans do not want the courts to prevent colleges from using race as a factor in admissions. 

As on other issues, different questions produce different answers on affirmative action.  

Polls that purport to show opposition to affirmative action almost all employ questions focused on whether race should be a factor in admissions.  

Consider UMass’ item: “Do you support or oppose the consideration of an applicant’s race or ethnicity, alongside factors such as an applicant’s high school grades, standardized test scores, and letters of recommendation, when evaluating students for admission into a college or university?” By this reckoning 33 percent support affirmative action while 42 percent oppose it. 

That’s more opposition than support, but opponents fail to muster majority opposition, with a large number having no opinion. 

It’s also worth noting that this framing of the questions allows race to work either way. Considering race isn’t described as benefiting historically excluded populations, so some could understand it as allowing universities to discriminate against Blacks or others on the basis of race or ethnicity. 

Even more problematic in this vein is the IPSOS question which asks whether a student’s race or ethnicity “should be major considerations, minor considerations or not considered at all for college/university admissions.” Sixty-two percent say it should not be considered at all.  

This is the question Reuters focuses on in its headline and its story, ignoring contradictory data in the same poll.  

For instance, by 58 percent to 29 percent, respondents say they “support programs that are aimed at increasing racial diversity of students on college campuses” and by 49 percent to 37 percent respondents say, “Due to racial discrimination, programs such as affirmative action are necessary to help create equality.” 

Pew’s item makes clear that some colleges must turn down many applicants and race is but one factor they consider with an eye toward increasing diversity. But it also inquires about the principle of colleges taking race into account in reaching admissions decisions.  

Fifty percent disapprove, while 33 percent approve.  

By contrast, questions showing support for affirmative action are more directly on point, asking about whether the Supreme Court should make it illegal.  

NBC’s question from the AP/National Opinion Research Center put it this way: “The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether colleges and universities can consider race and ethnicity as part of their admissions decisions, a practice commonly known as affirmative action. Do you think the Supreme Court should or should not prohibit the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions?” 

A robust 63 percent said the court should not prohibit consideration of race in admissions, while just over a third said such considerations should be prohibited. 

Similarly, NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist found 57 percent wanting to continue affirmative action programs, while just 38 percent wanted to see them “abolished.” 

Americans recognize their importance in creating diversity and redressing past discrimination.  

According to a NORC survey for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 79 percent believe “Diversity contributes to a better education for all students,” while 69 percent say “Affirmative action helps create diverse campuses, which benefits all of us.” 

Over two-thirds say, “Affirmative action promotes equal opportunities, including for those who did not have it in the past.” 

Despite their discomfort with the idea of race-based criteria, Americans understand their importance and don’t want to see the Supreme Court prohibit affirmative action in college admissions.    

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, a member of the Association’s Hall of Fame, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.   

One part of Bidenism involves Bidenomics, which attempts to lift the economy from the bottom up, not the top down, with prosperity and success reaching society as a whole. Which is exactly what is happening during the Biden presidency — a dramatic shift from the Trump era and a historic achievement. 

Trumpism is selfishness in the extreme, trying to exploit anything and everything for the wealthy. When so many Republican insiders back Donald Trump, or make excuses for him, they leave countless Americans behind in ways Biden never would.   

Prominent Republicans who support unselfish economics or seek a more widely prosperous society are ignored or mocked by Trump and Trumpists. But these Republicans are sought out by Biden as bipartisan partners, with occasional success. 

Biden’s seeking of bipartisan allies and partners led to the first two years of his presidency being among the most successful in history. The low jobless rate, declining prescription drugs prices, major rebuilding of American infrastructure, significant progress against climate change and other achievements are dramatic and historic. 

The success of Bidenomics — and Bidenism — continued this year with a dramatic victory extending the debt ceiling and the prevention of a global economic crisis. This won the support of a long list of Democrats and Republicans, including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whom I and many others gave credit. 

The Trump way of governing involves little bipartisanship and a preternatural bitterness, divisiveness and polarization in every direction. 

Democracy has always been at the heart of Biden and Bidenism but is anathema to Trump and Trumpism.  

For Biden, Bidenism and Democrats, voting rights are at the heart of the matter and the coin of the real America. Trump, Trumpists and many modern Republicans practice voter suppression and election denialism, claiming they won elections they lost. 

While the Supreme Court has become more unpopular in recent years, Biden, other Democrats and a long list of civil rights activists persisted and are overjoyed with decisions this week that mark a significant shift toward voting rights. 

Bidenism reached a historic zenith in Biden’s support for the heroic President Volodymyr Zelensky and the people of Ukraine in their battle for their freedom and democracy.  

The best path to victory for Biden and Democrats in 2024 is to sing the songs of patriotism, unity, freedom and democracy. They must make the case for Bidenomics and Bidenism and the Biden way of governing. They must tout his enormous achievements and all the good they have done for Americans and the world. 

And critically, President Biden should list the goals he would seek to fulfill in a second term, and how he would achieve them through bipartisan support.  

Biden should reach out boldly and sincerely to House and Senate Republicans who would be open to bipartisan action — to lower prescription drug prices further; to achieve bipartisan immigration and border reform; to bring greater broadband to all Americans; to mobilize Americans to support abortion rights; to advance security and democracy across Ukraine and throughout Europe; and take other important actions that our people want and need. 

Biden and Bidenism is what Americans want to govern our country. Trump and Trumpism is what most Americans want to forget. 

Budowsky served as an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the House of Representatives. 

If you care about facts, then continue reading. 

If you have a different interpretation or political reaction to these facts, I respect that. 

But if you deny facts — don’t care about facts — such as Donald Trump and the roughly 30 percent of his supporters who deny that Joe Biden was elected president in 2020 despite there being literally no evidence of any significant voter fraud — then stop reading. 

Let’s keep it simple about President Biden’s son, Hunter’s, prosecution (i.e., he pled guilty to misdemeanors relating to two years filings of late tax returns and gun purchase probation violations): 

Fact one: Less than one-10,000th of a percent of individual taxpayers who are guilty of intentional tax evasion (not counting criminal syndicates in drug dealing etc.) are ever criminally prosecuted. Rather, they are sued civilly and forced to return illegally evaded taxes plus interest and penalties. 

Don’t believe me? I’m just a Washington country lawyer. Believe the most famous tax preparation company of all time — H&R Block — which wrote in 2017: 

“Many people are afraid of IRS audits — and maybe even going to jail if they make a major mistake. In fact, fear of an IRS audit is one of the main reasons that people strive to file timely and accurate tax returns each year. But here’s the reality: Very few taxpayers go to jail for tax evasion. In 2015, the IRS indicted only 1,330 taxpayers out of 150 million for legal-source tax evasion….” 

That means — this is my opinion, not a fact — that Hunter Biden was prosecuted criminally because his father is the president. He was not given lighter treatment because of his father is president. In other words, in my opinion, Republicans have the truth exactly upside down when they accuse Hunter Biden of receiving special treatment. 

Leading to fact two: The decision to prosecute Biden and force him to plead guilty to two crimes (misdemeanors, but still crimes) was made by David Weiss, a U.S. attorney appointed by President Trump.

There has been a lot written about the motives and background of Weiss, who made the decisions to criminally prosecute Hunter Biden and the appropriate sanctions given the facts available to be proven in court. But not one GOP congressional leader has offered any facts to undermine his sincerity — only rumors. 

There is also not a single fact to support the speculations and innuendo of Republican congressional leaders and talk show guests that Attorney General Merrick Garland (or anyone else at the Justice Department) had any influence on Weiss.  

Fact three: The comparison not to prosecute Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails was made on the merits, without political influence. 

Anyone who doubts that cannot deny the following supporting indisputable facts: The decision not to criminally prosecute Clinton for her handling of the emails was confirmed by Trump administration and Republican congressional leaders, including Trump’s attorney general, Trump’s secretary of State, the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee and the Republican leaders on the House committee that investigated Clinton’s emails.  

Fact four: Maybe the most important one because I challenge even one Republican House leader to challenge this fact: 

There is no evidence that Joe Biden either assisted or obtained any financial benefit from his son Hunter’s decision to join the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, or in any other activity by Hunter Biden. 

Now here is a fact that I will end this column with which I agree and cannot dispute: 

Hunter Biden took advantage of his last name and his father’s reputation to get a job and benefitted by that association.  

Yes, that is so. Do I blame Hunter? No, I don’t. Some people do, and that is their right. But is it unusual in politics for children of elected officials, especially famous ones, to benefit from their parents’ political positions? No, it is not.  

Lanny Davis served as a special counsel to President Bill Clinton in 1996-98 and on a post-9/11 privacy and civil liberties panel appointed by President George W. Bush. He is a co-founder of the Washington law firm Davis Goldberg Galper PLLC, specializing in legal crisis management in support of litigation and other legal issues and Trident DMG, a public relations and strategic communications firm. He is an author of four books on U.S. politics and policy and one book, “Crisis Tales,” on legal crisis management true stories of his work for high profile clients.  

When Democrats settled on Joe Biden as their candidate in 2020, they seemed to think he would be perfectly fine. He wasn’t completely crazy, he seemed moderate, he was happy enough to hide away in his basement to make the campaign all about President Trump, and he had enough experience in Washington to go along the established order that the nabobs of the capital city prefer.   

But like Taylor Swift pointed out in her 2008 hit song, sometimes Mr. Perfectly Fine turns out to be a disaster. Or as one friend of mine likes to put it, everything is fine until it is not fine.  

Biden has had some bad breaks in his life, and we should acknowledge the tragedy that he has had to endure up front. But when it comes to politics, Biden has been far luckier than good.   

He is prone to wide exaggerations about his own life experiences and has a penchant for at times stealing the words of another. He often says things that have no possibility of being true. Because voters seemingly grade on a curve, Biden’s gift for gab and Irish charm has carried him to a position of power that just about nobody saw in his future. That includes his former boss, President Obama, who talked him out of running in 2016 and who made clear to anybody who would listen that he didn’t think Biden was up to the job. 

Biden has a habit of making exactly the wrong decisions. On international issues, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said of Biden, “he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”   

From his vaccine mandates to his mask mandates, from his reckless spending plans that helped to spur inflation to his embrace of the defund the police crowd, from his doubling down on the climate change hysteria to his confusing rhetoric on Ukraine before the conflict started, Biden has consistently made bad situations immeasurably worse. 

Three things are now confronting Biden as he seeks reelection, outside his less than stellar performance. First, his age. Second, very real questions about how he got elected in the first place. Third, his corrupt business deals with his son, Hunter. 

Biden’s geriatric bearing has long concerned voters, and it frequently is one of most cited reasons why voters voice discomfort with his reelection. He was old when he ran for vice president. He will be the oldest president by close to a decade should he win reelection and serve out his second term. And despite the aviator sunglasses and cool sports car, Biden is not a young old man. The voters notice and they don’t like it. 

The latest revelations that people inside the intelligence community put their hands on the scale to tip the election in Biden’s favor makes his election appear to be illegitimate in the eyes of many voters. Did the CIA and FBI pressure Big Tech to suppress stories that would have hurt Biden in the closing stretch of the 2020 campaign? Should we take the allegations of whistleblowers seriously when they say that the Bidens are not playing by the same sort of rules as everybody else?   

And at what point can we just ignore how Joe Biden got so wealthy mostly on a government salary? How come so many of the roads to Hunter Biden’s wealth lead to hotspots like China and Ukraine?   

The Democrats can pretend all they want that Mr. Perfectly Fine is going to walk into the nomination and easily dispatch either Trump or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. But just remember: Everything is fine until it’s not fine.   

Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy, blogs at thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).    

One of those ideas is that people have limited insight into their own thinking, including assessing changes in their views. For instance, last week I described Americans’ inaccurate belief that they had become more socially conservative, when in fact on most such issues they’d become more liberal.    

The second set of findings, which I’ve labeled “I’m OK, but you’re not,” reflects the tendency for people to think things are all right close to them, but pretty awful elsewhere.   

My health care is good, but others suffer lousy coverage. Schools in my neighborhood are good, but heaven help students in the rest of the state and country. Crime is under control where I live, but out of control nationwide.   

Now comes a study by psychologists Adam Mastroianni of Columbia and Daniel Gilbert of Harvard University on public evaluations of moral decline. The researchers document the sense of deteriorating morals going back thousands of years, continuing to the present.   

They located 177 survey questions that sampled more than 200,000 Americans between 1949 and 2019, asking some version of how they thought the nation’s morality had changed over time.   

For example: “Right now, do you think the state of moral values in this country as a whole is getting better or getting worse?”  

All told, 84 percent of the time majorities reported that America’s morality had deteriorated. (This pattern is international.)   

Of course, if morals had been steadily declining, even for the last 70 years, let alone the last 2,000, we’d all be living in some Mad Maxian dystopia.   

Are we really suffering continuous moral decline?   

Harvard’s Steven Pinker scoured the historical record and found, “we’re getting nicer every day.” Morality is actually increasing.  

Survey research also calls the reality of moral decline into serious question. Mastroianni and Gilbert analyzed more than 100 survey questions asking people to report on some element of current morality that pollsters asked at least twice between 1965 and 2020.  

In short, assessments of morality were stable. People said morality had declined, but when asked about the level of that morality at different points in time, their responses showed no change.   

The perception of moral decline is an “illusion,” conclude Mastroianni and Gilbert.   

This in part reflects the “I’m OK, you’re not” phenomenon. My personal experience, my local world is pretty moral, people assert, but the rest of the world isn’t and it’s getting worse.  

Similarly, this study provides additional evidence of people’s limited insight into what’s changing in and around them. They claim to see declining morality, but in fact they don’t.   

There is political relevance to this illusion.   

In offering to make America great again, Trump promised a return to an America that may never have been, but one he and his supporters believed once was. It reflected a sense that changes in the country were deleterious and needed to be rolled back.  

A clear sign of public antipathy to the cultural transformations wrought in this country came in response to a question we posed to voters just before the 2016 election asking them to evaluate the changes in “American culture and way of life” since the 1950s.  

Recall, as some of our respondents may not have, that the 1950s was before the civil rights era, before digital technology, before Medicare and even before the advent of nationally broadcast color television.   

Yet just 38 percent thought the changes since the 1950s have been for the better, while 55 percent said our culture and way of life mostly changed for the worse.   

Eight percent — apparently still enjoying their hula hoops, listening to monaural record players and sipping from racially segregated water fountains — were somehow unable to discern much change at all.  

Among those who believed America’s culture changed for the better, 74 percent supported Hillary Clinton, while among the 55 percent convinced it had gotten worse, two-thirds voted for Trump.   

Illusory perceptions can create political reality.   

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, a member of the Association’s Hall of Fame, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.    

Last week, in one of the more interesting and memorable moments thus far in the 2024 campaign, Sean Hannity interviewed Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) on his Fox News show. 

It was a long form interview that was both respectful and serious. Hannity and Newsom should both be commended for how they conducted their discussion of their competing points of view. 

Interested readers might look for the segment on “Morning Joe” this Monday which included a lengthy excerpt from the “Hannity” show and commentary from Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and the other panelists about how exceptionally strong Newsom was in presenting his enthusiastic, fact-based case for progressivism, California, President Biden and the values he forcefully champions. 

A search across political and social media provides evidence of how Newsom’s performance prompted more chatter, among progressives and Democrats, about how he is raising his national profile.  

What made Newsom’s performance on “Hannity” so inspirational for Democrats was the way he made the case for progressive states like California, which is also the case for the achievements and values of other blue states and for the enormous achievements of President Biden. 

Newsom can tick off the economic achievements from blue states about how the sum GDP of all blue states is higher than that of all red states, while President Biden can argue that today’s low unemployment rate would be the envy of previous Republican presidents.   

Newsom can show how blue states like California are the research and development capital of the world and have created more new businesses and jobs from this new research than red states.  

Newsom can point to examples of how blue states can do this while advancing the American dream and not cruelly dumping migrants into blue states in the middle of the night in ways that defame what America stands for; and how Democrats fight to save the Earth from pollution; and how Democrats give every American from every background a place to stand. 

Newsom can do this on issue after issue, with fact after fact. The way he did this on “Hannity” was comprehensive, sweeping and fact-based. The way he does this in other appearances makes Democrats, progressives and Biden supporters proud of the battles they fight and win to lift America.   

Early this week, before President Biden left for his important fundraising and issue visit to California, I contacted Newsom. I told him I wanted to get the story 100 percent right, and asked what role he would be playing in Biden’s trip to California. 

He told me he would be fully supporting Biden’s fundraising events and presidential campaign, would be traveling with him to multiple public and private events, and would continue his substantial efforts to help Biden win the presidential campaign, and help Democrats win the congressional and statewide elections in 2024. 

Newsom has a substantial political committee raising large amounts of donations to support a long list of Democrats, and a larger list of donors of all kinds whose donations he forwards to many other Democrats. 

Above all Gavin Newsom has ideas and values that he can articulate clearly and passionately and that make Democrats proud and confident to be Democrats. That is the message Newsom offered on “Hannity,” and the message Americans yearn to hear from Biden and all Democrats. 

Budowsky served as an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the House of Representatives.