With the Supreme Court slapping down Trump’s efforts to stymie mail voting and reports that he really doesn’t care about elections or is resigned to the outcome when he’s not on the ballot, there’s a little relief among voting rights advocates.

Get over it. The danger is greater than ever.​

Trump cares desperately about the November elections; look at his actions and threats. He engineered the unusual series of gerrymanders to give Republicans more House seats, tried to eliminate most mail voting, fabricated charges about illegal immigrants voting or foreigners trying to hurt him and even is opening up his campaign war chest.

It’s not that he cares about about any candidate other than himself. But the prospects of congressional investigations, with subpoena powers, of pervasive corruption in this administration and the Trump family is an inconvenience he urgently wants to avoid.

“He will use every trick in the book to try to continue to rig these elections,” Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, charged.

Think that’s partisan hyperbole? How about a top Republican urging voters to “cheat like hell like they do.” That was Donald J. Trump at the GOP’s Dallas convention this month.

Years ago a conservative pro-Trump journalist said he should be taken “seriously not literally.” We’ve learned they are almost indistinguishable.

“The greatest threat to the upcoming midterm elections is not the Democrats or the Chinese, noncitizens voting or electronic voting machines but the President of the United States and his servile Republican Congress,” wrote retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative.

There are multiple threats but in talking to knowledgeable sources, three stand out.

First the threat of sending federal agents, FBI or ICE agents, to polling locations with larger numbers of minority voters under the guise of voter fraud by “illegal immigrants.” Just consider - an undocumented worker, petrified of being apprehended, going to a public polling place or sending mail with a return address to a public place to take an illegal action?

But sending agents into the vicinity -- it’s against the law to send cops to polling places -- is to intimidate legal voters many of whom know about ICE agents assaulting and, in a few cases, murdering legal citizens under the pretense of rooting out illegals. FBI Director Kash Patel told a Senate hearing that he would not “shy away” from “protecting election integrity.” Homeland Security Secretary Mullin said he would only dispatch ICE agents to polling locations if “there is a threat” or to serve a warrant.

So in late October if the Don tells them there’s a threat down in the Rio Grande Valley, does anyone believe they’d respond, “Sorry sir we need more evidence?” They’ll put their jack boots on and charge.

The Democrats and voting rights advocates will go to court. In some venues like Texas they may struggle to get a court order, as the fear factor spreads.

Another huge threat is on election day or those leading up to it, to seize the voting machines and the ballots. That’s just Hollywood stuff, right?

Well the Cecil B. DeMille of election fraud -- Donald Trump -- told the New York Times earlier this year that he regretted “not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in 2020.” He wasn’t sure they were sufficiently up to the task. He has had time to try to solve that problem, even got in a practice run this year seizing the 2020 Atlanta ballots.

He would have the full support of his ever accommodating attorney general, Todd Blanche, as opponents rush to file court orders stopping this. What happens if they already have the possession of the ballots, the machines?

If the election gets through all of this there’s one final test: certifying the winners. Some red state officials may try to question the validity of victorious Democrats. In the House, the clerk, in what is intended to be a ministerial role, certifies the new members before the next Congress convenes.

But if the Democrats gain less than a dozen seats, the current Speaker Mike Johnson could replace the current clerk with a partisan lackey who would rule against those contested Democrats. That would be appealed to the courts, the Supreme Courts.

There’s cause and precedence for the Court stepping into this. Winning at least five votes would only be possible with the active support of Chief Justice Roberts.

The Trump led Republicans would try to drag this out warns Judge Luttig: “Judicial review of the House’s decision not to seat Democratic Representatives-elect in the 120th Congress would take weeks, if not months, during which time the United States would be in the throes of a paralyzing constitutional crisis.”

The best hope to avoid this calamity is for Democrats to enlist the best advocates and lead lawyers -- the post 2020 Biden team of former Solicitor Generals Seth Waxman, Walter Dellinger and Don Verrilli is the model.

Most of all make the November 3 vote too big to steal.

There are few disquieting trends. The Connecticut Mirror and KFF Health did an exhaustive study of health care legal actions in that state. Most of these cases now are being brought by doctors or physician groups rather than hospitals, a reversal of only a few years earlier.

It’s true that of over 25,000 licensed physicians and dentists in the state only about 400 filed lawsuits over unpaid bills. The trend, however, is notable.

With investors, like private equity, buying up medical groups, it might get worse. A subsidiary of Team Health, a Tennessee physicians’ firm owned by Blackstone, brought some 4,800 lawsuits against medical patients in Shelby County, TN. After news organizations revealed this practice, the company said it was halting any suits.

To be sure, taking legal action against deadbeat patients with sizeable debts is understandable.

Too often these are relatively small bills and before suits or sending people to jail, a system for stretched out repayment or dropping it is the better option.

In the Connecticut reporting, Allie Cass-Wilson, a nurse with an OB-GYN bill from years before, was not allowed to propose a payment schedule. The medical practice then blackballed her from future care.

In Kansas, Joe Vasquez owed $4,561 for an emergency hysterectomy his wife had several years earlier. He missed a court date and Marshall’s attack dogs pounced.

Although he was on disability the cops, under the orders of the Marshall team, arrested the couple in front of their grandchildren; they spent two nights in jail before getting a loan to pay bail. Eventually he worked out a repayment schedule over eight years which should have been the first option.

Kellie Clutts, a nurse, had a $129 charge for a postpartum visit after her daughter’s birth nine months earlier. Recently divorced with little money she asked to make partial payments. The Marshall team rejected that and garnished her bank account.

It’s up to the voters of Kansas to decide whether Sen. Marshall deserves reelection. And his many patients can judge his medical competence.

But when a millionaire files over 700 legal actions, charging usurious interest and sends scores of patients to jail, most for relatively small debts, that’s a character test.

Roger Marshall flunks.

​

On October 27, a week before the U.S. elections, Israel will decide whether to replace or retain Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu.

Though the ultimate survivor, serving over 18 years as Prime Minister, the expectation is he’ll lose. Despite successful strikes against Iran, wiping out much of their leadership, he remains deeply unpopular in Israel, blamed for the disastrous October 2023 Hamas surprise terrorist attack and an unwillingness to accept any accountability.

With the country’s crazy-quilt political system -- there are dozens of parties and any that gets 3.25% of the vote gets a seat in the Knesset -- it’ll be weeks after the election before the governing coalition is formed.

A clear Netanhayu defeat would be welcome news politically for many Democrats who have been caught in the crosshairs between anti-Israel activists and strong Jewish supporters. They might hail the possibility of a new start in American-Israel relations.

Yet whatever the immediate euphoria, the tension will endure as then the prospect of a Palestinian two state solution seems as distant as ever.

American views about Israel are at the lowest point since Harry Truman first recognized the Jewish state in 1948. There have been other points of difference, like the 1956 Suez crisis when President Eisenhower backed down the Israelis, but they were more specific and shorter.

Today Israel and its leader are no longer supported by most Americans. For the first time polls show the Palestinian cause is more popular.

To be sure, some of this is the always present anti-semitism. That is the case with some of the radical left wing politicians who have scored a handful of victories this year. Some of their supporters, influencers, are virulently anti-semitic.

The most visible candidate is Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive and a Muslim. Unlike some of the radicals he is working to mend relations with the state’s Jewish voters. Jews and Muslims both represent less than 2% of the electorate but matter in a close contest; the 2024 Michigan Senate race was decided by less than 20,000 votes.

Antisemitism may be more prevalent among Republicans though it receives less attention. There are antisemites in the second ranks of the Trump Administration; some young Republican confabs are full of anti-Israel rantings, and the third place finisher in the Florida gubernatorial primary last month was a white nationalist antisemite.

The schism is actually aggravated by the prime Israeli lobby in America. The American-Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is seen these days primarily as a Netanhayu cheerleader.

The dramatic decline in public support has deeper causes; the Israeli Prime Minister and his government are at the top of the list. One survey even showed New York’s anti-Israel mayor, Zohran Mamdani, more popular among Jewish voters than Netanyahu.

More than a few Republicans, almost all privately, blame Netanhayu for conning Trump into the disastrous Iran War. Even Trump may not be all that displeased if the prime minister is a gone,

The majority of Democrats intensely dislike the Israeli Prime Minister, citing his brutality, 73,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, and arrogance, the foreign leader addressed Congress to oppose President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Thus, replacing him is a necessary condition for a reset of American attitudes toward Israel. But it won’t be sufficient.

A new government headed by the current front runner, Gadi Eisenkot, former chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, could undo some of the ill will generated by Netanyahu.

It could crack down on the settlers who daily terrorize Palestinians on the West Bank. The current national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, is a settler himself and supports these criminal acts. The New York Times reported that a number of former Israeli Generals and intelligence officials accuse the settlers of engaging in ethnic cleansing that ultimately poses a grave threat to the Jewish state.

That and a more measured policy on Gaza would help with U.S. relations.

Conversely, if Netanhayu pulls an upset days before the American elections, relations could get even worse. It also might crystallize the political tensions for a few candidates like El-Sayed.

After both these elections major changes may be in the offing. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, both longtime supporters of Israel, will need to have -- pardon the mixed religious metaphor -- a come to Jesus confrontation with AIPAC. This once powerful lobbying group has alienated many Democrats, diminishing its influence.

More substantively there will be a serious reconsideration of the almost $4 billion in annual military aid the U.S. gives to a prosperous Israel.

Ultimately, until the Palestinian state question is settled the tensions with America as well as the Europeans will persist. Eisenkot opposes any Palestinian state.

Harry Truman’s decision to recognize Israel was over the strong objections of his top advisers, most prominently Gen. George C. Marshall, the Secretary of State, who warned it would unsettle the Middle East and lead to crises and confrontations.

Marshall was right. But so was Truman, who saw it as a moral imperative. For almost 80 years America and the Jewish state have been close allies.

Without changes in both countries that may not endure.

Disney and ABC may be learning the perils of feeding a crocodile. Winston Churchill warned those that feed the crocodile will eventually be eaten by him.

In the month before Trump took office last year, ABC, owned by Disney, paid off Trump $16 million over a baseless suit he had filed against the broadcaster. This was a business calculation, selling out journalistic principles, to curry favor with the new Administration.

Now the Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump loyalist, is threatening, in an unprecedented move, to strip ABC of its eight owned lucrative stations charging they’re too anti-Trump. In response, ABC is suing the FCC to head off this intimidation; underscoring the seriousness, one of the lawyers the company enlisted is Paul Clement, the most prominent conservative Supreme Court litigator.

You can’t buy off crocodiles or bullies, ABC, and this belated resistance won’t restore the reputational damage suffered.

The worst of the bully-capitulators may be the nine big law firms who surrendered to Trump’s objections to some of the lawyers they employed and clients they represented. There were no suggestions of impropriety. Trump just wanted revenge against adversaries.

The firms -- Paul Weiss; A&O Shearman; Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft; Kirkland & Ellis;, Latham and Watkins; Skadden Arps; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.--committed up to $1 billion to Trump causes to avoid any actions against them, which some claimed might endanger their survival.

More likely it was wealthy partners who didn’t want to see their compensation drop from $7 million to say $5 million or as President Obama said some “might not be able to finish that kitchen rehabilitation at their Hampton house.”

The contrast is with four Washington firms that stood up to Trump: WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. They won decisively in court. Trump says he’s still appealing, that’s for show. These firms beat the bully and in contrast to those others, Judge Beryl Howell declared, will be ‘models” for standing up for constitutional rights when history is written.

There is a semi-similar story with higher education. Under the guise of stamping out antisemitism and ending diversity programs the Administration is slashing funding and setting new regulations if the institutions don’t accede. Some like Columbia surrendered.

Others like Brown, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California at Berkeley partially gave in. Harvard and UCLA are among the few who stood firm and while they still will lose federal funds they are winning in court.

The duplicity of most of these actions was underscored by a former Justice Department official turned whistle blower, Haley Van Erem, She said she and colleagues were given politically-driven orders from above. The antisemitism charge, she said, was just a pretext for a “predetermined outcome driven by an approach to enforcement rather than a fact-based investigative process.”

Shamefully, few law firms or Universities came to the defense of their wrongly accused colleagues.

With a Democratic Congress and/or Administration, much of this will come out. It will be like the aftermath of the McCarthy witch-hunt era; some grandchildren will be proud, others won’t.

In the media there are a few profiles in courage. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times refused to be bullied, stood up to outrageous Trump charges and are winning. in the courts.

So is legendary pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register. Trump sued them for a Selzer poll that showed him losing Iowa which he won comfortably. Reputable polls typically state the result is within the margin of error 95% of the time. All pollsters have a few lemons. Very few, if any, can match Selzer’s sterling record or reputation.

This is a disgraceful case. It’s still in state court though Selzer will prevail. The judge said that Trump’s charge could have a “chilling effect” on free speech.

On the other side, CBS’ reputation was stained when it settled a Trump defamation suit over the way it edited a 60 Minutes interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

It was an absurd charge -- broadcast and print interviews often are edited, it’s a subjective process; good or bad this certainly wasn’t legally actionable. But CBS-Paramount were seeking the new Administration’s approval for a merger so they sacrificed journalistic principles for financial gain.

So did ABC when the President sued over anchor George Stephanopoulos saying that Trump had raped E. Jean Carroll. Trump was found by a jury not guilty of rape but was convicted of sexual assault. However the judge, Lewis Kaplan, explained that was due to New York state’s “narrow definition” of rape and that Trump raped her “as many people commonly understand the word.”

Stephanopoulos was careless but Trump had no chance of winning a defamation suit. ABC figured they could buy peace. With the FCC’s latest action maybe they learned a bully, like a crocodile, always comes back for more.

“Defending the First Amendment is not fighting for a free press. It’s fighting for a free nation,” declares Michael Gartner, former President of NBC News , and former editor of the Des Moines Register and Ames Tribune. “These guys should have learned that in junior high. But better late than never.”

For most two term U.S. Presidents the first is the more successful, opposed to the “curse of the second term.”
Yet most of these Presidents seek some legacy second term achievements. For Eisenhower it was the creation of a space agency and, unexpectedly, civil rights. For Reagan it was moderating the cold war with the Russians; for Obama it was a deal to halt Iran’s quest for at for a nuclear weapon and straightening out his poorly launched health care plan.
For Donald Trump his second terms actually seems far better as there are almost no restrictions and he lacks any substantive vision. Conservative columnist George Will called it a “frivolous and oblivious” Presidency.”
Trump is not oblivious to the two Rs; getting richer and getting retribution.
Both endeavors are corrupt.
“Most Presidents want to get something meaningful in a second term; that has eluded Trump,” says Douglas Brinkley a Presidential historian at Rice University. “He sees American Democracy as a gouge.”
A perfect example. He went to war in Iran to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon, which he declared would be an existential threat; he worried about nuclear proliferation.
Absent the quick victory he now seems bored and looking for an Iran exit strategy. As for his determination on nuclear proliferation, he’s renewing his bromance with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, who already possesses nuclear weapons.
He tried that in 2018. Trump got some love letters from the little dictator; Kim Jong Un now has three times as many nuclear warheads.
Trump has achieved a new category for Presidential greed. Anything he touches, he wants a piece of.
A Reuters poll last week found a strong majority of the public believe Trump is illicitly profiting from the Presidency and that it’s inappropriate for the Trumps to earn money from cryptocurrency.
Trump doesn’t believe it and as second term President, with no guardrails, it’s the press and the public be damned as he builds massive wealth while real wages decline for the average workers.
His overall revenue has increased three fold. The biggest scam is the crypto racket where he makes billions and other influence seekers, some foreign, take the losses.
The crypto business is right down Trump’s alley: legally dubious, with lax enforcement.
He has made real estate deals around the world, accepted a $500 million airplane from Qatar, made over 25,000 stock trades, some seemingly based on inside information.
He peddles merchandise with the Trump brand, even keeping a stock room right off the oval office. His children have raked in hundreds of millions more with special government-related investments.
In a terrific story last week, the Wall Street Journal reported Trump has a personal fundraiser, Margaret O’Rourke, who he calls “the Princess of darkness,” who solicits contributions for him from business and special interests. To date, the paper calculates, they’ve hauled in more than $800 million.
What we know may be only the top of the financial shakedowns.
The other priority is revenge get all those perceived enemies. That this is pure retribution using a Justice Department eager to serve his commands.
To be specific, indictments have been sought, among others, of Democratic Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and four House members --all veterans -- for declaring military personnel should not obey illegal orders; Federal Reserve chairman Jay Powell for refusing to cut interest rates; former FBI director James Comey for not stopping the investigation into the Trump-Russian connection in his first term, and New York Attorney General Letitia James for suing his business interests.
These cases were so fraudulent they were rejected by a grand jury -- exceedingly rare -- -or thrown out by a judge.
They’re still after Comey on another specious charge, and have their sights on Barack Obama’s CIA director John Brennan.
Famed journalist Bob Woodward, who broke many of the stories about the Watergate scandal, says Trump is far more “reckless” and a greater “danger to democracy” than Nixon.
It’s separate from his pervasive criminality but Trump’s perverse ego is a stain on the office and the country. Since the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was created there have been ten other Presidents. None had the chutzpah or vulgarity to try to add their name to that of the martyred President. Trump did, it was rejected by a judge but he’s back trying again.
There never has been an airport named for a sitting President until last month: the Palm Beach International Airport became the Donald J Trump International Airport.
Some critics hope that when/if the Democrats take charge of Congress after the midterms, they can rein in Trump. That may be wishful thinking. More likely it will just drive him to more secretive abuses.
“With the exception of the Civil War,” notes historian Douglas Brinkley, “this is the most dangerous period in American history.”

The Friday before election day Jack Calkins, who directed the House Republican campaigns, invited reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal (me) to go over the outlook.
Calkins, a good guy and a straight shooter, predicted all the competitive contests, twice as many as today, race by race. At the end the tally: a net gain of one for the Republicans.
O my God,” said a stunned Calkins. who knew that was off.
(The next week the Democrats gained 49 House seats.)
There is a little deja vu more than a half century later. Analysts looking at seat by seat or polls giving Democrats about a five or six percentage point lead in voter preference suggest Republicans, with their two vote majority, will lose seven to ten House seats and keep control of the Senate.​
If not a wave there’s at least a strong current that more likely the Democrats pick up about 20 or more House seats and four or five Senate seats to take control of both bodies. (With partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts and polarization the days of a party picking up seats like it did in 1974 or the Gop gains of 54 in 1994 or 63 in 2010, or the Democrats winning 41 seats in the first Trump midterms are over.)

Still, there are compelling reasons for impressive gains this November:
-- The most important guides for midterms are the approval rating of the incumbent President --Trump averages about 39%, exceptionally low --- and the enthusiasm level or more likely to vote, where Democrats enjoy as much as a ten point advantage.
-- The economy and the war, both big negatives for the GOP, won’t get any better in the next eleven weeks.
-- Trump is a diminished political force . At a campaign speech supposedly on agriculture in Chippewa Wisconsin, local accounts said “only a small portion” was about farmer’s problems while he elaborated on his beautiful ballroom and reflecting poll in Washington. “It was a slap in the face,” charges Rebecca Cooke, the Democratic House candidate Trump was campaigning against.

-- Democrats are fielding strong candidates. In the House challengers are a carbon copy of the stellar 2018 class, honored military veterans, small business owners, farmers, popular local elected officials.
Sometimes the numbers crunchers overlook the quality of candidates.
Republicans won the gerrymandering war a projected net gain of about a half dozen though it may be a few less.
Scandals, which so far disproportionately affect Republican House candidates, may offset that.
Ohio’s seventh congressional district in the suburbs of Cleveland and Akron wasn’t on any Red (Republican) to Blue (Democrat) list. Trump and the incumbent congressman, Max Miller, carried it by double digits in 2024. Now, however, Miller’s ex-wife is suing him for physical abuse of her and their two year old daughter. Her father, Ohio Republican U.S. Senator, Bernie Moreno, and some GOP colleagues, say Miller is unfit for office. He denies the allegations though he has a history of assault charges.
There are two important caveats to this blue bull market. One if Republicans can stick Democrats in swing states and districts with the radical socialist label. Last week’s primary defeat of a Democratic socialist gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin makes that harder.
The other is if Trump successfully sabotages the election in key places. He clearly will try; Democrats say they’re prepared; I am a little worried.
The key target for the challengers are the 20 plus House seats that Republicans carried by ten points or less in 2024. They are well positioned to win many of these.
In a wave or semi-wave year there are supposedly safe seats that come into play. In 1974 Colorado’s Don Brotzman, riding a 19 point victory two years before, lost to challenger Tim Wirth by four points. In 2008 David Obey won reelection to his Wisconsin House seats by more than 21 points. He retired. In the Republican wave of 2010, Sean Duffy captured that district by eight percentage points, almost a 30 point turnaround. Abigail Spanberger, now Governor, of Virginia, won her House seat in 2018 defeating a Republican who had carried it by 15 points two years earlier.
There likely will be several supposedly out of reach Republican seats that will fall this time, especially when the incumbent is retiring.
A couple possible longshots: the northern Nevada district that the Republican caried by nineteen points in 2024. And the open seat along the South Carolina coast; the Democratic candidate there is retired Navy Vice Admiral Nancy Lacore.
In the Senate one pickup, North Carolina with Gov. Roy Cooper, is as close as you can get to a sure thing. Democratic strategists see five other seats where they are running at least even: Ohio, Maine, Iowa, Texas and Alaska. Like the House there might be one or two surprises such as Nebraska where independent Dan Osborn is running a strong race against an incumbent Republican.
Democrats have a challenge to defend a couple of their own seats, especially Michigan.
It’s very difficult to imagine anything that’ll change these prospects before November 3. If so, I’ll raise a glass that night to my old pal, the late Jack Calkins.

Inbox

-

Donald Trump correctly predicted his self-styled Big Beautiful Bill would be a winner in this year’s midterms elections.

It is ... for Democrats.

Most Democratic candidates in competitive races are emphasizing the bill’s huge cuts in Medicaid, the steep increase in Americans without health insurance while giving the wealthy big tax cuts. Republicans , often on the defensive, stress provisions like limiting tax on tips or overtime and claim the Medicaid cuts were about eliminating waste fraud and abuse.

A Washington Post survey found that Congressional Democrats talk about the law twice as often as Republicans according to an analysis of public statements and social media posts.

On a podcast I’ve interviewed a dozen Democratic challengers from New Jersey to Arizona. Every one has been eager to talk about the problems caused by the Big Beautiful Bill.

The measure passed by a single vote so Republicans can’t easily finesse the bill. Some, like Wisconsin’s Derrick Van Orden, outrightly deny the BBB cut Medicaid spending. Iowa’s Zach Nunn, was so angered by a question from a Democratic tracker, he smashed the phone.

Others reframe the issue. California Rep. David Valadao’s Central Valley district has the highest number of Medicaid recipients of any GOP member so he changes the focus. “Obviously there was the health care component,” he acknowledged, “But obviously the tax component was the most important portion of the bill that we were mostly focused on.”

A Politico poll found most half respondents didn’t know much about the bill; more people said it hurt them than helped them.

White House and congressional leaders are urging candidates to call it “The Working Families Tax Cuts,” not the Big Beautiful bill. But starting with Trump and now the media and Democrats it’s the BBB.

There was real GOP optimism when Trump signed the legislation July 4 a year ago. It would be a huge job creator, cut taxes. boost real wages, a bonanza for farmers, lower the debt and expand heath care.

Even by Trumpian standards the claims were outsized He said the bill was “perhaps the most important and greatest of its kind in history.”

His Amen chorus was right behind him. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted an immediate boost in real wages as 2026 “can be a very good year.”

Real wages have been stagnant since the bill passed.

There were tax cuts that primarily benefitted the rich. Provisions ending the tax on tips and overtime helped some workers, not nearly as many as advertised.

Thirteen months after the bill passed it’s not a pretty picture economically though there are other factors not just BBB. Over four million American have lost health insurance, primarily because Trump let the Obamacare enhanced tax credit expire and five million more no longer have SNAP or nutritional assistance.

Farm income, adjusted for inflation is expected to fall 2.6% from a year ago with the separate Trump tariffs a factor. The deficit has grown and while predictions of a recession were wrong, job growth has been modest.

About 400,000 jobs have been added over the past year. The final year of the Biden Presidency saw 2.2 million additional jobs.

On the stump, twelve weeks before the election, these figures and the BBB is front and center for most Democratic candidates.

Rural hospitals, affected by Medicaid cuts, are in danger of closing; a few already have. Zach Nunn’s Iowa challenger seizes on this; “My congressman said it was a myth that it (the BBB) was going to close rural hospitals,” says Sarah Trone Garriott. “It is already happening.”

In Scranton, Pa., Democrat Paige Cogentti charges Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan sold Medicaid-related stocks and then voted for bill that cuts Medicaid.

As the President’s popularity sinks, more challengers are linking their opponents to Trump and the BBB, Citing Rep. Jan Kiggans vote for the bill, challenger Elaine Luria claims Virginians are paying a price for the incumbent putting “loyalty to Trump over their own community.”

Some Republicans, like New York’s Mike Lawler, are holding fast, championing the Big Beautiful Bill. He boasts about increasing the deduction for state and local taxes to $40,000 from $10,000, a real benefit to those generally making $200,000 to $500,000. He reminds constituents often of the tax exemption for some tips and overtime pay.

On defense, Lawler says the Medicaid cuts eliminated waste fraud and benefits for illegal immigrants. Actually undocumented migrants always have been ineligible for Medicaid.

Lawler faces one if the toughest Democratic challengers, decorated Army veteran, Cait Conley, who doesn’t let him off the hook. She notes before the 2017 Trump tax cut there was no cap on state and local tax deductions so just increasing it to $40,000 is inadequate.

On the health care policies she charges thousands of Hudson Valley residents have lost health care coverage because of Lawler’s vote.

She is brutally dismissive of Lawler’s claims about the bill: “The guy is a con artist.”

-

Recent polls on the 2028 Presidential race find the same Democratic front runners: Kamala Harrris, Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I’ll give you those four and take the other possibilities and not even ask for points.
That reflects shortcomings of the Top Four, especially Harris, but more it reflects history and an understanding that politics is not a static business, the environment and conditions change.
Politicians and the press should focus predominately on this November’s critical elections, and not the next Presidential contest. (I’m violating this for the last time until after Nov. 3)
For 2028, where will the economy be ? What will be the outcome of the disastrous Iran war ? How about Ukraine ? How will the politics of A-I play out, will China have caught or surpassed the U.S. ? What will be Donald Trump’s political and cognitive state ? How about the outcome of this November’s elections which will help shape the Presidential contest ?
I learned this lesson in the first midterms I covered. It was 1974; when polls or pundits focused on the next Presidential race --President Nixon was in his second term and facing impeachment --a Georgia peanut farmer and Governor wasn’t on any radar screen. That was Jimmy Carter.
It’s also worth recalling some of the front-runners at this stage: Republicans Rudy Guiliani and Jeb Bush and Democrats Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo. None got to measure the drapes in the Oval office.
These early 2028 surveys primarily reflect name recognition. Some of those voters forget about Harris’ miserable 2019 presidential campaign or even in 2024 when she got the nomination after President Biden dropped out and ran a mediocre campaign. Supporters say she got break when the Democrats made South Carolina, with a large number of black voters, the initial primary in 2028.
South Carolina provided decisive in the nominations of Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. That was when it was fourth ---the clean up hitter -- sorting out earlier splits decisions.
The left-wing mainstream debate, intensifying this year, likely will be even more inflamed in a Presidential year. There will be divisive debates over Israel, a government run health care system, immigration and other issues.
The most compelling candidate on the left is AOC a talented politician. I’d be surprised if she could win in swing districts or competitive states.
In following a unpopular President, the premium is on finding someone totally different, a counter to the incumbent.
With Trump that’s a large menu. Most of the leading Democratic Governors should do pretty well on that score.
Finally -- after spending most of a column disowning my own dictum about deemphasizing the next Presidential race -- it always depends on how a top tier candidate adapts to the major leagues of politics. Barack Obama did; Jeb Bush didn’t.
One more violation: The media loves to speculate on a possible GOP competition between J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio. That may hinge on Trump’s whim of the moment. OMG.
The November elections will play a significant role. If Republicans hold on to Congress it’ll be a huge reaffirmation of Trump, despite the polls. He will be the political king.
For dispirited Democrats it would give impetus to the left -- “we’ve tried it your way and failed.”
If instead Democrats win the House, and perhaps the Senate, how they perform will be important. A party riven by ideological battles and overreaching will make it harder to suggest it’s ready to govern.
A party reasonably united and holding Trump accountable, will set a favorable predicate for the Presidential election.
Predictably the hopefuls will go all out to help Democratic candidates this fall. It’ll be interesting to see which national figures are welcomed by Senate candidates James Talarico in Texas or Josh Turek in Iowa.
Nothing is better than delivering in your own state. If Pennyslvania’s Josh Shapiro wins a big gubernatorial reelection and his coattails carry three Democratic House challengers with him, politicians will take notice.
The next Presidential race will kick in full gear by year end. For the next thirteen weeks, however, all the focus should be on the midterms.
Two years from now we’ll collect on my earlier wager.

In Donald Trump’s crazed and duplicitous speech about election security, his grievance about the 2020 election or pushing voter suppression legislation were covers for his real purpose: setting the predicate for sabotaging the midterms elections.
He will try to use the phony claims of foreign interference, illegals voting and widespread fraud -- which he bizarrely enumerated in a White House speech -- to intimidate voters, especially minorities and interfere with voting and undercut results.
With no internal checks, he seems intent to do anything to subvert the very real prospects of major Democratic gains this November.
Efforts so far to suppress the vote have not succeeded. Courts have rejected proposals to ban mail voting or using the Post Office for restrictions. The SAVE act, requiring proof of citizenship, is dead in Congress.

It’s a distraction to worry about cancelling the midterms; it won’t happen, Instead Democrats, with legal experts expect major Trump efforts to undermine Democratic votes.
He is much better prepared than he was in his futile attempts to overturn the legitimate 2020 presidential election. Unlike then he will not face any internal resistance and no doubt believes the Supreme Court is a more friendly venue.
Trump cares deeply about these midterms, desperate not to face a Democratic-run Congress that investigates the Administration’s misdeeds and holds him accountable.
He already has telegraphed likely moves, and Democrats are preparing challenges pre-election, election day, post election and possibly when the next Congress is scheduled to be sworn in.
The major threats in the offing include:
-- sending ICE agents near heavily Hispanic voting areas under the false pretense of stopping illegal migrants from voting. This is a certainty. These ICE enforcers intimidate Hispanics who’re American citizens; some could be reluctant to show up and face unjustified scrutiny.
That’s what the Trump forces would be counting on in sending agents into Texas’ Rio Grande Valley during the early voting and Election Day. This would be immediately challenged, though the Supreme Court essentially condoned this racial profiling.
-- invoking the Insurrection Act which Trump has threatened multiple times. This would enable him to send troops or the national guard into urban areas - -Democratic strongholds -- creating chaos. The last time that was done was 1992 when the Governor of California and Mayor of Los Angeles requested federal forces to help quell violent riots.
Jack Goldsmith a Harvard law professor and former top Republican Justice Department official and Bob Bauer, a leading Democratic attorney and former White House counsel, have warned that the Act is dangerously unlimited, in need of reform.
Invoking the Insurrection Act would be a provocative and purely political act --the guise would be the threat of violence -- but Goldsmith and Bauer write the President would receive “significant deference” from the Supreme Court.
-- seizing the ballots and voting machines on Election Day to expose massive fraud which doesn’t exist. Trump has said he should have done that in 2020 and he’s far more emboldened now.
Moving quickly, for instance, he might order the seizure of ballots in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. That shouldn’t be legitimate as elections are under the purview of state and local governments, and Congress, not the President.
Legalities are a mere nuisance to President Trump.
-- finally, on January 3 the old Congress will have gone out of business with the new Congress set to be sworn in. In the House, the clerk usually routinely assembles a list of winners to be seated.
But if Democrats have won only a small majority, the clerk, tapped by Mike Johnson, the current Speaker, might reject some Democrats due to charges of alleged fraud.
It’s not clear to anyone exactly how this would play out. It is clear if it means control Trump would do whatever he thinks it takes.
This may seem outrageous but Trump has strong cards. The Justice Department, Homeland Security, the Pentagon and Treasury can be counted to support him, lock step.
This was not true in 2020 when Trump’s Vice President, Attorney General, Defense Secretary and even some White House lawyers stood up to him.
Democrat are fully preparing for this with scores of law firms, public interest and citizen groups. In 2020, Dana Remus and Bob Bauer, top Biden advisers, rallied teams of legal support and designated three former Solicitors General to lead on election challenges: Seth Waxman, Don Verrilli and Walter Dellinger-- the SG 3 or as the New Yorker called them, the three amigos. They were brilliant, winning 60 of 61 cases against Trump, leaving his only recourse to encourage the violent mob that unsuccessfully tried to stop the election count in Congress.
These same prominent lawyers, except for Dellinger, who passed away, are deeply into preparing for the Trump onslaught this year.
This year it’s midterms, not the focus of a Presidential contest, and there’s no chain of command. Privately, there’s concern that someone like Marc Elias might play an outsized role. Elias is a terrific self-promotor, appears often on cable news, and is close to leading Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer.
But he lacks the legal gravitas. He takes credit for thwarting Trump in 2020, and did work on recount and other issues. But those involved with the major matters that resolved the outcome dismiss an Elias role.
He notes he has argued five Supreme Court cases, Waxman, by contrast, has argued more than 90 cases before the High Court and with significant victories on matters ranging from the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill to granting legal rights to Guantanamo prisoners to abolishing the death penalty for juveniles.
After the last election, the SG3 thwarted Trump’s final efforts at the Supreme Court.
In the weeks and months ahead, remember July 16; Trump told us what he was going to do.

------

There may not have been a more ethically challenged Attorney General nominee than Todd Blanche.

As Deputy Attorney General, he has been the main force at an unscrupulous Justice Department from covering up the investigation into sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein to blatantly partisan indictments that were rejected by grand juries to cutting an unprecedented sweetheart deal enabling Donald Trump and his family to avoid sizeable tax bills.

There are two reasons this tarnished nominee. who faces the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing today, still could be confirmed. One is most Senate Republicans, who command a 53 to 47 majority, regularly vote in lockstep with Trump’s wishes.

The other is the opposition, in this case ten Democrats on the Judiciary panel, historically have lacked focus and discipline in these showdowns.

There are a handful of smart former prosecutors among these Democrats and a couple lightweights, well maybe welterweights.

The highest priority is the Epstein scandal. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi said Epstein was Blanche’s account. He even participated in a secret meeting at the White House aimed at insulating Trump from the scandal.

Justice, contrary to congressional legislation, has only selectively released Epstein files sometimes with an eye to protecting Trump.

The one person who knows the most about the late pervert’s actions is his accomplice, convicted criminal, Ghislaine Maxwell. Blanche personally went to interview her with a design to clear Trump.

A few days later she was transferred to a more comfortable minimum security prison and given special privileges. This facility was supposed to be off limits to convicted sex offenders.

Blanche claimed he met with Epstein survivors; they say he has not. A number have called for Blanche’s rejection, one is scheduled to testify before the Judiciary committee.

The other priority, after Epstein, is the deal Blanche engineered with the IRS to set up a $1.8 billion slush fund for victims of government “weaponization.: After an outcry, Blanche backed down, said the fund was dead.

But the bigger deal was Blanche getting Trump and his family immunity from any tax audits of current or past filings. This was supposed to compensate for a leak of Trump’s tax returns for which he sued the agency for $10 billion. The suit was flawed, filed too late, and probably the most he could have gotten, under normal order, would have been an apology.

Instead Blanche gave Trump and family an unprecedented immunity from any current tax audits saving them, by some estimates, hundreds of millions.

A federal judge this week denounced the deal as improper, accused Blanche of “at best misleading and at worst disingenuous” testimony and forwarded her findings to appropriate attorney disciplinary bodies.

Senators, don’t focus on the slush fund, which could have been done without the deal. Blanche will claim it’s moot, which may or may not be true.

All your questions should be about the unprecedented and sleazy, Trump tax deal, following the judge’s decision and a petition by more than 30 former federal judges, Republicans and Democrats, denouncing the Blanche deal.

Maybe just a few questions on political efforts , under Trump’s orders, to bring frivolous criminal cases against his enemies.

If this all goes as expected, confirmation probably will come down to five Republicans. Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski who has been willing to stand up to Trump pressure, and Maine’s Susan Collins facing a tough reelection. Then it would be up to three GOP Senators in their final months: Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and if he returns from hospitalization, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell.

The stakes are high: the rule of law.

Skip to content
Using Gmail with screen readers

For a column two thoughts emerged: I’m still on a high on the founding fathers and some outrages are so crazy they’re comical.

So naturally let’s write about Donald Trump comparing himself to George Washington. On the father of the country I turn to two great historians who have written about him, Lindsay Chervinsky, head of the George Washington Library at Mount Vernon, and Ron Chernow who also authored the celebrated biography of Alexander Hamilton.

On every imaginable positive trait -- character, courage, integrity, leadership -- next to Washington, Trump is a midget.

Let’s look at some of the contrasts.

Washington saw three essential pillars for the new Republic: the rule of law, the peaceful transfer of power and civilian control of the military.

Trump and his Justice Department see the rule of law as politically expedient.That criiticsm is leveled even by some high level Republicans, judges, former top Justice Department officials and the GOP’s last presidential nominee before Trump, Mitt Romney.

A survey co-directed by the UCLA law school -- including several dozen federal judges, elite lawyers, law school and political science professors, along with a national survey of 2,750 pf he general public -- found a significant erosion in the rule of law under the current Trump Administration.

Overwhelming majorities of legal experts surveyed say this Administration has used the Justice Department to go after political enemies and provided favors to the President’s allies.

On the transfer of power, before 2020 there were several bitter fights. In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular and electoral votes but fell short of a majority. It went to the House where Henry Clay orchestrated a victory for John Quincy Adams who appointed him Secretary of State.

In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the presidency even though he lost on election day. Under a deal in return for the White House, his party agreed to pull federal troops from the South, opening the way for suppression of Blacks.

However, the losing party didn’t litigate those results -- Jackson captured the presidency four years later. Trump, going on six years after an election he demonstrably lost, still is ordering hundreds of FBI agents to try to find fraud in that election.

Trump has followed Washington’s insistence on civilian control of the military. I fervently believe in that, even though today there are scores of military officers who would be much better than Pete Hegseth.

Washington turned over control of the military after the Revolutionary War to a Congress he knew was incompetent. I doubt Trump would have done that.

I also suspect he would have been on the wrong side, in a classic test, when President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination. (During the Clinton Administration I was with a group of mainly conservative Republicans who complained we were too soft and needed a MacArthur. One asked someone else there, John Glenn, what he thought of MacArthur: “I’m glad Truman fired his ass,” the retired Marine Colonel and American hero replied.)

Washington also consistently sought out different views from subordinates during the war; the two most prominent members of his presidency were Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton, with markedly different views on the new country and who despised one another. Trump, by contrast, surrounds himself with sycophants.

Washington appreciated the need to build institutions. Trump relishes tearing down institutions, such as the Voice of America, the Kennedy Center, the Smithsonian, and the Federal Reserve.

After the Supreme Court said Trump could not arbitrarily remove Federal Reserve Governors, the White House doubled down, duplicitously going after the Fed. Top economic adviser Kevin Hassett, once a respectable and honest conservative economist, charged former Fed chair Jerome Powell, whose term doesn’t expire for a year and a half, was staying on the Board just to vote against Trump.

And while five Supreme Court justices ruled birthright citizenship was constitutionally protected, Trump Republicans, encouraged by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, always a GOP operative, are mapping ways to undercut this decision.

Back to the comparisons, Trump has tried to justify his money making scams by drawing a parallel to Washington who he said had two desks together -- one for his business interests and the other for the presidency. That was a lie. No hint of impropriety was permitted anywhere near President Washington, historians have noted.

He was a man of impeccable integrity, though the story is apocryphal about chopping down his father’s cherry tree and confessing, “I can not tell a lie.”

For Trump it often is more like, “I can not tell the truth.”

Recipients

--

HERE’S A JOKE: TRUMP COMPARES HIMSELF TO WASHINGTON

FATHER OF COUNTRY VS. THE CRYPTO SCAM KING

For a column two thoughts emerged: I’m still on a high on the founding fathers and some outrages are so crazy they’re comical.

So naturally let’s write about Donald Trump comparing himself to George Washington. On the father of the country I turn to two great historians who have written about him, Lindsay Chervinsky, head of the George Washington Library at Mount Vernon, and Ron Chernow who also authored the celebrated biography of Alexander Hamilton.

On every imaginable positive trait -- character, courage, integrity, leadership -- next to Washington, Trump is a midget.

Let’s look at some of the contrasts.

Washington saw three essential pillars for the new Republic: the rule of law, the peaceful transfer of power and civilian control of the military.

Trump and his Justice Department see the rule of law as politically expedient.That criticsm is leveled even by some high level Republicans, judges, former top Justice Department officials and the GOP’s last presidential nominee pre-Trump, Mitt Romney.

A survey co-directed by the UCLA law school -- including several dozen federal judges, elite lawyers, law school and political science professors, along with a national survey of 2,750 of the general public -- found a significant erosion in the rule of law under the current Trump Administration.

Overwhelming majorities of legal experts surveyed say this Administration has used the Justice Department to go after political enemies and provided favors to the President’s allies.

On the transfer of power, before 2020 there were several bitter fights. In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular and electoral votes but fell short of a majority. It went to the House where Henry Clay orchestrated a victory for John Quincy Adams who appointed him Secretary of State.

In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the presidency even though he lost on election day. Under a deal in return for the White House, his party agreed to pull federal troops from the South, opening the way for suppression of Blacks.

However, the losing party didn’t litigate those results -- Jackson captured the presidency four years later. Trump, going on six years after an election he demonstrably lost, still is ordering hundreds of FBI agents to try to find fraud in that election.

Trump has followed Washington’s insistence on civilian control of the military. I fervently believe in that, even though today there are scores of military officers who would be much better than Pete Hegseth.

Washington turned over control of the military after the Revolutionary War to a Congress he knew was incompetent. I doubt Trump would have done that.

I also suspect he would have been on the wrong side, in a classic test, when President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination. (During the Clinton Administration I was with a group of mainly conservative Republicans who complained we were too soft and needed a MacArthur. One asked someone else there, John Glenn, what he thought of MacArthur: “I’m glad Truman fired his ass,” the retired Marine Colonel and American hero replied.)

Washington also consistently sought out different views from subordinates during the war; the two most prominent members of his presidency were Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton, with markedly different views on the new country and who despised one another. Trump, by contrast, surrounds himself with sycophants.

Washington appreciated the need to build institutions. Trump relishes tearing down institutions, such as the Voice of America, the Kennedy Center, the Smithsonian, and the Federal Reserve.

After the Supreme Court said Trump could not arbitrarily remove Federal Reserve Governors, the White House doubled down, duplicitously going after the Fed. Top economic adviser Kevin Hassett, once a respectable and honest conservative economist, charged former Fed chair Jerome Powell, whose term doesn’t expire for a year and a half, was staying on the Board just to vote against Trump.

And while five Supreme Court justices ruled birthright citizenship was constitutionally protected, Trump Republicans, encouraged by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, always a GOP operative, are mapping ways to undercut this decision.

Back to the comparisons, Trump has tried to justify his money making scams by drawing a parallel to Washington who he said had two desks together -- one for his business interests and the other for the presidency. That was a lie. No hint of impropriety was permitted anywhere near President Washington, historians have noted.

He was a man of impeccable integrity, though the story is apocryphal about chopping down his father’s cherry tree and confessing, “I can not tell a lie.”

For Trump it often is more like, “I can not tell the truth.”

Wave AI Assistant

Tell me more about itShow me related topicsStart prompt with selection

Democrats remain in good shape for the midterm elections aided by a gift that keeps giving --- Donald Trump -- while dependent on minimizing internal problems caused by the left wing.
On the economy, which pollsters, public and private, say continues to dominate, only 33% of the public approves Trump’s handling, according to the recent Marist poll for PBS aand NPR; he does even worse in other surveys.
Even with gas prices falling and if the economy improves -- dubious --these views are pretty much baked in for the next four months. There’s a lag time between perceptions and changing economic conditions.
It’s wrong to claim Democrats can’t focus on corruption as well as the economy. Good politicians can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Trump emphasized the cost of living and immigration in 2024.
The Trump corruption issues has bubbled beneath the surface. But revelations he raked in $2.2 billion last year, while others in these investments were losing their shirts, and that he and his family are cutting lucrative deals all around he world is changing that.
It’s clear he’s using the White House as a personal money making machine. There never has been Presidential grifting anywhere like this.
The one ray of hope Republicans seized on has been the election of a handful of left wing democratic socialists in primaries. The GOP paints these radicals as harbingers of what a Democratic control of Congress would look like.
Trump has charged they’re “communists,” reflecting either his ignorance or his age, probably both.
The leftists, while a very small slice of the party and any congressional caucus, are well organized in deep blue venues and are especially successful against aging or lackluster mainstream candidates. More than ideology they win because of the deep anger at Trump and the entire political establishment.
As the New York Times Tom Edsall has reported, much of their support derives not from working class or minority voters but from more educated left wing whites.
Some of their rhetoric won’t travel well. Darializa Chevalier, who beat an incumbent in New York City last month, calls for open borders, no migrant deportations, even of violent criminals, and wants to empty the prisons. Melat Kiros, who defeated an incumbent iin Denver, says America is responsible for the 9-11 attack on the country.
Democrats need to strongly condemn those views, starting with Baarack Obama and hopefully some younger members too,
One person whose efforts to take on the radical left is counterproductive is New York Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi, who last year called on his party to work with Donald Trump. Foolishly naive, that is exactly what the successful leftists complain about.
A real model is Georgia Democratic Senator, Jon Ossoff, who connects the economy and corruption issues -- “They enrich themselves while you pay more” --and rails against a system rigged by insiders.
For most Democratic candidates this fall it’s important not to get sucked into the right wing or left wing cultural issues.
An appealing agenda for the challenging party is relatively straight forward: an aggressive economic policy, restoring the Trump Medicaid cuts, expanding Obamacare with a public option, raising the minimum wage, more incentives for affordable housing.
This can be paid for with taxes on the wealthy. Just returning to the 2017 individual tax rates would raise more than $2 billion, that’s before anything from corporate taxes or loopholes.
Any agenda should include a tough ethics package for Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President. Ban stock trading for office holders, require total transparency, put enforcement teeth in the Emoluments clause which forbids taking gifts or payments from foreign governments.
That still leaves Democrats with a problem: Israel. The left is overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Domestically, there has been a disturbing uptick in antisemitism.
Much of the blame is with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu whose hard line, brutal policies have alienated many Americans. The new Trump-Vance hard line against Netanyahu is in line with the views of most mainstream Democrats who are committed to the state of Israel and fervently hoping a better leader will be elected his fall.
Moreover, elements of the Democratic left don’t have a monopoly on antisemitism. There are antisemites in the Trump Administration like Paul Ingrassia who has acknowledged there is a “Nazi streak in me.”
For all the talk lately about the Democrats’ “crazy left,” the GOP’s “crazy right” is a bigger force. Arizona Republican Paul Gosar has closely associated with Nick Fuentes, a neo-Nazi, holocaust denier. Tennessee Rep. Andy Ogles calls for deporting all Muslims and has written that gays and lesbians have no place in America.
This election, however, is far larger than the fringe figures on either side.
Joseph Ellis, a foremost authority on the Founding Fathers while discussing those extraordinary events in Philadelphia 250 years ago, ventured a thought about these critical midterm elections.
“Something much larger is at stake,” Ellis notes. “The Republic is on the ballot.”

I love the Fourth of July, the pride, the patriotism of celebrating that extraordinary achievement in Philadelphia 250 years ago.

This year we’ll have a nice family recognition but Donald Trump has made a mockery of any national celebration. It’s all about him, a series of narcissistic and tacky tributes.

Such a lost opportunity for a national day of unity, appreciating our rich history, flaws and all. It’s not to be.

I grew up in the Philadelphia suburbs; my Dad used to take us to the Valley Forge Musical Fair on July 4 with wonderful medleys of patriotic songs.

Years later I vividly remember the celebration of America’s 200th birthday in 1976. This was after bitter political fights over the Vietnam War and Watergate which forced President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

It was a message of unity at a time the country needed it. Much of the credit goes to President Gerald Ford.

That year, on July 4 the President went to Valley Forge, spoke at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall and then to New York to watch the tall ships from around the world sail into New York harbor.

The President of France and the Queen of England, at different times, joined the commemoration. There were special asides. I recall the Washington Star publishing in the old English though I can’t locate a copy.

The President struck an uplifting tone, there was jubilation.

Starting over a decade later, a family highlight was Alan Greenspan’s party at the Federal Reserve Building overlooking the fireworks on the National Mall. Honoring the Fourth of July with American heroes like John Glenn was special.

In contrast to the 200th, Donald Trump has made the 250th all about him. He vowed there would be “the most spectacular Trump rally of them all.” He established an alternative to the congressionally-approved America 250 committee.

Ford went to Valley Forge to honor those Revolutionary soldiers who spent a freezing winter there, Trump staged a UFC cage fight on the White House lawn. A planned musical event was cancelled when most of the artists said they wouldn’t participate in an ode to Trump.

The Administration also is trying to minimize historical realities, like slavery, that don’t fit the narrative. But there’s no shortage of pictures, banners and posters of Trump; it’s like Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang.

His narcissistic remake of the nation’s capital, in commemoration of the anniversary, is a disaster. He is ruining the Lincoln Memorial’s reflecting pool. He’s planning a gaudy 250 foot Arc de Trump in front of Arlington Cemetery, the resting place for so many who served the country.

On July 3, the PBS Fourth will air top flight entertainers and music, the finale will be spectacular fireworks at George Washington’s Mount Vernon. Around America there will be parades, bells ringing, bonfires, firecrackers, recitations of the Declaration of Independence.

That inspiring spirit will be absent in Trump’s Fourth.

A recent Pew Research survey shows almost 60% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Israel. More Americans are sympathetic to the Palestinians. These are dramatic changes.

Netanyahu is viewed negatively by most Americans. A decisive majority in the New York Times-Siena survey opposed any additional military assistance to Israel. This opposition is more pronounced among younger voters.

Israel’s major political support arm, AIPAC, once respected or feared by most American politicians, has become a pariah to more and more Democrats.

New York’s 11th congressional district - lower Manhattan district stretching into Brooklyn -- by some calculations has the second highest percentage of Jewish voters. Yet in the Democratic primary challenger Brad Landler is attacking incumbent Dan Goldman for getting AIPAC support. Goldman vowed not to take any AIPAC money and stepped up criticism of Netanyahu.

(As an aside, their stances on Israel and most issues will either be the same or irrelevant in the next Congress. Goldman is an experienced and tough investigator and his loss would be a setback for Democrats.)

Although many politicians still accept AIPAC support, the organization sometimes tries to disguise its involvement. It is backing the staunchly pro-Israeli congresswoman Haley Stevens in a tight Michigan Senate primary. The Detroit News revealed last month that AIPAC had been directing donors to support Stevens in a way that doesn’t link the contribution to them.

More prominent Democrats are distancing themselves from AIPAC. These include presidential aspirants Governors Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, and Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, as well as prominent lawmakers like Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen and California Rep. Ro Khanna.

AIPAC spends a big chunk of money in Democratic primaries, understandable when trying to defeat an anti-Israel candidate like Cori Bush in Missouri.

But, infuriating Democrats, AIPAC spent more than $2 million to defeat Tom Malinowski in a New Jersey special congressional election. The former congressman was a supporter of Israel, but not of Netanyahu or many of his policies.

Rather than focusing on the candidate’s views on Israel, they attacked him for a vote when he was in Congress in 2019 that charged he was a supporter of ICE. In reality, that bore no resemblance to today’s ICE controversies. It was a supplemental appropriations measure supported by all but a handful of Democrats.

“That was a despicable and dishonest attack,” says Malinowski, a human rights advocate who immigrated to America as a child.

With these attacks a left wing anti-Israel candidate won by 889 votes. AIPAC privately rationalized to some critics that one vote wouldn’t matter much but Malinowski’s pro-Israel, anti-Netanyahu voice would be influential.

Israel is in trouble with its most important ally, the United States. Its powerful lobby AIPAC is making it worse, Malinowski says “damaging to maintaining any consensus for a partnership with Israel.”

----

Required reading for all senators before voting on the nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General of the United States should be: “The Department of Revenge” by Devlin Barrett, a veteran prize winning Justice Department reporter, now with the New York Times.

This well documented account of what the Trump Administration has done to the Justice Department is tragic. It has lost many of its most experienced lawyers. Major departments, public integrity, civil rights, and national security have all been shredded. In the current Justice Department the only guiding principle, or priority, is what Donald Trump wants.

In reading the Department of Revenge, it’s clear no one is more culpable for the demise of an honest department than Todd Blanche, the acting Attorney General and formerly Trump’s criminal defense lawyer.

The Barrett book, with specificity and attributable sources enumerates Blanche’s central complicity in two big Trump-centric scandals, in recklessly -- and lawlessly -- going after Trump’s perceived “enemies,” and establishing partisan litmus tests for Justice and the FBI.

“Todd Blanche has become the symbol of Donald Trump and his corruption,” charges Michael Luttig, in calling for the Senate to reject his nomination. Luttig is a former Court of Appeals judge, conservative, and now a champion of trying to protect the rule of law.

The Department of Justice is in bad shape, Luttig notes and if Blanche is confirmed “it will effectively bring an end to this Department of Justice.”

Trump was determined that Justice would be subservient to his wishes. After winning in 2024, his first choice for Attorney General was former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, who was facing imminent House Ethics committee charges of sexual trafficking and campaign finance fraud. That was too much and the nod instead went to Pam Bondi, former Florida Attorney General and Trump loyalist.

Bondi was a lightweight, however, and made embarrassing mistakes relating to the files of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, a one time pal of Trump. Epstein procured young women for powerful men; Trump denied he was one of them but desperately wanted to bury the issue.

The Epstein account and most top department decisions were given to Blanche, the deputy Attorney General.

The New York Times last week revealed there was an unusual meeting in the White House situation room -- the security proof venue used for national security and intelligence matters -- to deal with Trump’s Epstein “crisis.” As well as the Vice President and top White House staff, Blanche was there and made two recommendations. The first was to request the Epstein grand jury testimony be released which he noted almost certainly would be rejected but then they could blame the judges.

The other was that he’d interview the imprisoned Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s accomplice who procured young women. Over two days Blanche threw a series of softball questions, with little follow-ups, as she exonerated Trump from bad behavior. A week later she was moved to a minimum security facility, supposed to be off limits for convicted sexual offenders, and given special favors. (A good betting pool would be to predict which day, after the midterms, Maxwell gets a pardon or commutation.)

Blanche also crafted the deal for a $1.8 billion slush fund for Trump supporting victims of “weaponization,” and barred any tax audits of Trump or his family for current or past tax returns.

This was so sordid that 35 former federal judges, of both parties, asked a judge to investigate the dubious deal.

This should be enough to disqualify Blanche. Barrett’s book outlines a pattern of politically motivated, even lawless, actions. At Trump’s insistence he forced indictments of former FBI director James Comey over the objections of experienced prosecutors who found the evidence insufficient.

The first was thrown out by a judge and the current charge is that a picture he took of a sea shell with the numbers “86 47” showed he wanted to harm the president. This one is a loser too.

Likewise, two Justice Department charges against New York Attorney General Letita James,, who had successfully sued private citizen Trump for financial fraud, were rejected by grand juries.,

Earlier, with his associate Emil Bove, Blanche forced the Manhattan U.S. Attorney to drop an indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, that actually was dependent on his cooperation with the Trump Administration.

The acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, a conservative former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, charged this was an unethical “quid pro quo” in violation of Justice Department policies.

Blanche is delivering on Trump’s obsession to get revenge against Barack Obama’s CIA director John Brennan. When the head of the national security team in Miami told Justice there was no case, Blanche had her sidelined. He brought in a political hack, Joe diGenova, to help find a way to indict Brennan.

It’s supposed to be so easy that any prosecutor could get an indictment of a “ham sandwich.” Blanche better Deli-shop as numerous grand juries have rejected flimsy political charges brought by this Justice Department.

Blanche also has overseen the departures of thousands of employees, many horrified by the politicalization of Justice, and he brags about firing hundreds of officials for doing their job in investigating and prosecuting the violent January 6 criminals who tried to overturn an election.

Barrett writes: “A Justice Department and an FBI without rules, without good judgment and without a moral compass represent a massive danger not just to Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms but also to the nation’s stability and safety.”

That’s what a Todd Blanche-led Justice Department represents.

It’s unwieldy and unequal.

It also is better than five years ago. The marketplace now plays a role and is bridging a bit of the huge divide between young, disproportionately Black players and older predominately white coaches and administrators.

Still, some reforms are necessary. Both President Trump and a bipartisan bill authored by Texas Republican Ted Cruz and Washington state Democrat Maria Cantwell are pushing changes.

There are promising elements in these efforts but major shortcomings.

The NCAA, the band of colleges that governs these programs, caused many of the problems. Under the old system, coaches and colleges were raking in big bucks while players, apart from scholarships, were more like indentured servants.

The underlying fiction was this was all about amateurism and student-athletes.

The NCAA also had checkered enforcement especially against blue bloods. “The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky they gave Cleveland State two more years of probation,” cracked Jerry Tarkanian, the late University of Nevada at Las Vegas coach.

Under the table payments and skirting of rules was common. At a forum on college athletics years ago one coach suggested, “what we need is more prayer.” To which John Thompson, the great Georgetown coach, responded, “what we need is for you M***** F******’s to quit cheating.”

A 2021 unanimous Supreme Court decision upended this NCAA monopoly declaring that restrictions on education-related compensation violated antitrust laws. There wasn’t much clarity but it opened the doors.

The proposal in the Senate calls for an antitrust exemption and an expanded compensation cap on school payments to athletes. There would be new protections for benefits like health care and the ability to sue in federal courts for legitimate grievances. It would seek to narrow the disparities between the haves and have nots by proposing a media revenue shaaring pool with participants.

The legislation still tilts heavily to colleege administramtors and coaches, says Jay Bilas. He is a former Duke basketball star, with a law degree and now the top ESPN basketball analyst; few are as knowledgeable or thoughtful about college sports.

The bill, he says, falls short for the athletes: “they want to give an antitrust exemption which protects coaches and administrators but restricts players.”

What’s needed, Bilas argues, “is a pathway for a collective bargaining unit,” like professional football, basketball and baseball have. There are complexities --should this be done by individuals, schools, conferences or overall? What are the options if there’s an impasse; there is strong opposition to unionization.

There would still be the NIL’s -- Name, Image and Likeness -- which boosters use to monetize opportunies for players.

The odds of anything happening this year are low. There are two dominant conferences - the Big Ten with teams in the populous Midwest and the West Coast with large media markets, and the almost as powerful SEC, stretching in the South from Texas through Florida and Georgia. They have most of the cards and will resist reforms like media revenue sharing.

Blacks comprise a sizable number of basketball and football players, and some civil rights groups are objecting to these reform proposals.

At some stage the colleges, NCAA, will have to figure out a more player-friendly reform, building on some of the changes suggested by the Cruz-Cantwell measure.

In the meantime, I’m not going to worry about some talented young college quarterback or power forward making $10 million. I do worry how those substitutes or those in minor sports or women’s sports are treated.

I also don’t worry about exceptional coaches - Jon Scheyer of Duke and Connecticut’s Dan Hurley in basketball or Indiana’s Curt Cignetti and Ohio State’s Ryan Day in football - having big pay days. They deliver; that’s the marketplace.

Unacceptable are coaches who are fired - presumably for not being good enough - and walking away with unconscionable sums. That includes two football coaches, LSU’s Brian Kelly, out the door with $54 million, and $48.6 million was due for Penn State’s James Franklin. In basketball, fired Kansas State coach Jerome Tang is seeking $18.7 million. While in 2020, Wake Forest’s (my alma mater) Danny Manning got $14.7 million after he was terminated.

No caps or limits on player compensation should be acceptable without looking for any way to limit these payouts.

Overall, once you accept that this is not about amateur student-athletes, the current state of play, with its inequities, looks okay. Some schools in conferences like the Atlantic Coast (ACC) and the Big East (basketball) may have to move down to a less financially competitive league.

We’re not going back. “Those who say we want it to be like it used to be,” Bilas says, are out of touch with realities. “Players have to have a voice.”

The ghosts of Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome and Watergate must be asking: How in the hell is this guy getting away with far more than we ever dreamed.

On corruption, Washington-style, Donald Trump is in a league by himself. His net worth has almost tripled as he rakes in money from a crypto scam, peddles pardons for investor associates, and gives new meaning to insider trading.

Most of this is legal for the major reason he’s able to get away with it -- the 2024 Supreme Court decision that granted him broad immunity for any official act, which he interprets very generously.

“There is a zone of lawlessness around the Oval Office, erected by the Supreme Court when it granted current and former presidents effective immunity from prosecution if their crimes involved ‘official acts,’” Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice wrote last week. “Loot the taxpayers, misuse government power for graft and you’re off the hook.”

Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision gave the President absolute immunity performing constitutional duties and presumptive immunity for other “official” acts.. The partisan decision, all Republican justices, wasn’t issued until July 1 of the election year, ending even any limited prosecution of Trump for inciting the January 6 riot at the Capitol to try to overturn an honest election which Trump lost.

I doubt the timing was coincidental.

Michael Lutting, a former conservative federal judge, called the decision “abominable,” and in a dissent Justice Sotomayor said it makes Trump a “King, above the law.”

That’s the way an emboldened Trump sees it. With only rare exceptions, he acts like there are no guard rails to stop him.

The money grift is stunning, especially the crypto currency firm Trump established; he is shaking down investors and working to make sure the government doesn’t get in the way of the billions he’s hauling in.

Does this violate any legal restrictions? Not with his protective Supreme Court ruling.

Then there are his stock purchases, not infrequently tied to government actions. He bought Palantir stock, the big data firm and government contractor and right afterwards publicly praised the company, even giving its NASDAQ ticker number.

He bought Paramount and Netflix and Warner Brothers stock while the Justice Department was weighing a merger deal. This Justice Department has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump. He was buying Oracle stock while facilitating its purchase of Tik-Tok.

The president generally isn’t covered by insider trading restrictions. But post presidency there could have been an investigation into this shady activity. Not with John Roberts’ decision, however.

Likewise, some of the unprecedented number of pardons he has issued raise serious questions. Some have been granted to criminals directly tied to his business interests, others for political benefit. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the possibility that a broad grant of immunity might allow bribery. She voted for the decision anyway.

Trump, of course, would say these were tied to official acts.

This is a family racket. ProPublica disclosed that a White House official urged the Pentagon to approve and expedite an unusual loan for a start-up company. Predictably, the Pentagon obliged and gave a record loan to the company where Donald Trump, Jr. is a big investor.

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law has been tapped as Middle East negotiator at the same time his investment firm is doing business with some of those countries.

In normal times, these would be unacceptable conflicts of interest. These are not normal times.

The latest is the sordid IRS-Justice debacle. First, Trump supposedly gave up his $10 billion suit against the IRS for a contractor leaking his tax returns. In return, Trump’s acting Attorney General barred the IRS from looking at any of the tax returns Trump or his immediate family have filed.

First, Trump’s lawsuit was flawed and he likely wouldn’t have gotten much more than an apology. The prohibition against auditing any of the current Trump returns is unprecedented.

To provide context, Trump has promised for ten years to release his tax returns and reneged. And a 1998 law specifically prohibits the president from interfering or any involvement with IRS actions.

Thanks to John Roberts, Trump will say this is official business, so let’s deep six that statute.

Then the President and his go along acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tried to falsely connect this to launching a $1.78 billion slush fund to be doled out to anyone supposedly “weaponized” by the previous Administration. This includes criminals who beat up the police on January 6.

Defenders of the slush fund, to be answerable to Trump, have drawn parallels to other funds, including the September 11 victims fund.

The September 11 fund was approved by Congress, administered with rules and hearings across the country by an eminent expert, Ken Feinberg. The recipients were deserving and enjoyed widespread public support. None of that is the case with this slush fund.

Still, Trump almost never backs down from a lie, he doubles down, another reason he gets away with it. In the style of his mentor Roy Cohn (or the Nazi and Soviet propagandists), he revels in big lies which strangely can be harder to knock down. Millions and millions of Americans today believe the certifiable lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Another factor, of course, is a Justice Department who sees its mandate to serve Trump who calls the shots. Congressional Republicans, fearful of incurring Trump’s wrath, have abdicated much of their responsibility.

Some of it is even in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom with separation of powers and guardrails, didn’t sufficiently appreciate the possibility of a president who had no regard for the rule of law.

Politically, it’s catching up. In recent polls, half or more of Americans say the president is corrupt. As well as the cost of living and an ill-considered war, corruption will be a winning issue for Democratic candidates this fall.

Over the longer run this is not easily correctable. Michael Waldman suggests a constitutional amendment to end the ability of an unchecked president to issue corrupt pardons. The 14th Amendment, he notes, was a powerful antidote to the Supreme Court’s racist Dred Scott decision.

But it took a Civil War in between.

Occasional escapes are supposed to be good for your emotional health, which seems essential if following the Trump Presidency.

This week I’ve only paid glancing attention to Trump’s obsequious cabinet meeting, ICE pepper-spraying and tear gassing a United States Senator, as the new Homeland Security Secretary tries to find a job for his wife in the agency, or the Justice Department going after E. Jean Carroll who had the temerity of successfully taking action against Donald Trump for sexually assaulting her.

Instead, I had a rare week of escapes.

MONDAY: I focused on the New York Knicks clinching a spot in the NBA finals with an eleven game win streak. Usually I cheer against New York teams. The Yankees because they are the Yankees. Others with sleazy proprietors, the New York Mets owned by Steve Cohen, the St. John’s college basketball team coached by Rick Pitino.

The Knicks, the owner notwithstanding, are an exception. Three of the stars went to Villanova, my childhood team. Former Knick and former U.S. Senator, Bill Bradley, is one of my few political heroes.

They are fun to watch. There are a couple teams with more talent but their passion and chemistry is unsurpassed. My favorite is Josh Hart, who is not the best scorer or shooter, or anywhere near the biggest. He just makes things happen, rebounds, assists, steals, shots at crucial moments. He also went to my kids’ high school.

TUESDAY: My wife, Judy Woodruff gave the Herblock speech, honoring the great Washington Post editorial cartoonist during the annual awards ceremony at the Library of Congress. It was a fabulous speech on the importance of a free press and threats we face today. If you think I’m biased -- I am -- read it on the Herb Block Foundation website when it goes up soon.

Herb Block, more commonly known as Herblock, died 25 years ago after more than a half century as the conscience of America; he afflicted the comfortable and comforted the afflicted. He skewered Joe McCarthy in the early stage of the Wisconsin Senator’s demagoguery and later captured where Watergate was heading only days after the break-in.

With a biting and brilliant pen he went after bullies, racists, big money special interests. And he championed civil rights, the dispossessed, the underdogs. The winner of this year’s Herblock award, Jack Ohman, editorial cartoonist of the San Francisco Chronicle, is very much in the Herblock tradition.

The only down moment was the thought of how much today the country and the Washington Post, needs a Herblock.

WEDNESDAY: Courtesy of my wife’s PBS NewsHour colleague, Ali Rogin, we went to the next to last stop on Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’s Land of Hope and Dreams American tour, which began in ICE-ravaged Minneapolis.

At 76 the boss shows the extraordinary energy, and brilliance, that most younger athletes or entertainers would envy -- nonstop, almost three hours, paying little attention to rain. The adoring crowd was swinging and singing the lyrics the whole time.

He pulled no punches on Trump, calling him “’reckless, racist, incompetent and treasonous” to a roaring reception. He led the crowd in chants of “Get ICE out now.”

There were emotional moments. After he sang the song he wrote dedicated to the citizens of Minnesota, the jumbo screen flashed pictures of Renée Good and Alex Pretti who were killed by ICE agents. There were lots of tears.

THURSDAY: Politics WarRoom, a podcast I do with James Carville, aired today. The guest was someone you’ve probably never heard of, but should: Chaz Molder, a Democratic challenger in a heavily Republican gerrymandered middle Tennessee district.

The mayor of a small town, a Sunday school teacher, a hunter and one of the most impressive and articulate guests we’ve had on the program in seven years.

He’s running against Andy Ogles, a right wing Republican incumbent, an advocate of Christian nationalism who wants to deport all Muslims. He has been caught lying about his education and background. He faced a criminal investigation for campaign finance fraud; the Trump administration dropped the case against the Republican lawmaker.

A district Trump carried by more than 20 points should be out of reach for Democrats even with a corrupt incumbent. But Chaz Molder is a very special candidate.

Watch Tennessee’ fifth congressional district this fall.

FRIDAY: Still looking for escape, my son and I are going to the Washington Nationals game tomorrow. After winning the 2019 World Series, the team unloaded some of its best players, and since has had one of the worst records in major league baseball.

Surprisingly, with young players, they’re doing better. While I doubt Nats Park will rock like it did the other evening for Springsteen, there’s hope for the Nationals. Even with a mediocre team, it’s baseball.

SUNDAY: We’re going to the John F. Kennedy Library’s annual Profile in Courage dinner. As usual, the recipients are special.

The people of the twin cities of Minnesota will be recognized for their courage in resisting the brutality and lawlessness of ICE agents, including murder. These folks banded together and never stopped resisting.

Jay Powell, the recent chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, will be honored for his courage in standing up for the independence of the Fed in the face of the incessant bullying of the White House. Trump not only viciously attacked Powell but threatened criminal action. Powell wasn’t intimidated and publicly took on the attack.

It was a week of fun, great memories, inspiration and hope.

Monday back to the darkness.

The midterms are going to be a blue tide for Democrats -- it’s a done deal to win the House and there’s a serious shot for the Senate -- somewhere between a current and a wave.

The margins matter, the difference between a narrow 10 vote or 25 seat margin in the House, and between 49 or 52 Democratic Senators in 2027. Obviously they must win in some Republican leaning venues; pending primaries will help shape that.

With the threat of Trump’s lawlessness, in most every instance the premium should be on electability. The party’s left wing celebrated the Philadelphia congressional primary win of Chris Rabb in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.

This is the sort of seat the left can win. They rarely prevail in the more competitive seats that determine majorities.

Rather than focus on a largely irrelevant Democratic 2024 autopsy -- the main reasons they lost was Joe Biden didn’t get out a year earlier and Kamala Harris was a mediocre candidate -- Democrats should heed the counsel of Barney Frank, who passed away last week: don’t let the left wing drive policies that “go beyond what is politically acceptable to most voters.”

Here are some of the races with important primaries:

ARIZONA CD 1: The two leading candidates for an open seat are Amish Shah, a physician, and Marlene Galán-Woods, who was a longtime broadcaster and the widow of a Republican Attorney General. There are few policy differences between them in the July 21 primary.

Shah only lost to a Republican incumbent by four points last time so you’d think he’d be the preferred candidate. But the Democrats’ campaign committee, labor, Emily’s List and prominent Arizona politicians instead have rallied behind Galán-Woods.

There is an explanation: electability. She is Hispanic -- as is 16% of the district; she has strong favorability from her decades as a broadcaster, and with her family Republican ties, Democrats believe she has crossover appeal with non-MAGA Republicans.

“She is the only candidate that can flip this seat,” says Janet Napolitano, former Democratic Governor.

MICHIGAN SENATE: For the Democrats to capture the Senate, they probably have to hold their own seats. They are in trouble in Michigan.

The Republicans have a good candidate, former congressman Mike Rogers, who barely lost in 2024 to Elissa Slotkin, a first rate candidate, better than any her party is running this time on August 4.

The Democrats’ two mainstream progressive candidates, state legislator Mallory McMorrow, and congresswoman Haley Stevens are battling for many of the same voters.

That is providing an opening for Abdul El-Sayed, a physician with a left wing agenda: embracing a single payer health insurance system, abolishing ICE, and campaigning with an influencer who has made many inflammatory comments. Republicans are salivating over running against him.

There will be pressure on one of the other two to bow out before the August 4 primary. I think McMorrow would be the stronger candidate but Stevens is the choice of much of the establishment.

CALIFORNIA 22: In response to the Trump-ordered Texas gerrymandering, California’s new congressional map favors Democrats in places like this Republican-held Central Valley seat. The incumbent David Valadao is resourceful and shows the few streaks of independence that make him harder to beat.

However he may have made a big mistake in voting for the “Big Beautiful Bill” which includes huge cuts in Medicaid. This is the most Medicaid dependent district in the country.

Of the two Democratic contenders, reading clips and talking to a few people, Randy Villegas, a professor, appears more knowledgeable on issues. But he embraces a more left wing agenda including a single payer health care system. The political problems with that position would give Republicans a likely counter to Valadao’s support for the Medicaid cuts.

Jasmeet Bains, a member of the state Assembly and a physician, favors building on the Affordable Care Act and may be better positioned to capitalize on the explosive health care issue. The primary is next Tuesday.
MONTANA SENATE: In the last two Senate elections in this state, Democrats nominated heavyweights, three term incumbent Sen. Jon Tester and two term Governor Steve Bullock. Both lost decisively.

Even in a good year, a D next to a candidate’s name in Montana is toxic. That makes it impossible to take advantage of a flawed Republican candidate, former U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme, who got the nomination by duplicitous default; incumbent Sen. Steve Daines surprisingly dropped out minutes before the deadline sealing the nomination for his pal, Alme.

There is one candidate who would have a chance: Seth Bodnar, running as an independent; he was President of the University of Montana, a West Point graduate, Rhodes scholar, Green Beret commander and is married to a pediatrician, a fifth generation Montanan.

The key here is whether whoever wins the June 2 Democratic primary, with no chance in November, drops out instead of taking potential votes from Bodnar. That’s what happened in Nebraska this spring. All the Democratic aspirants say they won’t drop out; Republicans are expending resources to help the Democrat most likely not to drop out.

They don’t want to go mano a mano against Bodnar.

NEW YORK 10: Incumbent Dan Goldman faces a primary challenge from New York City controller Brad Lander. The June 23 primary also is a Democratic proxy war between Governor Kathy Hochul with Goldman and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani who encouraged the Lander challenge.

Lander charges Goldman is too cozy with Israel as he is supported by the increasingly conservative American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He actually is very critical of Benjamin Netanyahu and of the Iranian War.

The two would vote the same way in Congress but Godman would be a much more valuable member: He is an experienced investigator and interrogator -- an alum of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office, southern district, and a lead counsel for a Trump impeachment in the House.
With Trump still in the White House, Democrats’ legislative initiatives will be limited. The premium will be on investigations of which there are limitless opportunities. There are few members of the House who possess the experience, discipline and rigor to do this well.
Goldman is one of them.