Dictator

 Our recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good. Trump and his minions falsely claimed that he won the election, and have kept repeating the Big Lie.  And we now know how close he came to subverting the Constitution.   

He is planning an authoritarian agenda and would take care to eliminate any internal dissent.

David Jackson at USA Today:

Donald Trump mocked questions about authoritarianism on Tuesday, saying he would be a dictator only on "day one," and then he's going to close the border and get to drilling.

"After that, I'm not a dictator, OK?" the Republican presidential frontrunner told Fox News host Sean Hannity before a very friendly crowd in Davenport, Iowa.

Trump declined to discuss his pledges of "retribution" against political opponents, including threats to investigate President Joe Biden and others who have criticized him.

Biden and other opponents, including some Republicans, describe Trump as a grave threat to democracy, and this will likely be a huge issue in the 2024 election.

Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman and Charlie Savage at NYT:

A confidant of Donald J. Trump who is likely to serve in a senior national security role in any new Trump administration threatened on Tuesday to target journalists for prosecution if the former president regains the White House.

The confidant, Kash Patel, who served as Mr. Trump’s counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council and also as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense, made the remarks on a podcast hosted by Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former strategist, during a discussion about a potential second Trump presidency beginning in 2025.

“We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media,” Mr. Patel said. “Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections — we’re going to come after you. Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.” He added: “We’re actually going to use the Constitution to prosecute them for crimes they said we have always been guilty of but never have.”

Earlier in the interview, when asked by Mr. Bannon whether a new administration would “deliver the goods” to “get rolling on prosecutions” early in a second term, Mr. Patel noted that the Trump team had a “bench” of “all-America patriots,” but he said he did not want to name any names “so the radical left-wing media can terrorize them.”

Tom Nichols at The Atlantic:

 If reelected, Trump would attempt to gain authoritarian control of the Defense Department’s uppermost levels from the very beginning. There are more Anthony Tatas and Douglas Macgregors out there, and Trump’s allies are likely already seeking to identify them. If the Senate refused to confirm Trump’s appointees, it wouldn’t matter much: Trump has learned that he can keep rotating people through acting positions, daring the Senate to stop him.

The career civil servants underneath these appointees—who work on everything from recruiting to nuclear planning—would disobey Trump if he attacked the constitutional order. These civilians, by law, cannot be fired at will, a problem Trump tried to remedy in the last months of his administration by proposing a new category of government appointments (Schedule F) that would have converted some of the most important civil-service positions into political appointments directly controlled by the White House. President Joe Biden immediately repealed this move after taking office, but Trump has vowed to reinstate it.

In his two-pronged offensive to capture the military establishment while eviscerating the civil service, Trump would likely rely on former officers such as Miller and fringe-dwelling civilians such as Patel, but he would also almost certainly find at least a few serving senior officers—he would not need many—who would accept his offer to abandon their oath. Together, they would make a run at changing the nature of the armed forces.

 

Kevin the Quitter

 Our recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good.  

Andrew Solender at Axios:

House Republicans are already raising concerns about what the early exit of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) will mean for their tenuous ability to control their narrow majority.

Why it matters: Some lawmakers are particularly fearful that the closer margins will further empower a handful of members to hijack bills for leverage – a common practice this Congress.

The state of play: 

• House Republicans currently hold 221 seats to Democrats' 213, meaning they can afford just three defections on party-line votes.With McCarthy leaving by the end of the year and Democrats heavily targeting the seat vacated by the expulsion of former GOP Rep. George Santos, that buffer could dwindle to two votes as early as mid-February.
• Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) is also expected to resign early next year, though his loss will likely be offset in the near term by the departure of Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.).

What they're saying: "It emboldens some individuals, at any given time, with a specific issue to hold up and stop the entire process," Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), the chair of the Republican Study Committee, said of the GOP's narrowing majority.

The Deepfake Election

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the impact of social media and campaign technology.

Eva Surovell at The Messenger:

The National Republican Congressional Committee released new advertisements using images generated by artificial intelligence of national parks "overrun with immigrants."

The advertisements target Democrats who voted last week against legislation that would prevent the use of public lands for temporary housing for immigrants seeking asylum.

 

Oliver Knox at WP:

President Barack Obama warned us in 2018.

Or rather, a digitally manipulated video of Obama, voiced by actor-director Jordan Peele, warned us: “We’re entering an era in which our enemies can make it look like anyone is saying anything at any point in time, even if they would never say those things.”
...

If the Obama video seems a little clunky, consider that it’s five years old, before the latest AI tools, like ChatGPT were household names and available to pretty much anyone with an internet connection.

Back in March, my colleagues Isaac Stanley-Becker and Naomi Nix chronicled how AI-generated images of former president Donald Trump being arrested rocketed around the internet, getting millions of eyeballs.


In April, Isaac and John Wagner reported on the Republican National Committee releasing a 30-second ad built entirely with AI imagery of a dystopian future in which President Biden has been reelected and America is falling apart. (The RNC included a disclosure about AI use.)

What Trump Would Do

Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  The 2024 race has begun. 

Andrew Restuccia and and Aaron Zitner at WSJ:

As he campaigns to retake the White House, Donald Trump has increasingly tossed aside the principles of limited government and local control that have defined the Republican Party for decades.

The former president is laying plans to wield his executive authority to influence school curricula, prevent doctors from providing medical interventions for young transgender people and pressure police departments to adopt more severe anticrime policies. All are areas where state or local officials have traditionally taken the lead.

He has said he would establish a government-backed anti-“woke” university, create a national credentialing body to certify teachers “who embrace patriotic values” and erect “freedom cities” on federal land. He has pledged to marshal the power of the government to investigate and punish his critics.

It is a governing platform barely recognizable to prior generations of Republican politicians, who campaigned against one-size-fits-all federal dictates and argued that state legislators, mayors and town halls were best positioned to oversee their communities. While many of his proposals would be difficult to achieve, the second-term agenda outlined by Trump could require waves of new federal intervention, even as he calls for firing government workers, neutering the “deep state” and cutting regulations.

“If Trump wins, the days of small government conservatism may be over,” said Lanhee Chen, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution who served as the policy director of Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.

At  WP, Robert Kagan warns of dictatorship:

A paralyzing psychology of appeasement has also been at work. At each stage, the price of stopping Trump has risen higher and higher. In 2016, the price was forgoing a shot at the White House. Once Trump was elected, the price of opposition, or even the absence of obsequious loyalty, became the end of one’s political career, as Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Paul D. Ryan and many others discovered. By 2020, the price had risen again. As Mitt Romney recounts in McKay Coppins’s recent biography, Republican members of Congress contemplating voting for Trump’s impeachment and conviction feared for their physical safety and that of their families. There is no reason that fear should be any less today. But wait until Trump returns to power and the price of opposing him becomes persecution, the loss of property and possibly the loss of freedom. Will those who balked at resisting Trump when the risk was merely political oblivion suddenly discover their courage when the cost might be the ruin of oneself and one’s family?


We are closer to that point today than we have ever been, yet we continue to drift toward dictatorship, still hoping for some intervention that will allow us to escape the consequences of our collective cowardice, our complacent, willful ignorance and, above all, our lack of any deep commitment to liberal democracy. As the man said, we are going out not with a bang but a whimper.

Trump Job Application

Our recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good. Trump and his minions falsely claimed that he won the election, and have kept repeating the Big Lie.  And we now know how close he came to subverting the Constitution.   

He is planning an authoritarian agenda and would take care to eliminate any internal dissent.

Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen at Axios:

We told you in a "Behind the Curtain" column last month that Trump allies are pre-screening the ideologies of thousands of potential appointees and employees in case he wins back the White House. Now we have copies of the exact questionnaires Trump allies are using — and that then-President Trump used himself during his final days in office.

Why it matters: These future Trumpers would staff an unprecedented effort to centralize and expand presidential power at every level of the administration.Trump insiders are planning a far more targeted and sophisticated sequel to his haphazard first term, when internal feuding deterred policy wins or permanent changes to government.

The 2020 questionnaire — paired with the application the Heritage Foundation is currently collecting from job prospects for a future administration — points to a top-down government-in-waiting that would be driven more by ideology than by policy expertise or innovation.

Trump, the overwhelming favorite for the Republican nomination, is being explicit about his plans for retribution and disruption if he wins the 2024 election. So how he would staff his government is of immense consequence.

Driving the news: The 2020 "Research Questionnaire," which we obtained from a Trump administration alumnus, was used in the administration's final days — when most moderates and establishment figures had been fired or quit, and loyalists were flexing their muscles. Questions include: 

• 'What part of Candidate Trump's campaign message most appealed to you and why?"
• "Briefly describe your political evolution. What thinkers, authors, books, or political leaders influenced you and led you to your current beliefs? What political commentator, thinker or politician best reflects your views?"
• "Have you ever appeared in the media to comment on Candidate Trump, President Trump or other personnel or policies of the Trump Administration?"

...

Between the lines: An alumnus of the Trump White House told us both documents are designed to test the sincerity of someone's MAGA credentials and determine "when you got red-pilled," or became a true believer."They want to see that you're listening to Tucker, and not pointing to the Reagan revolution or any George W. Bush stuff," this person said.

See for yourself: As an exclusive for Axios readers, at the bottom of this story you can read both the Trump questionnaire and 2025 application in full.

Both documents are striking for their emphasis on what you believe rather than your credentials or accomplishments.

House Republicans Are Unhappy (with One Another)

 

Our recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good.  George Santos was an embarrassment and source of discord for House Republicans.

Andrew Solender and Juliegrace Brufke at Axios:

House Republican leadership is facing some internal backlash over their last-minute opposition to expelling former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from Congress.

Why it matters: The historic vote to expel Santos was prompted by a report from the bipartisan House Ethics Committee which alleged a "complex web" of wrongdoing by the embattled Long Islander.Beyond the Ethics Committee, Santos has also been twice criminally indicted. He pleaded not guilty and maintains that he is innocent.

Driving the news: The House voted 311-114 on Friday to pass a resolution expelling Santos from Congress. Republicans split almost evenly, with 105 voting for expulsion and 112 voting against – compared to just two Democrats who voted against expulsion and another two who voted "present."

The push to rescue Santos gained 11th hour momentum when Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other members of leadership came out against expulsion the morning of the vote.
Santos' removal winnows the House GOP majority to a three-vote margin, while also giving Democrats an opportunity to pick up Santos' seat.

What we're hearing: Ethics Committee members Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) and John Rutherford (R-Fla.) both floated to colleagues the idea of resigning from the panel if the vote failed, according to two lawmakers and an aide familiar with the discussions.

 

How much do House Republicans hate each other? Last month, 22 House Democrats voted to censure Rashida Tlaib and all but accused her of antisemitism. And somehow, I’m STILL convinced they don’t hate each other as much as House Republicans hate each other.

— Eric Michael Garcia (@EricMGarcia) December 1, 2023

And it is not just the Santos vote.  Olivia Beavers at Politico reports that Speaker Johnson's honeymoon is over:

“He continues to play games,” a livid Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) said in an interview. “We are talking about a man [who] 30 days ago said that he was an anti-CR guy. We are talking about a man 30 days ago that was anti-Ukraine funding. ... It shows me he was never really morally convicted in his positions to begin with.

“He just did a 180 on everything he believed in,” Miller added, “and that to me is disgusting.”

Miller, an ally of McCarthy and former President Donald Trump, called Johnson a “joke,” describing the speaker’s decision to attach IRS cuts to Israel aid as “a slap in the face to every Jew” and a “fucking dumb” choice that set a precedent of tying domestic policy to foreign aid. He made clear that his complaints stemmed from the speaker’s decision to not take up funding bills this week, as a shutdown deadline looms.

Poop

Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  The 2024 race has begun.  The DeSantis campaign has been troubled. 

Rachel Sharp at The Independent:

Ron DeSantis left viewers baffled – and grimacing – in a particularly bizarre moment during his fiery debate with Gavin Newsom.

The Florida governor came face to face with the California governor on Fox News on Thursday night in what appeared to be a practice session for an unlikely presidential debate, where the two men sparred over Covid-19, the 2024 race and LGBT+ rights.


But there was one moment in particular that got viewers talking, when Mr DeSantis curiously brandished a so-called “poop map” showing apparent dump sites across the city of San Francisco.

He has a poop map. https://t.co/ImNvLP7bhT

— Devin Nunes’ cow 🐮 (@DevinCow) December 1, 2023