Can Americans still have a sensible and friendly political discussion across the partisan divide? The answer is yes, and we prove it every week. Julie Roginsky, a Democrat, and Mike DuHaime, a Republican, are consultants who have worked on opposite teams for their entire careers yet have remained friends. Here, they discuss the week’s events with editorial page editor Tom Moran.
Q. President Biden now concedes he may have to quit the race if he can’t perform well enough in coming days to dispel concerns over his age, according to several reports. I wonder if it’s too late, given that 74 percent now says he’s too old to handle the job. What do you think? Can voters ever un-see that debate?
Mike: It is best for Biden and the party for him to step aside. Voters had their fears or expectations confirmed during the debate. He is no longer up for the job, regardless of whether or not you think he has been a good president or is a good man. Too many voters now think he simply can no longer perform the duties necessary.
Julie: There was an opportunity for President Biden to turn this around, if he could, but time has slipped by with the White House and the campaign seemingly in paralysis all week. Where has the president been and why has it taken so long for the American people to see him? I don’t mean a sit-down with George Stephanopoulos, which will not even air in its entirety until more than ten days after this disastrous debate. I mean a forceful president who is out there on the stump every single day, reminding voters what is at stake.
Julie: The Supreme Court handed him a golden opportunity on Monday to turn the page and make clear to voters that they have effectively given autocratic powers to the president and that Donald Trump, with this kind of authority, poses a clear and present danger to our democracy. If Biden is capable of being out there every single day prosecuting the case politically against Trump, there is no excuse for him not doing it all this past week. If he cannot, it is time to move on.
Q. The Biden team is taking flack for hiding this problem by limiting Biden’s public appearances and aggressively denying reports of his declining abilities, even as polls showed overwhelming concern among voters. Is that a fair point?
Mike: The president’s team did him and the country a great disservice 18 months ago not being direct and honest that the best thing for him, the party and the country was for him to voluntarily just serve one term. He would have gone down in history in a positive light - served a term as president, two terms as VP, and 35+ years in the Senate. He would have been seen as a stabilizing force post-Trump, post-COVID. He could have led a transition to the next generation of Democrats, a number of whom would have been historic nominees in their own rights. Instead of going out in a wave a gratitude, he will go looking sad, looking pathetic, looking overwhelmed. Instead of going out a hero, he goes out as a punchline. His inner circle should be ashamed.
Julie: If you have read this column for the last three years, you have heard me say repeatedly that Democrats have a messaging problem. Well, it has finally caught up to us. Rather than forcefully selling the most successful presidency of my lifetime, the White House allowed voters to focus on Biden’s frailties even before last Thursday. Now the horse has left the barn. I don’t even know if there is time to turn this around for the president anymore. There was – starting last Friday morning, after the debate, and continuing all week long, especially with the gift the Supreme Court handed us with its disgraceful decision in Trump v. United States. That opportunity was squandered, as so many other opportunities have been squandered over the last three years. I will personally vote for a comatose Biden or a paper bag over Trump and so will many others. But the issue here is that the White House continues to allow the narrative to be about Biden’s capabilities, not about the dystopian future we are facing if Trump is elected.
Q. If Biden drops out, who do you think would be the strongest Democratic candidate against Trump in November? Will Democrats pick that person? What do you make of polls showing Michelle Obama does best against Trump in a head-to-head?
Mike: Michelle Obama would be the strongest due to the positive high name ID. Beyond her, look to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania or Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky. All are popular and seen as from the center-left, not far left, wing of the party. Two have won in target states, connect in the Rust Belt, and would be historic nominees.
Julie: Any of the people Mike mentions would be strong candidates. Look, this is not a marriage, where you are waiting for the perfect partner to come along to fulfill your every dream. This is a choice between the democracy we have had for nearly 250 years and a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist who has threatened to blow up our alliances abroad, create camps to detain people here at home, who wanted to open fire on Americans protesting in the streets and who now has the power, thanks to his handpicked justices, to suspend habeas corpus, invoke the Insurrection Act to stifle defense and otherwise act in ways that would make his idol, Vladimir Putin, proud. The candidate who can articulate this day and night is the one who should be running against Trump.
Q. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents immunity from criminal prosecution over official acts left the Court’s liberal minority outraged, with the dissent warning of a rogue president unleashed to stage coups, assassinate opponents, and openly accept bribes for pardons. Should we be terrified?
Mike: Maybe a little scared, but not terrified. We still have many good people in government who will put the proper constitutional and legal restraints on any president.
Julie: We should be more than terrified. We should be looking at ways to reform the court. These justices did not just give virtually unchecked power to the president. They have installed themselves as the ultimate arbiters in deciding whether his actions are appropriate, giving themselves more power than either the executive branch or the legislative branch. This is effectively a judicial coup by six unelected justices, only one whom was appointed by a president who got a majority of the popular vote. It is a court wholly unaccountable and wholly out of control.
Q. The Court’s second big decision this week overturned the landmark Chevron ruling of 1984, placing new limits on the executive branch’s power to impose regulations, a long-time goal of conservatives who believe the government has overreached. Critics warn that the decision will cripple efforts to clean the environment, protect consumers, and prevent financial fraud, among other things. How big a change is this, and what does the decision say about the Court?
Mike: Chevron is a big change in that it throws the responsibility of many regulatory decisions back to Congress. Conservatives like this because it puts decisions into the hands of those elected of office and takes power away from unelected bureaucrats.
Julie: See above. This court is out of control. It does not answer to anyone except the wealthy plutocrats who pay for some of these justices to drive around in a fancy RV, go on fancy yachts and fishing trips and who otherwise subsidize these justices’ lifestyles. So is it any surprise that when it was time to pay the piper, the payment came at the expense of everyone else?
Q. Finally, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has organized an ad campaign in support of Israel, one that describes protesters of the Gaza war as supporters of Hamas. When asked if this signals an intention to launch a political comeback, he won’t answer. Help him decide, please. Time for Andrew Cuomo 2.0?
Mike: He’s baaaaack. I have no doubt Andrew Cuomo is running for mayor or governor, and my bet is he wins.
Julie: I am all for forgiveness and second chances if someone takes accountability for his or her mistakes. On his way out the door, Andrew Cuomo allowed his aides and lawyers to slander the women who bravely spoke up about his behavior. Let’s hear from him about whether he apologizes for that before considering his future.
Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.
A note to readers: Mike and Julie are deeply engaged in politics and commercial advocacy in New Jersey, so both have connections to many players discussed in this column. DuHaime, the founder of MAD Global, has worked for Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and President George W. Bush and is currently consulting Senate candidate Curtis Bashaw. Roginsky, a principal of Comprehensive Communications Group, has served as senior advisor to campaigns of Cory Booker, Frank Lautenberg, and Phil Murphy. We will disclose specific connections only when readers might otherwise be misled.