Thank you for your time and interest in my portfolio.

My name is Scott Crass and I am a profound political junkie, historian and lifelong resident of New Jersey. In fact, my love of the Jersey shore is second only to my zeal for politics, specifically analyzing elections as well as the “characters” who make up Congress and the national political scene.

In that vein, my passion is political writing and I have years of experience authoring analysis of the Congressional and gubernatorial landscape and it is not an exaggeration to say that my encyclopedic knowledge of elections and political figures past and present has encompassed an enormous part of my reputation. I am well-versed in state-by-state political geography including national partisan leanings down to the county level, knowledge that is critical for analyzing and communicating the election landscape. To that end, redistricting is a great interest.

Over the years, I have taken enormous pride in sharing that commentary – all of it non-partisan, in a number of venues, including a twitter following well into the thousands, web-sites, or personal publications, (“The Crass Report”).  The overwhelming majority of my commentary is non-partisan as I call the lay-of-the-land as I see it. As such, I now strive to make political and feature writing my full-time profession and anxiously await any forthcoming opportunities.

Political writing per se is not the only aspect of writing for which I have become renowned. I am a Presidential buff and impress folks with my ability to answer arcane trivia questions.  I am an accomplished author, having written Statesmen and Mischief Makers. The three-volume biographical series is a compendium of political officeholders from the period of Kennedy through Reagan whose names people may have heard but don’t recognize, particularly when it comes to accomplishments. Some have had as much impact on major policy decisions as Presidents themselves. Others shaped Presidents lives/careers. But the bulk of my subjects simply had great tidbits that could offer great dinner anecdotes. My goal at the beginning of each chapter was to build up the anticipation by sharing with my readers either a historic tidbit or funny line associated with a political figure.

Nearly every chapter resulted from intense research and collaboration with family members or staffers of my subjects – and in some cases the subjects themselves. Many graciously agreed to provide photographs. Speaking of photographs, the most laborious part of the project may have been the necessity of tracking down the copyright of every single image that I wished to use. This endeavor proved excruciating and costly but, at the end of the day, enabled me to create a product that made myself and many others proud. Most important was the preservation of history and stories of men and women of enormous importance.

My writing ability is guided by an expansive vocabulary and I take great enjoyment in learning new words. This gives me wide stylistic latitude to tell stories and is a trait I consider fundamental for keeping readers enchanted. As such, I have been able to apply these attributes to ghost writing, where I am also experienced.

Now, allow me to talk about my current professional endeavors. For the past 16 years, I have been employed as a legislative aide for the state of New Jersey. In addition to handling the day-to-day demands of a Senator’s schedule, I assist constituents of the 14^th legislative district who face problems with a government agency in our state. Getting positive results is enormously rewarding but, simply making the effort is fulfilling. This has also given me an opportunity to undertake another thing I love – public speaking. My approach to preparing my remarks is similar to my writing – captivating my audience with a famous quote or funny line that ties in to what I will be talking about.

On my down time (which of late has become a sparse commodity and then some), you can usually find me at my beloved Jersey Shore, listening to classy music from by-gone eras and of course, checking my phone for political developments. In other words, you don’t have to be an officeholder in order to be thinking about the next election.

photo credit: Professional Association of Milwaukee Public Education

Published in The Moderate Voice on September 4, 2017

The leader of the free world seems poised to end DACA, the program put on place by then-president Barack Obama that has kept nearly 800,000 “Dreamers” from deportation. DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals- was meant to save the people brought to America as children through know fault of their own from legal endangerment while they have been in limbo. Candidate Trump had vowed to scrap the program but after his election said he had “tremendous heart” for them and has resisted taking steps to dismantle it in his eight months in office. But the threat of a lawsuit from a dozen Republican Attorneys General and the counsel of his own Attorney General Jeff Sessions (suddenly his BFF again) have apparently convinced him to proceed with a six month delay to give Congress the opportunity to decide its fate. Okay, but what about the limbo it’s placing Dreamers and their families in? Moreover, what about the limbo nearly all of the president’s immigration policies have placed people in?

Whether one agrees with the policies this administration carries out or doesn’t, a big problem with the president who says he has “heart” is that he keeps groups in limbo for far too long. The travel ban transcends it. Even with the exemptions the Supreme Court has carved out (for grandparents, etc), 24,000 refugees have completed the arduous process for coming to America before the Supreme Court allowed the travel ban to become law. Even if most of these people will be first on the list when the new fiscal year begins on October 1 (and whether Congress and the president agree on a budget by then is an open question), many might have to start the process all over again. I understand it is our prerogative as a nation to decide who comes here and who doesn’t and that there should be entitlements for anyone in that regard but taking this action is abundantly and inherently unfair.

Next, there is the situation of the Haitian refugees. Those are the men and women who came to America following the earthquake that devastated their country in 2010. They have been in holding patterns since the dawn of the administration – then-Homeland Security Security John Kelly extended the program for six months. But that times is quickly ending and a number of Haitians, fearful that the program might not be renewed, are already taking refuge in Canada, which is causing problems for that nation but that’s another story). I might add that not only is the indecision keeping Haitians in limbo but it is doing the same for their employers, many of whom are dependent on them for seasonal labor. In other words, the contributions they have made to the American economy has been tremendous.

Another thing that needs to be addressed. This business with giving ICE unlimited power to do as they please with illegal immigrants. I’ve heard several times about people who have been in the United States for decades – a restaurant owner in Ohio with three kids and no criminal record is one example. These people have been rounded up and shipped back to their home country just like that. Now we are a nation of laws and I’m not saying it’s practical to say to every illegal – well, gee-whiz, you’re here, just forget about it. But to have a one-size fits all method is a colossal mistake that is leading to unnecessary disarray and hardship for the people it impacts. Trump should have provided guidance with his executive orders.

Now let’s look at one positive of the president’s expected DACA punt if there is one. Congress has been talking about how it is their obligation to determine the program’s fate – not the administrations and, though it would have been nice if those in the GOP had shared that view seven years ago when President Obama had been advocating for it, the all is now in their court and leaders have been vocal about running with it. As mean-spirited as the president’s actions may be, it does force Congress’s hand and, with so much at stake as far as their own electoral fates – the 2018 midterms are now 14 months away, I don’t envision a scenario where something won’t be enacted even if it’s down to the wire- though of course the devil is always in the details.

Which brings me to this business about Congress not being able to get it done because they have a lot on their plate between now and December is bunk – Congress makes its own hours just like it makes its own pay. When Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch and James Lankford are talking about the need to address a priority that is not at all associated with the conservative platform, that nor only means it’s very reasonable to think it might be done but that they because it must be done (of course, at the risk of repeating myself given their new found come to Jesus moment on this issue should mean, as others have said, they should have taken up the issue when Obama was president). By the way, in the event that Congress does not act within the six month timetable, would the president offer an extension?

In that vein, Iowa Republican Steve King, who may be as much of a friend to immigrants as mice are to cheese, says that even the six month delay Trump is advocating is “Republican suicide.” Well, policies such as this are too important to be held hostage by political concerns. And frankly, so are the hundreds of thousands of people who are impacted. Let’s end with the limbo and let’s act with the hearts and compassion as priority number one. After all, this is America. People have the right to be dreamers.

Posted on The Moderate Voice, September 2, 2017

Tweet of the Day: “They’re not carving people into Mount Rushmore because they won Twitter arguments.” – Josh Holmes, a former Chief of Staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

“The Rattling of the Cages” is my name for the potpourri of news that breaks involving any upcoming election – House, Senate and Governor. The happenings are typically sundry – candidates announcing, departing, the release of new polls or a major development that greatly impacts the trajectory of a race. But this column is unique in that so many developments have been forthcoming in races where GOP Senators are facing re-election in 2018. That is, the pro-Trump, anti-establishment ire that seems to be ripping and gripping an already fractious GOP primary electorate. And that threatens the political lives of these Senators hoping to extend their tenures another six years.

Tennessee may literally qualify as a quintessential rattling of the cages – as in, Senator Bob Corker rattling Trumps cage and the president responding in-kind. It started of course post-Charlottesville when Corker noted that the president “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful.” What a different a year makes. Not only was Corker seriously considered for the position of Secretary of State bit his name was at least mentioned as a possible vice-president (who really knows if Corker asked Trump “repeatedly” if he should run again in ’18 and who really cares. The point is, Trump is popular among Tennessee Republicans. He won the primary. More ominously, the state’s other Republican Senator, the durable Lamar Alexander, is a moderate former Governor with a voting record similar to Worker’s- and he only won re-nomination in 2014 (a year Trump wasn’t even on the horizon), by a tepid margin.

Some of Corker’s Republican colleagues facing the voters next year may also receive blank stares in return.

Three of the four Mountain West Republican Senators facing the voters may not return (only Wyoming’s John Barrasso seems safe from the anti-Trump brigade –
for now). Orrin Hatch has yet to announce his decision about seeking an eighth term but the betting is that, nearing 84, he’ll decide to hang up his hat. Either way, it might not matter. The Utah GOP electorate has increasingly moved away from Hatch and a poll showed that nearly eight in ten Republicans in Utah do not want him to run again.

In Arizona, Trump has been going after both Senators but the ailing John McCain would not face re-election until 2022. Jeff Flake is up next year and even if GOP unity was at its best, Flake would have a tough road to hoe. But Lord Knows it’s not at its best and the President, tweeting “Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border” has made his distaste known. Senate leaders have furiously gotten behind their embattled colleague but “Beehive State” Republicans appear to be very unmoved. A recent poll showed that just 21% of Arizona Republicans want to see Flake re-elected. And even if her were to survive, Democrats are waiting in the wings and Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio will fuel minority voters in a state Trump barely won. Flake’s only true option may be to run as an Independent but there is little evidence that he is considering it.

Flake’s Nevada colleague Dean Heller, as the only Republican up in ’18 from a state Hillary Clinton carried, was already walking an electoral line filled with glass. He has often tried to bolster his standing among moderates with public hemming and hawing, particularly on the Betsy DeVos nomination and the Affordable Care Act repeal but has usually come down on the president’s side. During the healthcare debate, Heller was the recipient of the Trump treatment at the White House when he was sitting one chair over. Trump told the cameras that Heller, “was the one we were worried about. You weren’t there. But you’re gonna be. You’re gonna be. Look, he wants to remain a senator, doesn’t he? And I think the people of your state, which I know very well, I think they’re gonna appreciate what you hopefully will do” (Heller just laughed it off). But playing both sides has taken a toll. Not only is his approval among Democrats low but he trails his announced GOP opponent, frequent candidate Danny Tarkanian in match-ups. Tarkanian has already garnered the backing of Sarah Palin.

Heller vowed to not back Trump after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tapes but now says he did vote for him. That has led Tarkanian to call him Trump’s new BFF but even if it helped him survive his primary, it will further hurt him among more centrist voters in a state that, even before Trump, was moving further and further away from the GOP. That is also the reason that Heller – even more than Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, is the most endangered Senator up for re-election next year.

The president has also publicly chided Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski (and to a lesser extent Susan Collins of Maine) but they don’t have to worry about re-election for a few cycles. Still, one GOP aide said, “this member-specific focus is not helpful” and that is certainly the cae.
Pollster Kristen Anderson tweeted recently that it is “way too soon to tell, but all these primary battles in the GOP have it looking more and more like 2018 could be Christine O’Donnell-land.” And while that has occurred in bits and pieces in the past, it is now becoming increasingly universal.

Published August 20, 2017 in The Moderate Voice

Mo Udall once quipped, “Everything that needs to be said has been said – but not everyone’s said it.”

The comments about President Trump’s response to the crisis in Charlottesville have inspired reaction from everyone, and virtually none have been in the president’s defense. There’s a reason for that. His handling on multiple occasions during the past week have ranged from inept to heinous to dangerous to even offering countenance to the white-supremacist movement. But by repeatedly suggesting that both sides are to blame, Mr. Trump has signaled once again that he is not only tone deaf but far removed from a presidential level.

It started hours after the car plowed into a group of counter-protesters when the president called the incident the result of, “many sides.” He then paused for emphasis and again repeated the term, “many sides.” Let’s examine that. Protests are freedom of speech and freedom of expression – that is a Constitutionally given right to both sides. Backing a car into protesters is not. The President of the United States did not get on television to condemn the violence because thee were protests and counter-protests – he did so presumably because a car intentionally struck 19 people, killing one. That is not the fault of, “many sides, many sides.”

For Trump, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Well, I guess in this administration there really haven’t been any best of times, have there? And for someone who has had so many self-imposed setbacks, the aftermath of Charlottesville was a gimme. All the president had to do was issue a sharp, unambiguous condemnation and he couldn’t even do that. And as a result, Charlottesville has become Trump’s Katrina. Yes, if last Saturday’s statement was George W. Bush flying over New Orleans to survey the damage or saying, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,” Tuesday’s news conference was the botched operation – the people standing on the roofs, the buses that took days to come,etc. Even Sunday’s statement where he did condemn the hate-groups by name was prepared and devoid of any emotion. It was almost as if it was done with the utmost grudging. To borrow a term he often uses, “Sad!”

During the last campaign, I heard endlessly about how Barack Obama invited the leader of Black Lives matter into the Oval Office even after senior members of that group advocated the killing of white police officers. Frankly, unless Obama read that leader the riot act (which I doubt), those criticisms are justified. But now many of those same people are rushing to the president’s defense.

This president, and I use that term loosely, needed to act boldly and decisively to leave no doubt that his tolerance for these hate-groups is non-existent. He should take a cue from one of his unabashed supporters, Newt Gingrich who, shortly after becoming House Speaker, fired Christina Jeffrey, the House Librarian for advocating teaching “the other point of view” of the Holocaust. Instead, we’re seeing reactions that illustrate the incredulity of the world Mr. Trump has moved us into, as counter-protesters have signs that read, “I can’t believe I have to have a sign that says Nazis are bad people.”

As for the contention that Trump needs these groups (and sadly, he probably does), that should be the last thing to factor in to governing. I have news for Mr. Trump. These people – and I use that term loosely, need him far more than he needs them. If he’s already thinking about his next campaign, he should be focusing more on the many people who either voted for him holding their noses or Independent and even some Republican voters who chose his opponents, whether Mrs. Clinton or Gary Johnson, because of doubts about his fitness, which by the way are being borne out. His wet-kisses to white supremacists are not helping him keep Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin – historically blue states that opted for him by narrow margins that would surely abandon him by huge margins today. Even Republicans who once enthusiastically backed Trump are seeing that. A member of the president’s own party who was even considered as a possible running-mate, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, issued a sharp rebuke by saying,”the president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful.” But politics aside, Mr. Trump should not hesitate to condemn these hate-groups because it is the right thing to do.

I can recall various elections when a front-runner in a Democratic primary was African-American and people would argue against nominating that person because they feared he/she couldn’t win the general election. My view at that time was that I’d rather see that candidate be nominated and lose rather than giving in to that garbage. One such candidate was Harvey Gantt who twice challenged the vituperative Jesse Helms (Gantt did lose both times, and much of at least his first loss was due to racial politics). Instead, Mr. Trump has turned a deaf ear and still has folks connected to the hate movement. Steve Bannon is now gone but Trump tweeted his affection to him less than 24 hours. But Sebastian Gorka still remains. And Trump still signals a belief that he is impervious t the issue at hand because he rhetorically questions whether removing statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson might be next.

In short, Mr. Trump needs to use his bully pulpit and not only unify the nation, but make clear that hate does not have two sides. And he needs to do it with regularity. After all, the solar eclipse will be coming Monday – a once in a 99-year occurrence – he should be expressing his distaste in what seems to be more often than that. This week marked the 40th anniversary of the death of Elvis Presley. In the words of the immortal King, “It’s now or never.”

Published July 29, 2017

New York Telephone used to have a slogan, “we’re all connected.” This week, among the most tawdry, and vituperative in a city where those characteristics are often the norm, the rapid developments and confluence of events make the slogan applicable like never before.

The week in the nation’s capitol saw more twists and turns than any in decades – and in a way, it’s not implausible that it contributed to what so-far marked the biggest defeat of the Trump presidency – the failure of the Senate to advance what has been coined as a “skinny repeal,” of Obamacare. But it was accompanied by public fighting between the president and his attorney general, the president and a handful of Republican Senators, as well as the president’s new communications director and top aides. That’s not even including the president’s decree by tweet of a major military policy that disallows the transgender population from serving their country, a policy the Pentagon was apparently not even consulted about.

Anthony Scaramucci has been on the job one week and The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza reported he called Chief of Staff Reince Preibus“a fu—i-g paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac.” By week’s end, Preibus had resigned and been replaced by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. Scaramucci also had choice words for Steve Bannon that isn’t fit for print. Scaramucci later said his mistake was trusting a the reporter but, if that was the case, wouldn’t he have been wise to have invoked the “off-the-record disclaimer?” Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders pushed back on the infighting, saying, “This is a White House that has lots of different perspectives because the president hires the very best people. With that competition, you usually get the best results. The president likes that kind of competition and encourages it.” That’s very nice for a World Cup competition but when we’re talking about the United States government, it’s beyond unsettling. And that’s without going into Jeff Sessions.

It’s been said that the public cat and mouse games between Trump and Sessions is unprecedented. That’s for darn sure. I understand the strategy. The president is clearly hoping Sessions will take the hint from the public baiting and humiliation and simply resign, so he doesn’t have to say he fired him. It’s a tactic that is more a playbook from a mid-level manager at McDonald’s who doesn’t want someone he’s trying to get rid of to collect unemployment, rather than the President of the United States and leader of the free world.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders David Axelrod, appearing on CNN, may have expressed the feeling of many when, appearing on CNN, said that, “To have the president sanction this in his White House is alarming and it portends bad things for the future.” And for now. Sessions for his part seems content and perhaps even amused and, armed with backing from his ex-GOP Senate colleagues, seems determined to stick it out., if only to spite his boss.

Then there are the public recriminations.

Lisa Murkowski opposed the president on the repeal and he didn’t let her forget it – trying to publicly shame her via twitter, then having Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke contact her to inform her that Alaska projects could be at stake. Murkowski responded by showing the toughness and doggedness by which Alaskans are both legendary and renowned – returning fire with fire. The committee that she happens to chair – the Senate Energy and Natural Resources, happened to be considering nominations for deputy-positions and yesterday just happened to be the day they were to be voted on. These should have been routine confirmations but Murkowski simply postponed it.

Now came Obamacare. Lindsay Graham was perhaps the most vocal Senator defending Sessions, vowing “holy-hell” for Trump if he fired him. Some thought he might withhold his vote for “skinny repeal,” which he was equally vocal about not liking because he didn’t consider it sound policy and he and other Senators worried that the House would simply adopt it (Speaker Ryan vowed it would go to a conference committee). Graham voted for “skinny repeal” in the end but his Arizona colleague John McCain didn’t. It was a 1:30 a.m. shock that dealt perhaps an unsustainable blow to Obamacare.

For many years, McCain was known as the quintessential maverick. Look up that word in the dictionary – at least prior to his 2008 presidential bid, and you’d probably find his name. But that’s been severely put to the test over the past decade.

When McCain flew back to Washington D.C. from Arizona earlier in the week following his devastating brain cancer diagnosis, it was with the goal of being on hand if he needed to provided the decisive vote to proceed to debate – which in turn was what happened. He then proceeded to deliver what has been called both the finest speech of his career, and one of the best in Senate history denouncing partisanship (before ultimately voting with his party ).That it was – but it was in many ways contrary to at least some of his 35 year Congressional career. It’s not that McCain doesn’t work with Democrats – in fact he is notorious for doing so. But he often has returned to his corner when Mitch McConnell tells him he needs him (McCain and McConnell furiously battled back in the day over campaign finance).

Ironically and, likely inadvertently, McCain’s vote meant that very vulnerable Senator Dean Heller of Nevada and his own Arizona colleague, Jeff Flake, walked the plank by voting “aye,” expecting the bill to pass, only to have it go down. By that token, I am actually surprised a few Senators did not simply switch their votes to oppose the measure after it became clear that it would go down. Something similar had occurred in 2008 when Ted Kennedy – who ironically was afflicted with the same ailment as McCain’s, made a dramatic Senate appearance to provide the 60th vote to break a filibuster on a stalled Medicare reimbursement bill for doctors. After the applause for Kennedy died down, a number of Senators switched their votes so as to not be recorded as “ayes.” But not this time.

As McCain voted, McConnell stood in the well of the Senate with his arms folded. But will he fold? Shortly after the vote, McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor said,, “Now Mr. President, it is time to move on.” McConnell of course was speaking to the President of the Senate but he might as well have been talking about Trump. But as Trump is fond of saying, “you’ll soon find out.”

Published July 17, 2017 in The Moderate Voice

I was recently eating at a restaurant in Middlesex County, New Jersey. Two couples, likely on either side of 70, were sitting at the table in back of me which made it easy to hear their conversation. Naturally, the talk wasn’t all politics – there was a lot about children, golf, the food, etc. But the conversation inevitably tuned to politics – and Trump. They discussed the whole Russia thing and how the Trump’s will “get away with it” because, “they have money.” For what it’s worth, if they do get away with it the reason will be politics and Republicans in Congress putting partisanship before country in my opinion. But that’s ways down the road.

Back to the conversation. One woman asked the others, “Do you think he’s going to stay the whole four years?” One replied, “he may be may be around for eight.” At that, there was bemusement, if not outright incredulity that such a scenario could pan out but the woman defended her point by saying, “the public is compulsively stupid.” Besides, she said, the people who voted for him still love him. It’s those two points I want to dissect. While she’s not wrong on either, there’s very little margin for error given the dynamics of the current administration and in the fact that Trump won three million votes behind Hillary Clinton, and it would take the margin of error to get re-elected. At this point, the chances of that happening are probably about -15 and dropping, but 2020 is three years away. So let’s proceed down the trajectory that the next three years are like the last six months. Suppose the 58% disapproval rating – by far the lowest for a president this early in his tenure, remains close to that level. If that is the case we’ll almost certain to see a new president.

One, Trump will not take Michigan next time and I honestly doubt that, absent a major, super-credible third party contender that likely won’t be around, he’d win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin either. Iowa, despite an unexpectedly high margin, would probably my be problematic as well as the Hawkeye State is quintessential swing territory. Ditto for Florida.

More importantly, the election was decided by middle-of-the-roaders who were beyond disenchanted with either contender. Many, including a substantial number of Independents, made up their mind at the last minute and they went with Trump. They could just as easily have opted for Hillary – and it wouldn’t have taken much to give her the election, but new, 11th hour questions about her ethics were enough to overcome doubts about Trump on nearly everything else. Even if it’s true that the emails were overblown, it’s hard to see the Democrats choosing someone as ethically challenged again.

Third, the so-called Berniecrats will be fully on board next time, even if the Democratic primary creates wounds similar to last time. The reason is that Trump is now the incumbent and those voters will realize the gravity of the situation. That said, whomever emerges as the nominee will probably be devoid of the “likability” issues that plagued Clinton last time and that will make it easier for that person to lure in both left leaning Democrats and Independents. It would also seem that the small but potentially pivotal number of GOP voters who opted for Hillary would also stick with the Democratic nominee next time because after all, they made the painstaking decision to vote for her only because of visceral dislike of Trump. Given the last couple of months, it’s hard to see what can change to bring them home in 2020.

It is true – many of the “die-hard” Trump supporters would likely not abandon him for all the tea in China. The notion that he could probably shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and get away with it is probably true. But they by no means constitute a majority. All it takes is a little slippage – taking away healthcare or not fulfilling promises as far as jobs, veterans, etc. In other words, if the forgotten man stays forgotten or if he doesn’t make America great again. That begs the question – what about people who realize they made a mistake? Will they admit it? Perhaps not publicly or in front of their friends and family. But the good news is they don’t have to, that’s what secret ballots are all about.

Finally, what about the Democratic nominee? It is true that sometimes the party’s worst enemy is the party itself. What if they nominate someone who can’t win. It’s certainly not inconceivable given how close Bernie Sanders came to toppling the insurmountable Hillary (some working class whites would clearly have gravitated to Bernie but other independent leaning voters who backed Hillary may not have). Sanders is flirting with running again but Elizabeth Warren could also emerge as the standard bearer. I’m not making the case for or against anyone in this column nor am I saying any of them couldn’t win against Trump but it will make the odds of defeating him far less certain than it would be against someone less defined. But with the election of 2020 certain to be a referendum on the president more than anything, the party surely must want to make sure their ducks are in a row even if they think the man or woman they ultimately nominate will be the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If that happens, the woman’s prophecy about Trump being around for two terms will almost certainly not materialize.

Posted July 7, 2017 in The Moderate Voice

Summers during off-election years are typically when potential candidates began finalizing plans about launching, or declining Congressional bids and, putting aside the fact that recruitment and announcements really haven’t paused since Donald Trump’s election as our 45th president, this year is no exception. Asuch, this past week has seen a plethora of announcements on both the House and Senate landscape in races that, if not already key, may well be emerging as the calendar moves forward

The biggest headline – though not an earth shattering surprise, was the decision of Missouri Republican Congressman Ann Wagner to forego a race against two-term Congresswoman Claire McCaskill. Her official statement said “the Second District is my home,” but that’s political talk for, “I don’t know if I want to jeopardize a safe House seat for a statewide bid I’m not guaranteed to win.” It’s unclear whether Wagner was more concerned a bid against McCaskill in the age of Trump or, an intra-party fight against Missouri’s new Attorney General, Josh Hawley. One thing that is not ambiguous is that Wagner’s heart was not in a Senate run. She had been raising money for a potential race but kept pushing her decision back. Her departure in no way means McCaskill is safe. It’s Missouri, a state where Trump took 58% so, you have to show me. Even before Wagner opted that to run, some Republicans were high on Attorney General Josh Hawley. He just won the post last year so, it’s not clear yet that he’ll run but whomever the eventual nominee is will give McCaskill a race to the end.

Wagner KO’D bid against McCaskill
Official U.S. House of Representatives photo

In Nevada, Dean Heller is arguably the single most endangered Senator of any party (he and McCaskill may be trading places for that distinction) and he may be the sole Senator who literally has no control over his own fate (the national mood will dictate all). Recently, first-term Congresswoman Jacky Rosen announced that she would try to unseat him. The track record for freshmen House members winning Senate seats is mixed, particularly for members outside At-large districts which cover the entire state. Waves years could be different. Mike Huffington of California came unexpectedly close to dislodging Dianne Feinstein in 1994. That same year, Minnesota’s Rod Grams did capture an open seat. In 2014, freshman Tom Cotton of Arkansas made it to the Senate despite a very underwhelming campaign and a popular incumbent.

Rosen may not face a clear path to the nomination – First District Congresswoman Dina Titus is still toying with a bid. But she has been playing Waiting for Godot games for several cycles and never pulls the trigger. Besides, given that Reid and his powerful machine – including Congressman Ruben Kihuen, have thrown their backing to Rosen, her window is closing. Heller has taken hits from both the left and right over the ACA repeal. He is a strong campaigner but Nevada was a Clinton state and Democrats are sure to be organized as well. As long as Rosen shows decent political skills, this is likely to be ferociously contested til the end.

Turning to House races, two downstate Illinois districts were initially drawn to send Democrats to Congress but ended up trending right – in some cases hard. Now Democrats hope to correct it.

In the 12th district, St. Claire County State’s Attorney and Navy veteran Brendan Kelly has announced plans to take on GOP Congressman Mike Bost. The incumbent took 54% last year but has often been the recipient of self-inflicted negative publicity (he threw papers on the floor of the Illinois State Senate during a temper tantrum and shot a neighbor’s dog after it bit his daughter). This year, the incumbent drew fire for comparing his refusal to hold town meetings to “You know the cleansing that the Orientals used to do where you’d put one person out in front and 900 people yell at them? That’s not what we need. We need to have meetings with people that are productive.”
In positive environments for the GOP, voters have overlooked that but the climate has shifted 180 degrees. Bost’s race may be a proxy between Trump and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. As Kelly’s announcement was got underway, Bost’s office issued a statement vowing to “stop Nancy Pelosi from taking control of this seat.”

Meanwhile in Illinois-13, the other, “Metro East” seat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan has joined a trio of candidates – and perhaps a fourth as State Representative Carol Ammons ponders her intentions) seeking to dislodge three-term Congressman Rodney Davis. Londrigan is a fundraiser with strong ties to Senator Dick Durbin. These are poor district’s with Medicaid dependent families and whomever emerges as the Democratic candidates to face Bost and Davis will be making hay out of their votes to repeal the ACA.

Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is among the bevy of Democrats hoping to unseat Illinois GOP Rep. Rod Davis
Photo via the Belleville News-Democrat

In Arizona, the most competitive race in both the primary and general election, will almost certainly be in the Second Congressional District. Martha McSally dislodged an incumbent by 167 votes in 2014, then beat State Representative Matt Heinz, an emergency room doctor, 57-43% in 2016 – a race Democrats largely abandoned to focus on more winnable opportunities. McSally is a juggernaut fundraiser but came under fire when an audio surfaced of her saying just before the ACA vote, “Let’s get this f-ing” thing done.”

Heinz is running again and already has a significant head-start – he raised $200,000 in just two weeks. But Democrats are on the verge of landing a new, prime recruit: ex-Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, who represented Arizona’s sprawling First Congressional District during two separate stints (she lost it after one term in 2010 but reclaimed it two years later). Kirkpatrick gave up the seat in 2016 to challenge John McCain in 2016. Kirkpatrick now lives in the Second and Heinz may make that an issue – but Kirkpatrick received her law degree from the University of Arizona and worked in Pima. Another legislator, Bruce Wheeler, is in the race as are five other candidates.

Virginia’s Second Congressional District may be a microcosm of how much trouble the rank and file Republicans are in. Construction company owner Garry Hubbard has joined Dave Belote, a retired Air Force Officer (whose claim to fame is winning $135,00 on Jeopardy) in announcing bids to unseat freshman Republican Congressman Scott Taylor.

Taylor took 61% in 2016 (Trump won it 49-45%) but Democrats only fielded a nominal candidate against him. Taylor has tried to keep some distance from Trump and received national attention for a strategy designed to quell the anger from vocal Trump opponents at town-halls. “We’ve got to remain calm. Calm is contagious,” Taylor has also tried distancing himself from some of Trump’s more controversial stances, including his media bashing. He has scolded the media for “getting played” by Trump for “overreacting” to his tweets. He has been telling Trump and the intelligence community to “get on the same page.” His Appropriations Committee seat won’t hurt either, both when it comes to raising money and helping the military-friendly district. Both Democrats see Taylor’s health care votes as feet of clay and they’re making it clear he intends to take a hammer to it. How competitive this race will become is yet to be determined but one thing is certain – Taylor will not be able to coast like last time.

Other races taking shape: Kentucky-6, held by Republican Andy Barr (Rand Paul lost the district) and Colorado-3 where Scott Tipton will be seeking a fourth term. Kentucky State Senator Reggie Thomas and Colorado State Representative Diane Mitsch Bush respectively have declared this week, and though both will face primaries, they are heavyweight opponents. These are more Republican leaning terrain but as elections this Spring in far more conservative districts have shown, it doesn’t take much to shift a critical portion of the electorate to Democrats, even if they ultimately come up short. Plus, Democrats have held both seats within the decade.

n Tuesday, the most expensive Congressional election in history – in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District, culminated with the election of Republican Karen Handel to replace Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Handel defeated Jon Ossoff, a 28 year old who, campaigning with the slogan, “Vote your Oss-off,” galvanized Democrats around the country who were hoping to make discontent with President Trump translate into the first Congressional flip since the November election. More importantly, they had hoped it would portend big gains for the 2018 election cycle.Unlike other special elections that have been held this year in Kansas and Montana, Democrats saw Georgia as a prime opportunity to snag a seat because Trump edged out Hillary Clinton by a mere 1.5%. Mitt Romney, conversely, had taken 61% four years earlier, In a race where spending topped $50 million, Handel defeated Ossoff 52-48%. One prime reason: Nancy Pelosi.

Filemon Vela, a Congressman from Texas,hit the nail on the head when he said that “Nancy Pelosi is not the only reason that Ossoff lost. But she certainly is one of the reasons,” before adding that, “you’d have to be an idiot to think we could win the House with Pelosi at the top.”

To be clear, there were a few reasons Ossoff came up short. One was that Republicans successfully targeted voters who did not cast ballots in round one, the April all-party primary that Ossoff could have won on the spot if he took 50% (he got 48.1%). The end result was that by the time early voting concluded last Friday, 36,000 additional people had voted. The second was last week’s carnage on the Alexandria, Virginia baseball field that left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise fighting for his life. Republicans used that as a rallying point and, while there is no way to ascertain how much Republicans benefitted, anecdotal reports indicate it did have impact. Third, Ossoff stuck to his vow to run a positive campaign and as laudable as that was, Republicans were not about to roll over and play dead. By unilaterally disarming, Ossoff now joins the Michael Dukakis school of taking the high road – and having little to show for it. In that vein, he also made limited reference to Trump. Handel’s 10,000 vote margin suggests that none of this made the ultimate difference. What is indisputable, however, is that Pelosi did. How? Because Republicans said so themselves.

Knowing that Trump and an unpopular healthcare bill had put them deep on the defensive, Republicans knew they had to make Pelosi the target. Under the leadership of the Congressional Leadership Fund, Republicans sent actors to San Francisco and depicted Ossoff’s literature on San Francisco landmarks, such as the famous trolleys. Handel declared the election an opportunity to “rock Nancy Pelosi’s world.” She outright told him during a debate that while he “may live five minutes outside the district, you’re values are 3,000 miles away in San Francisco.” It worked. After the election, one Democrat declared “our brand to be worse than Trump’s.” When it comes to Pelosi among centrist Independents and Republicans, that is certainly the case, a fact echoed by the CLG’s Director who acknowledged that “if Pelosi ever retired we’d be in a lot of trouble.” And that’s it in a nutshell. In fact, that line ought to make Democrats question why we need our own strategists if they have Democrats making the arguments for them.

While there once were ways for Democrats to win the House without Republican leaning districts, that is no longer the case. Gerrymandering in particular has structured the districts in such a way that there are very few that aren’t designed for either one party or the other. And Pelosi is a big liability in those races. These include seats in Michigan, upstate New York, and perhaps Texas, Nebraska and Utah.

Many were stupefied that Pelosi decided to stay on as Democratic leader after the 2010 tidal wave that washed Democrats from their comfortable House majority. Nearly every House Democrat that lost that year – 52, hailed from districts that were moderate. But there are signs that the caucus is growing restless. In last November’s leadership elections, 64 House members opted to replace her.

Now Pelosi of late has become, if not detached from reality – then somewhat arrogant. She has resisted in the past admitting that she is the problem at this point. She has argued that her fate is determined by her fellow House members and that, so far at least, they have voted to keep her by resounding margins. That’s why it needs to fall on her close friends- people like Nita Lowey, Rosa DeLauro and Jan Schakowsky need to talk to her because that’s what friends do (well, maybe not Schakowsky: she’s detached from reality also because she holds a grudge against Steny Hoyer for being a moderate 30 years ago when he had a competitive district- but guess what Jan, Hoyer wouldn’t be replacing Pelosi anyway). It would literally be too late for Pelosi to announce her departure the day after the election. She is the boogeyman in a number of swing districts in which her presence might only cost Democrats a handful of seats, but for Democrats, those seats could easily stand between the majority and the minority. She should step down as Leear in the next couple of months, perhaps by the end of the 2017 legislative year.

Now some say that whomever the Democrats tap as their House leader will have Pelosi problems – that he/she won’t play in parts of the country similar to Georgia’s Sixth District and that may in time prove to be the case. But few other members – whether it be Joe Crowley, John Larson, Adam Schiff, whomever, are as defined as the current leader and for voters in middle-America, that makes all the difference in the world.

Nancy Pelosi’s effectiveness in her time as Speaker is unquestionable. By resisting any moves to leave, Pelosi is being short-sighted, stubborn and frankly selfish of anyone’s ambitions but her own.

Incientally, a second Congressional election was held in South Carolina’s Fifth Congressional District that Mick Mulvaney had vacated to become Trump’s Director of Management and Budget. Republican Ralph Norman had been heavily favored to defeat Archie Parnell but, in a low turnout election, he held him off by a bare 51-48% margin. Some may be tempted to point fingers at national Democrats who gave Parnell little assistance but, had they done so, Republicans would have mobilized their base as they did in Georgia. In other words, they would have pulled the Pelosi card.That said, the only way for Parnell to have won would be have performed an upset hence the very definition of the term.

In closing, to paraphrase a prominent Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee who had defended President Nixon until it became impossible to do so, I have concluded that the magnificent career of Nancy Pelosi, at least at the leadership level, should be terminated involuntarily.

Below are my June 8 remarks at the 50th anniversary of Crossroads Middle School. I am an alumnus of Crossroads and was proud to speak at a recent dinner commemorating this glorious event. Fred Nadler, the principal in that era, was on hand as were scores of faculty both current and former. 

Dr. Nadler, Mr. De Lucia, Mrs. Kerekes, faculty and friends of Crossroads:

I am so proud of my South Brunswick education. It is a boast I use with pride, a boast I use with zeal and a boast that, anyone who knows South Brunswick has no doubt that I am speaking of with the utmost sincerity.

When I sat in the Crossroads gymnasium at graduation as part of the eighth grade class of 1988, I was somewhat timid, sometimes bullied, very unorganized and unsure of my aspirations, I recall the ceremony, the dance that followed and the faculty wave in the parking lot. A few days later, it hit me that I would not be going back to Crossroads in the fall. I remember  thinking – I wish I had one more day. Today, 29 years later, we’re older, grayer (some of us), but I get to have that one last day.

I am a student of history and I am reminded today of words of John F. Kennedy (who believe it or not would have turned 100 last week). When asked about his legacy he said that “I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Bouvier to Paris.” And that’s how I feel today. So many  people here today and not had such impact on my life and I’m forever grateful. See while South Brunswick High School matured me (I worked there after school and for two summers in a row), Crossroads provided me with the some of the most important fundamentals for just about everything.

Dr. Nadler, I really didn’t have much interaction with you which I guess was good from a student/principal point of view but I do remember how you brought not and smile to the faces of your students by bringing to school your little dog named Sebastian.

In the mid-1980s, Crossroads had five units. Imagine that – current principals. They were Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and Omega. I was a member of the latter. And the quality was first-rate.

In Social Studies, Dr. Dorgan taught us about the Constitution  (which was turning 200 that year), Europe China, Calgary where the Winter Olympics were taking place and Wall Street. In English, Gary Abbamont, the greatest teacher in the history of South Brunswick (notebook checks and all), taught us sentence structure, punctuation and other things so important for me as a writer. In Science (I’ll get to that great teacher in a moment), we learned about HIV and  “just say no,” to drugs which were becoming increasingly  prevalent, as well as  of course  the systems of the human body. The other teacher  in Omega was Mrs. Taffin but I didn’t  have her because I was in remedial math. But that was what was so great about Crossroads – you were never alone. The staff was proactive – they were quick to see when a student was having issues and they were quick to take steps to correct them.

I also want to mention chorus with Mr. Haney, gym with Messrs. Young and Jost where I’d bug them about playing dodgeball, and a cake decorating class with Mrs. Olynyk. One day I made what was supposed to be a seven-layer cake. Upon seeing it, she was gracious but my classmates weren’t. They’d ask me what happened to the other six.

Dominating the news: international terrorism, Russia, Bill Cosby and Donald Trump. You know what they say about past being prologue.

Times were simpler. Across the street, there was Liberty Pizza where we’d eat on half-days and Butler’s General Store. Dayton and Monmouth Junction was connected by a rickety bridge surrounded for the most part by trees. It was a time when cable was still in its infancy which meant that everyone generally got the same news. And it was a time when respect for the president and respect for the presidency wee not mutually exclusive. One may have had fierce disagreements but Ronald Reagan was our Commander-in-Chief.

Let me briefly pay a quick tribute to some of the “late-greats” who while no longer with us, are without question looking down on us smiling.

To Bill Anderson, to Lou Pini, to Marge LeClaire, to Joe Squindo and John Tiene, you were all teachers for the kids. You ingratiated yourself with them for student activities and were always

To the wondrous Ted Cherry, the Science teacher I was speaking of before. His classes were a little bit lighter but as the wonderful and compassionate Mayor of our town, you could see how revered he was by staff as he’d walk down the hall.

And to Nick Pazinco. His legacy at Crossroads stands as tall as the Greek pyramids he’d often speak about. His seriousness and gruff appearance as the disciplinarian belied the fact that he was a gentle, kind man whose biggest concern was the progress of his students.

In closing, you want to be around the people who epitomize the best of public education, you’re sitting among them right now.

Finally, in the words of the immortal Dido, “thank you for the best days of my life.”

The winner of the Kentucky Derby, and for a time the front-runner in last weekend’s Preakness, was a horse named Always Dreaming. That name might also be appropriate for Democrats who will be making a play for a number of fertilely Republican Congressional seats next year. It’s not that victory will be elusive – in fact, the climate Republicans find themselves in suggest a wave is developing significantly against them. And every wave sees senior incumbents lose in districts that have not been considered “in-play” for some time.

This year, however, many districts Democrats are targeting for the first time have something in common.They are areas that are educated, more affluent than not and, while geographically disperse, have one thing in common. They were all drawn to have a distinct Republican lean but voted – or came notably close to opting for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump last November. But they haven’t chosen a Democrat to represent them in Congress since the age of the dinosaurs. A bevy of Democrats are hoping to change that.

The Republicans in these areas are usually not hard-core, socially conservative people. They are more like stainless steel conservatives whose core concerns are business related rather than cultural. That, more than anything else, explains the shift away from Donald Trump’s brand of politics. The special election next month in a Georgia district similar to the others would bolster the odds of challengers unseating some of the below incumbents though with the important caveat that cannot be repeated often enough: that with 18 months remaining until the November 2018 ballots are cast, anything can happen. That said, they are still long-shots for turnovers at this point. Still, 2018 will be the Democrats best shot in decades for changing that so, let’s give them a looksee.

In Houston, the district John Culberson has represented since 2000 is a descendant of the one that sent George H.W. Bush to Congress in 1966 – land that in the 1980s was the most GOP district in the nation. Mitt Romney carried it with an astounding 60%. But last year, Clinton eked out a victory and Culberson was held to 56%. Nine candidates are eyeing the seat but James Cargas, an ex-Clinton aide seems to have a nominal edge, if only because he sought the set last year and grabbed 44% – higher than any of the previous challengers Culberson faced. Alex Triantaphyllis, director of immigration and economic opportunity a local community development nonprofit and Dr. Jason Westin, a cancer research doctor, are also seen as credible candidates. A donnybrook such as this will likely got to a runoff.

In North Dallas, Pete Sessions’ already fairly safe GOP turf was made even more Republican to insulate it from heavy Latino growth. It was successful for a time but Clinton carried the district by 3% and Sessions has been under fire for shepherding the ACA Repeal to passage by virtue of his perch as House Rules Committee Chair. A number of Democrats are in the process of declaring for the seat but the national party is clearly enamored with Colin Allred. Democrats in the past have been hurt by low turnout, particularly among Latinos and they will have to change that to have any hope of beating the entrenched Sessions. But Allred, if he does become the nominee, has name recognition and the activist wing of the party is on defense. So this is certainly one to watch.

In central Jersey, Leonard Lance voted against the ACA repeal on the House floor but he did back it in committee and has taken heat for voting to prohibit Planned Parenthood funding. And unlike other parts of the country, this Union/Somerset district, which already has some strong Democratic pockets, has been trending Democratic at the local level (Democrat Andrew Zwicker wrested an Assembly seat from an incumbent two years ago). Like many of the other districts ,a cacophonous yet perhaps incomplete field appears to be developing among Democrats. Peter Jacob, Lance’s opponent from last year, is running. But Lisa Mandelblatt, an ex-criminal defense attorney attorney and community activist, appears to be generating the most excitement. This district, where Romney received 53%, may be the embodiment of whether ancestrally GOP voters who have ditched that label for now at the top of the ticket, are willing to do so down-ballot as well.

Further North, the Frelinghuysen name in New Jersey-11 has long been golden. This district, which also gave Romney 53%, stuck with Trump, but only barely. Frelinghuysen opted to back the recent ACA repeal after coming out against the first version just before passage, which angered both sides. Beating him will not be easy, if only because of is longevity and the fact that he has just secured the gavel of the Appropriations Committee. But Frelinghuysen recently came under fire for a fundraising letter to a board member of a local bank in which he included a handwritten note informing him that a bank employee was a member of an anti-Trump organization (the woman subsequently resigned her position). Democrats hope to lure Assemblyman John McKeon into the race and he plans to decide after the legislative elections this fall. If he passes, the party will likely look to attorney and Navy veteran Mike Sherrill. Whatever the case, Frelinghuysen knows he’ll be facing his first competitive general election ever – and is not guaranteed to win.

Now, lets go west. Before last year, Orange County, California hadn’t voted for a Democrat for president since 1936 and 300,000 vote margins for GOP candidates was not out of the question. Ed Royce won his seat in 1992 and even with the changing dynamics, has never had to sweat re-election. But the caliber of his challengers have been increasing and Clinton carried the 39th 52-43% from Romney’s 51-47%. Royce has always enjoyed substantial backing from within the Asian-American community but the climate may put that to the test. The Democrat eyeing his seat, Mai-Khant Tran who was brought to America as a migrant. It’s not unlike the story of Florida Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy, who won her seat last year.

The terrain Mimi Walters had one of the most dramatic partisan swings in the nation. It went from a 55-43% Romney margin to a 50-44% Clinton. This is Coastal California (Huntington Beach,Newport Beach and Laguna Beach) which the Almanac of American Politics notes was ground zero for the Beach Boys in the 1960s. Walters is only in her second term but served in the California Legislature for a decade.  Two law professors, Katie Porter and Dave Min lead the field among the Democrats and have strong political connections in Washington D.C. – Porter has the backing of Elizabeth Warren while Min once worked for Chuck Schumer. It’s been surmised that candidates with ties to Warren or Schumer might face strong undercurrents in this coastal district and it certainly is a handicap. But whoever turns out to be the nominee will have to be well-versed in local issues and make the case against Walters. The incumbent meanwhile will have to make the case as to why she is an asset despite an unpopular president, which may be hard, particularly since she has not been holding town meetings. This is a classic case of how much the climate changes over the next 18 months – and how Walters handles it, may impact whether she stays or goes. If she does go, California-45 will be in all probability the seat that puts Democrats over the top in the House.

Finally, Steve Chabot’s Cincinati based district trended a bit toward Trump. Some Democrats are hoping State Representative Commie Pillich, who is seeking the Governorship in a crowded field, will give up her statewide ambitions and drop down to this race but unless she decides to do that soon, she’d likely be out of luck as other candidates are getting established. Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune appears to be the favorite. The 2012 redistricting supposedly shored Chabot up but that had supposedly been the case after the ’02 remap. and Chabot was actually unseated for a term by Democrat Steve Driehaus (he regained his seat by beating Driehaus in ’10). Incidentally, some Democrats see Driehaus as a probable candidate but he has just returned from Africa and at this point, appears to have little interest.

Races to take on suburban Philadelphia Congressmen Glen Costello and Pat Meehan are also taking shape. Those districts voted hard for Obama in 2008, very narrowly for Romney in ’12 but for Clinton by the narrowest of margins last time. Both Congressmen opposed the health care measure but Democrats hope to use the tide of general discontent to show them the door.

In closing, there’s no guarantee that even one of these challengers will have a seat in Congress.But if even a handful make it, we can always call it the”Always Dreaming Class.”