Bibi and Biden: Best Buds No More?

OK, admittedly, while Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu have known each other for 40 years, they've never been the best of friends. More like uneasy allies, when necessary. And in the last few days, their uneasy alliance appears to have frayed substantially.

It started, of course, with the State of the Union. Beyond Biden's announcement that the U.S. would be building a temporary pier with or without Israel's approval, he also had a "hot mic" moment in which he was caught telling Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) that he (Biden) and Netanyahu needed to have a "come-to-Jesus meeting."

Netanyahu responded to the remark yesterday, in response to a query from Fox's Will Cain:

I don't know. I'm not familiar with the term, even though Jesus wasn't born that far away from here. I can tell you that if it means having a heart-to-heart conversation, we've had that plenty of times over the 40 years that I've known Joe Biden and over the 12 or 13 conversations that we've had since the beginning of the war.

Readers can reach their own conclusions, but that sounds to us like a guy who feels the need to tread lightly.

However, treading lightly may not be enough. There are two major points of contention that have flared up in the last week, namely: (1) Israeli plans to mount a large-scale invasion of the Palestinian city of Rafah and (2) ongoing difficulties in getting aid to civilians in Gaza. The second problem is probably manageable. The first... less so. Netanyahu says he is determined to move forward with the attack on Rafah, as he claims that is essential to eliminating Hamas. Biden says such an attack would cross a "red line" and would cause him to seriously consider cutting off military aid to Israel. One or the other is going to have to back down, or else there's going to be some big-time drama.

It is possible, of course, that all of this is theater for the benefit of the American and/or Israeli voting public. In particular, we are somewhat skeptical that the "hot mic" accident was really all that accidental. That said, there are four things that suggest to us that the strain in the Netanyahu-Biden relationship is real. The first is that, as we have written numerous times, Biden really needs to distance himself from Netanyahu/Israel a bit, ideally without it being his fault. "I wanted to keep supporting Israel, but I warned them not to invade Rafah and they ignored me" and/or "The Israeli government wouldn't let us get supplies to the poor people in Gaza, and I just couldn't stand for it any longer" are pretty good in terms of moving in the direction of pro-Palestine Americans while minimizing the number of feathers ruffled among pro-Israel Americans.

Second, over the weekend, Biden did an interview with MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart. We could have sworn we read somewhere that the President never does interviews, and yet, there he was. In any case, during that interview, Biden shared his view that Netanyahu is hurting Israel more than he's helping Israel. No "hot mic" moment here; the President knew that remark would be heard 'round the world.

Third, Haaretz is pretty dialed in while not being in the bag for Biden or for Netanyahu (especially not for Netanyahu). And their staff thinks that the tensions are real, and that the U.S.-Israel relationship could be headed for a new, and more chilly, chapter. (Note: That article is behind a soft paywall.)

Fourth, and finally, the U.S. intelligence establishment issued a report yesterday that offers a scathing assessment of Netanyahu's continued political viability:

Distrust of Netanyahu's ability to rule has deepened and broadened across the public from its already high levels before the war, and we expect large protests demanding his resignation and new elections. A different, more moderate government is a possibility.

The report also says that the defeat of Hamas will take years, if it ever happens, and that Netanyahu's approach to the problem isn't too good. Needless to say, these are not the kinds of things that would be put out there for all the world to read if Biden were preparing to join hands with Netanyahu for a nice chorus of "Kumbayah."

So, this is a situation that could develop rapidly in the next few weeks. In particular, the White House has set a deadline of March 25 for Israel to make sure Gazans start getting supply convoys, "in line with international law." It's entirely plausible that after years of political miracles, Netanyahu's bag of tricks has run out. (Z)

Biden Has a Budget

What a strange system the U.S. has. The budget for FY 2023-24 isn't complete, to the point that the government may soon shut down. And yet, entirely on the customary schedule, Joe Biden unveiled his proposed budget for FY 2024-25 yesterday.

In case you missed his State of the Union, or you heard it but didn't believe Biden was really going to unleash his inner populist, well, it's a budget that would make fellow Democrat William Jennings Bryan proud. Here are the key elements:

• Social Security: This is the biggie. The Biden budget proposal states outright that he will "reject any efforts to cut or undermine the Medicare or Social Security benefits that seniors and people with disabilities have earned and paid into their entire working lives." Instead, Biden wants to stabilize the two entitlements by increasing Medicare taxes on people making over $400,000 per year.
  
  Needless to say, Donald Trump must reflexively take the opposite position of Biden on all issues. And so, the former president, appearing on CNBC, told anchor Joe Kernan:

  [T]here is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements, tremendous bad management of entitlements. There's tremendous amounts of things, numbers of things you can do.

  Obviously, if Trump becomes president again, the U.S. will have the best entitlements ever, entitlements so great you'll get tired of how great the entitlements are. Big, beautiful entitlements is what we are saying here.
  
  Unfortunately for The Donald, in among that blather was the word "cutting." There are very few things he could say to rattle his base, but suggesting he might cut Social Security... well, he should ask Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) about that. Undoubtedly, the folks in The Villages were not happy campers.
  
  Team Biden just so happened to catch the interview, and the President quickly made hay of the remark, telling a crowd in New Hampshire that Trump and Republicans "want to put Social Security and Medicare back on the chopping block," and that "I'm never going to allow that to happen." Meanwhile, Team Trump spent the afternoon doing damage control, although there's only so much they could do, since "cutting" isn't exactly ambiguous.
  
  
• Corporate Taxes: Biden also wants to reverse much of the 2017 tax cut, which lowered the corporate rate from 35% to 21%, and put the rate back up to 28%.
  
  
• Individual Taxes: The greater amount of money coming in from corporations would be used, in part, to restore the pandemic-era expansion of the Child Tax Credit, and to cut the tax burden for working-class people by $765 billion over the next decade.
  
  
• Students: Biden wants to forgive more student loan debt, while also spending $12 billion to increase Pell Grants for current students.
  
  
• Food: Biden wants to increase WIC (food assistance for women, infants and children) by $700 million, up to $7.7 billion. House Republicans do not like this idea; they want to make it harder for people to qualify for the program. You don't need us to tell you which side of that argument sounds better on the campaign trail.
  
  
• Ukraine: Biden wants money for Ukraine. The $95 billion package that passed the Senate last month, and has money for Israel and Taiwan, too, would be a swell start.
  
  
• Rural Eco-lectrification: Biden wants to increase funding (which Republicans just cut) for renewable energy in rural communities. Shades of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

If Biden's budget was adopted lock, stock and barrel, and if the projections are on target, then it would mean a $1.6 trillion outlay in discretionary spending in 2024-25, a total in line with the agreement Biden struck with former speaker Kevin McCarthy, but a total that is also way higher than the House Republican Conference wants. The Biden budget would also cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years, which is something that Republicans claim they want, although they obviously don't want to do it by redistributing money from corporations and wealthy people to not-wealthy people.

There is almost no chance that Biden's budget proposal is acted upon prior to November. Again, Congress hasn't even figured out this year's budget, much less next year's, and they pretty much never get the budget done on time. So, the Biden proposal is just a campaign document; a platform to run on. And as far as platforms go, it may be a pretty good one, vote-getting-wise.

The Republicans in the House also have a budget proposal, one that would slash an impressive $14 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. However, there are a few problems. First, it involves deep cuts to the things Democrats (and some Republicans) care about like, say, Medicare. Second, it is extremely fuzzy on critical details in some places. Third, it relies on wildly optimistic economic projections. We're talking "Let's assume that every year in the next 10 is better than any year in the 1920s or 1990s." We note this because Republicans are going to run on it, of course, but also because it puts Biden's proposal in context. That is to say, if $14 trillion is on the crazy side, then $3 trillion is plausible.

Meanwhile, the Biden campaign will undoubtedly spend much time today trying to think of ways to get Trump to comment again on his willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare. Maybe they can claim that if John McCain and Hillary Clinton agreed on one thing, it was the importance of increasing Social Security and Medicare. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Take Five

We're not 100% sure if the identity of "Trump Employee #5" from the Mar-a-Lago indictment was just guessed at, or if it's been 100% clear for a while. In any case, it is former staffer Brian Butler, who sat for an interview with CNN yesterday to share a few choice thoughts.

Butler, who is in cover your a** mode, said that the boxes with classified documents were in places that were not secured, where anyone could have gotten to them. He also observed that everyone on staff moved boxes around, and he shared that the moving of boxes often took place at highly incriminating times. For example, Butler recalled an incident where he and Trump assistant Walt Nauta were loading boxes into a van (for relocation to New Jersey) while FBI agents were literally in the next room, meeting with the former president.

Experiencing a sequence that is familiar to Trump employees who get their hands dirty, Butler was first pressured to help protect his boss, ideally with the assistance of a Trump-paid-for lawyer. When Butler said "No, thanks!" Team Trump turned against him. Butler says he now views his former boss "unfavorably" and that "I personally would just say I just don't believe that he should be a presidential candidate at this time. I think it's time to move on."

Anyhow, while we are not lawyers, CNN's Elie Honig is. And this was his assessment:

So, this type of witness is gold for prosecutors and there's a few reasons for that. First of all, this person has insider access. He's literally inside the room... He's there when boxes are being loaded onto the plane. And one of the challenges for prosecutors here is explaining exactly where these documents were moved, and when, and by whom. And this person can give us exactly why.

Second of all, he's a person who appears to be unbiased. He doesn't seem to have any reason to have an axe to grind with Donald Trump... He's a longtime two decades-long employee of Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. Just based on the snippet that we just saw, he does not appear to be angry or resentful towards Donald Trump.

And finally, if you look at his testimony and you look at the indictment, he appears to be well-supported, corroborated by documents, by certain text chains that are referenced in the indictment, and by testimony of some of the defendants themselves, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliviera. So this is really the kind of witness that you want to build around as a prosecutor.

So, it seems like Butler will be pretty valuable once this case goes to trial. Which, if Aileen Cannon has her way, should be sometime this decade. Maybe. (Z)

It's a Monday Afternoon Massacre at the RNC

Now that a Trump lackey (Michael Whatley) is running the RNC, and a Trump in-law (Lara Trump) is second-in-command, it's apparently time for some (early) spring cleaning. So yesterday, more than 60 employees of the Committee got whacked. That's out of roughly 200 total staffers, so close to one-third of the folks who worked under Ronna Romney McDaniel will join her in the unemployment line.

The Trumpers are asserting that the RNC had become bloated. Maybe that's true; if there's anything a Trump supporter should know about, it's what "bloated" looks like. Exactly what will be done with the money saved, however, is an excellent guess. Will it go to more effective fundraising? To the campaigns of Republican candidates for office? To the Trump presidential campaign? To pay Trump's legal bills? Anything is possible, but we kinda suspect it's Door #4.

Meanwhile, one has to assume that the people who got to keep their jobs are the most fanatical/pro-Trump members of the RNC. In particular, Whatley is a devoted "stop the steal" guy, and one can envision him terminating anyone who isn't on board with that. After all, if Trump loses again, he'll undoubtedly claim fraud again, and head to court again. We don't agree with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on too many things, but she concurs with us that: "MAGA is now in control of the Republican Party!"

And it's not just the RNC where purges are taking place. Robin Vos (R), who is Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, has been deemed not sufficiently Trumpy. Vos' colleagues wouldn't boot him from his high perch, however, and so the MAGA faction is working to remove him from office entirely. They've gathered 10,000 signatures, and say they have cleared the bar needed to trigger a recall election. Within a couple of weeks, we'll know if the Wisconsin courts agree.

When you put a bunch of sharks in a tank, and then the food runs out, the sharks start eating each other. Hard to imagine why that bit of trivia is on our minds at this moment. (Z)

Republicans' Problem: Women Aren't Stupid

The Republican Party, Dobbs decision hanging like an anchor around its collective necks, thinks it can still win back a sizable number of women voters. In the past few days, however, the GOP has had two big whiffs on that front.

First, of course, is the State of the Union response by Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), which was carefully crafted to connect with women voters. And yet, it conveyed a sense of someone who has perhaps read the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for "Woman," but who otherwise has no understanding of the subject. Britt said the wrong things, in the wrong way, from the wrong place... and then got caught lying, too. Nonetheless, rather than apologize, she went on the offensive, and spent Sunday morning defending the propriety of the incredibly misleading anecdote she used, while slurring her critics as "disgusting."

The message that many Republican strategists took from the speech is that Republicans just don't get it, when it comes to women voters. Britt's message might connect with "traditionalist women" (presumably that means "evangelical women"), but those folks are already voting Trump. It's not going to connect with anyone else and, in fact, the real message is that Britt & Co. have so little regard for women voters that they make up lies and hope they will pass muster. And that's on top of trying to take a highly educated lawyer, former Congressional chief of staff, and U.S. Senator and trying to pass her off as "Average Jane" sitting in her modest kitchen.

The second whiff came on Sunday, when Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) appeared on George Stephanopoulos' show, in part to defend Britt and her use of the misleading story about the sex-trafficked woman. During the appearance (which you can watch here, if you wish), Stephanopoulos asked how Mace can reconcile her experience as a rape victim (her phrasing) with her support for Donald Trump, who has twice been found liable for an act of sexual assault in a court of law. Mace avoided the question, and though Stephanopoulos was very respectful and very cautious, she turned it around on him and said repeatedly how "disgusted" she was that the host was trying to "shame" her and "bully" her.

One must tread lightly when dealing with a rape survivor, but we are inclined to think Stephanopoulos' question was fair, and was handled appropriately. And whether it was fair or not, the fact is that there are many women voters who might like to have an explanation for the apparent paradox, so Mace should be prepared to address the issue. Of course, she can't actually answer, because we all know that the truth is that any Republican politician who wants to keep their job has to behave as if Trump is the stainless knight Sir Galahad, untouched by sin. Even if that means a rape survivor being compelled to grit their teeth, smile, and endorse a rapist.

Again, we are treading lightly here, given the gender dynamics in play. However, the women who write for The Washington Post are not so constrained. And so, Ruth Marcus let loose with both barrels yesterday:

You know what I find disgusting? Women who have achieved such levels of political prominence stooping to play the gender card on a matter as important as sexual violence. It's important to have women in positions of power, not least because they might be more focused on such issues—more inclined to take them up and more attuned to the imperative of dealing with them in a way that reflects the sensitivities of the situation. This was not what Britt and Mace brought to the Sunday talk-show table. Instead, they used gender and the subject of sexual violence to shut down discussion—a shield intended to stifle perfectly reasonable criticism. It doesn't feel like a coincidence that both women used that same charged word: disgusting. It is designed to preempt, not to convince.

Karen Tumulty had a similar response:

How Britt was presented to a national audience, however, says a lot about why the GOP struggles to connect with suburban women. Her breathy, overwrought delivery would have embarrassed any self-respecting high school drama club.

And the setting sent another message that was not helpful at a moment when Republicans are trying to shake their image as a party that wants to send women backward in time. As veteran GOP pollster Christine Matthews put it on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter: "Not sure whose genius idea it was to put a U.S. Senator in the kitchen to deliver the response to the #SOTU. In the panel work I have done w/swing women since 2014 we have tested ads like this—i.e. women talking health care in the kitchen—and it just sets women voters off."

There were a number of other pieces like these from the women writers of the Post and The New York Times, but these two are enough to get the point across.

In the end, making inroads with women voters may be an impossibility for the current iteration of the Republican Party. The strict anti-choice stance is one big problem. Having a presidential candidate who is a misogynist and a confirmed rapist is another. And an understanding of "women" that apparently starts and ends with evangelical women is a third. All we know for sure is that two high-profile GOP women did not help the cause this week, and it's hard to know what they might do differently in the future. They might start with the understanding that women voters are not morons, and that they will not be fooled by hand waving, magic tricks, false anecdotes and empty verbiage. But maybe that's a bridge too far. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger