Latest news with #PlaybookDeepDive
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bret Baier on How He Interviews Donald Trump
Fox News is known for its opinion shows, but one of its most successful hosts is chief political anchor Bret Baier. And his influence is only growing. Ratings are strong for his 'Special Report with Bret Baier,' and in recent months, he's interviewed top Trump officials like Elon Musk, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Vice President JD Vance, as well as top foreign leaders who want to make their case to his right-of-center audience. Oh, and don't forget Baier's regular sit-downs with the president himself. In an interview forthe Playbook Deep Dive podcast, Baier talked about the state of the media in Donald Trump's new Washington, and how to build trust with the public. He also discussed what it's like to play golf with Trump and why he takes off-the-record calls from the president. 'Any journalist would welcome just to know where his head is,' he said. 'Depending on where the day's going, it's a good thing to have a blueprint of what they're thinking about.' Baier also talked about how he approaches interviews with the president — 'I tell them up front that this is going to be tough, but fair' — and what he's expecting on Trump's first foreign trip since returning to the conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Renee Klahr and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the full Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here: Trump not only has changed everything about how so much of government functions, but also the media, right? What has happened in your eyes to the press since the beginning of the Trump era? Well, Trump One, there was a lot of focus on the Russia investigation for months and months. That dominated news cycle after news cycle. And it affected the way the president dealt with the press and the way the White House dealt with the press. And I think that there was a push-and-pull there based on that story. Arguably we missed some other big things about Trump One. I always say that the story above the water is sort of like an iceberg that you could see and that everybody was focused on. But below the water, there's also a big iceberg that they're trying to change Washington in their own way. They weren't really that successful in the big change, which led to a loss in 2020. But after four years, I think Trump Two had four years to plan what they wanted to do. Which is why this shock and awe executive order blitz happened at the beginning. I think that they're getting about the lower part of the iceberg more day-to-day. We'll see if they're successful in what they want to try to do. Do you think his relationship to the press has changed between the first administration and the second administration? Yeah, he was open, but he wasn't as open as he is now as far as taking adversarial questions, taking questions pretty much every day. He's had so many Q&A sessions or sprays in the Oval Office. That could be 30, 40 minutes of a Q&A that's ahead of a news conference. And this White House, in that session, is making a ton of news by what he says. All of that is news throughout the day. It changes my show five or six times before I get to six o'clock. I don't envy the folks putting together your rundown. Yeah, we rip it up many times — right about five 'til six. But I think he's different. He's more comfortable in his skin. He's obviously doing bigger, bolder things. Not that they're very popular, as we're seeing. But he's holding to what he campaigned on and in his mind, doing what he wants to do, I think. You mentioned that some of them aren't so popular. He's in a risky place with his trade policy right now. What do you think could be the downside to that? Do you think he's in danger? Well, listen, people don't like looking at their 401ks if they're retiring and seeing it shrink dramatically. They don't like a slowdown in this quarter of GDP, a shrinkage of the economy for the first time in three years. They don't like it. And it obviously comes with a reverberation, like 'What's going on? Is this thing going to work out? Are these tariffs going to pan out?' I know the ultimate goal is to rebalance and shift the paradigm in the world, and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. That's a long time, and in the short term, there could be some pain. Fox News is often known for some of its more conservative, opinionated voices. That is not the lane that you own. How do you navigate being under the Fox News umbrella, but sort of owning this lane that is more straight journalism? Well, a couple of things. One, I've done it for 27 years and it's been the same umbrella and it has been the questions. A lot of people paint with a broad brush about our opinion shows. And I tell people to watch my show three times and drop me an email or a post on X or Instagram or TikTok and say what you think. So most people go through that, they come back and say it was fair on the news. When I took over for Brit Hume 16 years ago, which is hard to believe, he said three things: The show is not about you, the show is not about you and let the news drive the show. So that's where my goal is. I don't know if it was because of Trump or if Trump was a byproduct or a symptom of it, but everything that you just said, a lot of reporters have started to do the opposite. It has become a lot about opinion or ideology. And look, there's a business model there, too. And now we're in this environment where it's really hard for people to discern what is news, what is opinion, who to trust, who to listen to — that's been eroding. So how do you think we can try to carry that mantle and not just let that part of our business survive, but thrive? Well, first of all, let me say that the opinion people do an amazing job of what they do. And they have opinions and they clearly express them. I do a different thing. I think if you build it, they will come. And that's really the mantra of our show. We say, "We report, you decide." We'll tell you what this senator is saying. We'll tell you what Democrats, Independents, Republicans are saying. You make the decision how you feel about it. We're not going to tell you whether it's good, bad or indifferent. You make that decision. And story choice, how you go about that, all makes a difference in especially how Middle America views the media. Unfortunately, our business has taken a real hit and I think trust took a hit over the past eight years. When it comes to President Trump and his expectations for an interview with Fox News and an interview with Bret Baier, how do you navigate that relationship? You've had some friendlier interviews, you've had more combative interviews. What is that relationship like? Anytime I go into an interview, I tell them up front that this is going to be tough, but fair. He's going to have an opportunity to answer questions and say what he wants to say but I'm going to press him on things. Now you say friendly interview — the Super Bowl interview was a little different environment in that it was the Super Bowl, so I had to ask questions about the Super Bowl and other things, but at times push back about his thoughts about the economy and where it stands and what his policy was going to be. The interview before that he described as nasty, but he got over it. He still takes your calls? Yeah, he does. Listen, I think that off-the-record conversations with the president of the United States — any journalist would welcome just to know where his head is. Day-to-day, depending on where the day's going, it's a good thing to have a blueprint of what they're thinking about. Speaking of off-the-record conversations, you've played golf with President Trump. How often has that happened? It's a handful, maybe more than a handful of times. He's a good golfer and I played in college, so I think it fits. Do you let him win? How does that work? I try not to, I really do. But it's a great time to be able to not only play golf but at times ask questions about what he's thinking about X, Y, and Z and just be open to listening to that. I think anytime that you have access like that, any journalist should take it and welcome it. You do have him lashing out at members of the media, some of your own colleagues and certainly with the AP. You were pretty outspoken in pushing back in defense of journalists when he banned the AP. How do you thread that needle? And do you think banning news outlets could potentially backfire and actually be a bad thing for this White House? One hundred percent and I've said that both publicly and privately. I don't think it's a good thing. I don't think it's good for precedent. I do not think that you want any administration steering what news organizations editorially can do as far as their access in a pool. The AP has obviously been around since the beginning of not really a thread the needle thing. I think there are certain things where you have to weigh in and you have to say: 'This is what I believe.' Who do you think is to blame for the lack of trust in the media, for the loss of trust in the media? Well, the media. I mean, we went after collectively, and I say broadly, stories that didn't pan out and went overboard on covering some of it. And then at times wore opinion on their sleeves in news programs that really don't fit under the opinion umbrella. We talked about the opinion shows on Fox. There were times where I would watch what I thought was a news show on other channels that became very opinionated and pretty one-sided. Do you think Trump had any role to play in that though, in the loss of trust? Of course, yeah. He kind of broke the system and maybe that was part of his M.O., what he wanted to do. But Middle America didn't trust what they were getting from a lot of the media and you saw that even in polls of the election that suggested he was going to lose up until the last minute. You know, there were a lot of people that just didn't buy in. Do you think that there's a danger now of over-correcting, too? You got some criticism for your interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Some people said you were much harder on her than you were on Trump or on Elon Musk. What do you say to that? Well, I'd say the environment. I think that the vice president was coming in ready to engage like that. I heard that from her folks afterwards that they were happy that that was the M.O. You were responding to the vibes you were getting, you're saying? Yeah, a little bit. And some of the answers were really interesting on items that I thought clearly they knew I was going to ask, about illegal immigration and the number of people coming across the border. And the answer was, 'Well, we need this comprehensive bill.' And I just went down methodically about, 'Well, couldn't you do by executive order a number of different things?' And she kept on coming back to the comprehensive bill and they've done all they can do. Obviously, that is not the case right now with the numbers we've seen on the southern border. We're watching Eric and Donald Trump Jr. right now making a lot of business deals around the world. Is that something that the media should be looking at just as hard as what Hunter Biden was doing? One hundred percent. And if you're going to play it one way, you've got to play it another way. And you've got to cover all of those things. I think there are real questions about how that works, what access looks like. And I don't think there is a lack of coverage or questions about that. But the Hunter Biden thing was another one of those moments where, "This is all fake. Do not cover anything about this computer or this laptop. It's Russian disinformation and here are 51 former intelligence officers who say it has all the markings of Russian disinformation." And then President Biden goes to the debate stage and says the intelligence community says it's Russian disinformation. That was another one of those moments where Middle America said, "Wait, wait, wait. You just told me this is totally false. And yet now, a year later, it's true and you're doing front-page stories about it?" That's one of the trust things. One thing that's saddened me in TV and media in general is conservatives tend to go on these programs and liberals tend to go on these programs, and I think that's just not healthy for a democracy. Is it hard for you to sometimes get Democrats on your show? No. This week, we're going to have Sen. Bernie Sanders on "Special Report." You were ready for that one. I wasn't planning to book this because of this podcast but it just so happened he's coming on. He's come on numerous times. We did town halls with Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, a number of the primaries. How important is it to see those in power run the gamut of media? I think it's really important and it's great for democracy, it's great for voters. It's great to hear different questions from different points of view. And I think that's really good. I do this thing called 'Common Ground,' where I bring Democrats and Republicans together to talk about what they're working on, as opposed to what they are fighting about. We talk a little bit about what they're fighting about but we then eventually get to what they're working on together. We started it about two years ago. And at first, people were saying, 'How are you going to get them to come together?' And the first ones, we did it and suddenly it was like a stone going down a mountain, kept on gathering and getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And now we take calls from ranking members and chairmen. And I've had strange bedfellows, [Rep. James] Comer and [Rep. Jamie] Raskin come on together. I think there's a way. to talk about things and we don't often do that because in the media obviously we're looking for the thing that drives people apart. You're defying all kinds of expectations. People say TV news is dying, your ratings are going up. People say you need conflict to get ratings, you're finding common ground for ratings. Before I let you go, you're going to the Middle East with President Trump. What are your expectations for that? What are you hoping to learn from that trip? Well, first of all, every time you go to a foreign land on a presidential trip, it is quite something to see. I was on the last Middle East trip in Saudi Arabia. All of these countries obviously roll out the red carpet, they know how President Trump operates and it's interesting to view. This trip, I'm looking to talk to the leaders in those countries. We're working to line up each one, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE. And then I'm looking to talk to the president at the end of the trip before he goes back to see exactly what he thinks about it and what he got out of it. I think a lot's going to come around on the Saudi trip. They have a lot on the table that's being negotiated right now. And my last time there, I interviewed the Crown Prince, MBS, and it was a big, big interview, his first interview with Western journalists and I think that that's going to bode well for this trip. What do you think is at stake for President Trump here? There are a lot of balls in the air. You know, there's Gaza, Hamas. There is Iran, the Houthis with this announcement that they're tired of fighting. That's a big, big deal. The biggest thing is if on Ukraine and Russia, somehow Putin shows up in Riyadh and there is a big deal for a longer cease-fire. So, think about all the foreign policy balls that are in the air, that's a good time to be on a trip. Really quickly on Ukraine, President Trump promised on the campaign trail he was going to solve that, maybe even before Day One. It looks like he's getting impatient with it. He's threatened to walk away if the sides don't come together. What is at stake for him there? A lot. The picture of the president with President Zelenskyy in the Vatican was a really iconic shot. But the other iconic shot, obviously, was Zelenskyy getting kicked out of the White House and he came to 'Special Report' right after that and did an interview. I don't think he would have done that had I not gone to Ukraine the year before and been on the front lines to do an interview about the war. Listen, foreign policy takes time but for the president, there's a lot on the line because I think he thinks of himself as the biggest dealmaker in the world. And he may be, but some of these deals need to come together, not only on trade but on stopping wars. And my final and perhaps most important question, Bret. You have been to the White House here in Washington, D.C. You have also been to what's been dubbed the Winter White House, Mar-a-Lago. Which one's better? Ah, the weather's better in Mar-a-Lago but there's nothing like the White House. Being in the Oval Office, every time I used to walk in there and be positioned to ask a president and a world leader a question, I always pinched myself. Think about all the things that happened in this room, the decisions. It's a real honor to cover politics at a time when people pay attention to politics and when people are paying attention to the world. Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.
Politico
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
The audacity of pope
Presented by The American Council of Life Insurers With help from Eli Okun, Garrett Ross and Bethany Irvine Good morning. It's Friday. This is Zack Stanton, thrilled that the new pope likely also calls it 'pop' rather than 'soda.' Get in touch. YOUR MORNING LISTEN: Bret Baier is having a moment. The anchor of Fox News' 'Special Report' hosts the rare TV news show whose influence is exploding. In recent months, he has interviewed top Trump administration officials — including Elon Musk, Scott Bessent and JD Vance — as well as foreign leaders who want to make their case to his massive right-of-center audience. For today's episode of 'Playbook Deep Dive,' Baier sat down with POLITICO's Dasha Burns to talk about his unique position in Trump's Washington. A few highlights: On whether Trump played a role in the loss of trust in the media: 'Of course, yeah, he kind of broke the system, and maybe that was part of his MO, what he wanted to do. But middle America didn't trust what they were getting from a lot of media.' On whether Eric and Donald Trump Jr. should get scrutinized like Hunter Biden did: 'One-hundred percent. And if you're going to play it one way, you've got to play it another way. And you've gotta cover all of those things. I think there are real questions about how that works, what access looks like.' Much more in the full episode: Apple Podcasts … Spotify … YouTube DRIVING THE DAY THE AUDACITY OF POPE: It takes a lot to bigfoot a news cycle that Donald Trump has set out to dominate. But that's precisely what happened yesterday, as the president's hopes to get as much coverage as possible around his nascent trade deal with the UK (more on that in a moment) went up in smoke — literally: white smoke billowing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, heralding the election of a new pope. Red, white smoke and blue: That alone would be enough to merit the world's attention. Then came the announcement that landed like a haymaker: This pope is an American. Instantly, Robert Francis Prevost — henceforth known as Pope Leo XIV — became a subject of immense fascination, with Catholics around the country rallying to lay claim to him. Chicagoans rejoiced in the selection of one of their own, sparking endless memes and a brief debate over whether his loyalties were to the Cubs or White Sox (the latter, per the Sun-Times). He has Black Creole lineage, as the New Orleans Times-Picayune proudly reported. He attended Villanova ('Can he stream Big East games in Vatican City?' asked a subhead in the Philly Inquirer). On and on it went. America's first vs. America First: And, just as quickly, the conversation turned to politics. This being an American pope, his record — and, especially, his purported account on X, whose authenticity POLITICO has not been able to independently verify — was plumbed for signs of his political beliefs. He tweeted a National Catholic Reporter op-ed swiping at Vice President JD Vance, reposted a criticism of Trump's Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele and urged action on climate change. He's an Illinois voter who has cast ballots in several Republican primaries over the last 15 years, all before Trump's first presidency. Far-right activist (and informal Trump adviser) Laura Loomer has labeled him a 'Marxist.' Steve Bannon has already declared him the 'anti-Trump pope' and 'worst pick for MAGA Catholics.' The sacred and the profane: There are two realities worth acknowledging here. First … The views of this pope (or any pope) do not map neatly on America's two-party system divide. Believe it or not, the fluctuations of electoral politics are not the top of mind for the pontiff, who is entrusted to lead an institution that has been around nearly eight times longer than the U.S. has existed. ('The keys entrusted to the successor of Peter are his for only a speck in time, and as steward, the pope is not answerable to the here and now,' as Pope Benedict XVI said.) Second … And yet, because Leo is American, his selection and his papacy cannot help but be seen as political, both in the U.S. and around the world. That's an opportunity as well as a potential liability. The opportunity: 'Leo's American citizenship is likely to give him a certain cache with the president — and, should he so choose, the authority to offer critiques from a worldview that the Argentine Francis lacked,' POLITICO's Megan Messerly, Rachael Bade and Eli Stokols write. The liability: 'The elevation of Leo also comes at an pivotal moment for the Catholic Church, whose leadership is drifting leftward even as people in the U.S. who regularly attend Mass have been drifting to the right,' Megan, Rachael and Eli write. 'Recent years have seen an increasing embrace of traditional Catholicism … who prefer traditional Latin mass and reject what they perceived as a movement toward modernism in the Church.' Would it risk alienating parts of his flock if he's seen as too political? And yet: With the exception of the most terminally online among us who are determined to see Leo as a partisan leader rather than, say, primarily a moral one, the prevailing mood about the new papacy among the nation's Catholics is, at least for the moment, ebullience. 'Onward into history,' WSJ's Peggy Noonan marvelled in a brisk, joyful piece about the selection. 'One of our countrymen has been raised high, a Midwestern boy, a Chicago kid raised to the throne of Peter. Did you ever think you'd see a Yank there? Really?' THE STORY HE UPSTAGED: In the Oval Office yesterday, Trump had U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on speakerphone to unveil not so much a trade deal as a framework for one. POLITICO's Megan Messerly and team have the readout on the agreement — and on the long road ahead as the U.S. tries to seal literally dozens of bilateral trade deals with other nations over the next few months. What to know: Under the agreement, all imports from the U.K. will be subject to a 10 percent tariff. Britain will be allowed to export 100,000 cars to the U.S. at that rate, rather than the current 25 percent tariff on autos. The tariff on British steel will be zeroed out. In exchange, the U.K. will drop 'its tariffs on U.S. beef, ethanol, sports equipment and other products, and [buy] $10 billion of Boeing airplanes,' per NYT's Ana Swanson and Jonathan Swan. New poll: 'There's a fundamental challenge facing the nascent trade deal the United States and United Kingdom just unveiled: neither country trusts the man behind it,' POLITICO's Daniel Desrochers writes this morning. 'A wide majority of American and British adults support their governments reaching a deal, according to a POLITICO-Public First poll conducted last month, but less than one-third of respondents in the U.K. and 44 percent of Americans said they believed Trump would abide by it.' How we got here: A team of my colleagues in the U.K. has a vivid read on how Britain got to the 'front of the queue' in the trade talks. (Hint: It involved 'a months-long buttering-up of the president,' culminating in an unscheduled Wednesday-night phone call by Trump to Starmer.) And as such … there are real questions about how replicable the U.K. model is. The deal 'was limited in scope and included niche issues regarding the U.K., meaning it didn't offer other nations a clear road map to follow,' WSJ's Alex Leary, Lingling Wei and Paul Vieira report. 'Many other deals weren't seen as likely to come together so easily. The U.K. was low-hanging fruit, given the U.S. enjoys a goods trade surplus with the country, unlike with China.' Speaking of … This weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will travel to Switzerland to meet with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in an attempt to de-escalate tensions between the two global powers. (Unlike with the UK, in these talks, 'Trump's negotiating position will be the weaker one,' Michael Schuman writes in The Atlantic.) Stay tuned. CONGRESS A TAXING SITUATION: Today, House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) will head to the White House to meet with President Trump as the tax portion of the GOP megabill is at risk of unraveling, POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill and Benjamin Guggenheim scooped. The big news: Behind closed doors, Speaker Mike Johnson announced yesterday that he's scaling down his ambitions for the package, as Meredith and Benjamin reported. He'll be seeking $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and $4 trillion in tax cuts — down from $2 trillion and $4.5 trillion, respectively. Problem incoming: At this new size, it will 'present a huge challenge to House Republicans and their ability to include all of their priorities — not to mention the priorities of President Donald Trump,' my colleagues write. What's getting cut? A whole lot, by the sound of it. 'On the chopping block could be a litany of Trump demands, including a permanent extension of the tax cuts passed during his first term, as well as second-term campaign promises to provide tax relief to seniors while also exempting taxes on tips and overtime earnings,' POLITICO's Ben Leonard, Benjamin and Meredith write this morning. 'Those provisions could end up getting enacted only temporarily, according to four Republican lawmakers, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity.' A curveball: Yesterday, Trump put higher taxes for the super-wealthy back on the table, proposing a new 39.6 percent tax bracket on individuals who make at least $2.5 million a year (or couples who pull in $5 million annually), Bloomberg's Eric Wasson reports. If enacted, that could give Republicans 'more wiggle room to make Trump's 2017 tax cuts for households permanent and enact some of his campaign pledges.' But voting to raise anyone's taxes may be a tough pill for Republicans to swallow. Trying to get votes: Johnson said yesterday that he's considering raising the state and local tax deduction cap from $10,000 to $30,000 in an effort to get blue-state Republicans in swing districts on board, Bloomberg's Billy House, Emily Birnbaum and Erik Wasson write. But not succeeding: Four New York Republicans dismis65sed Johnson's proposal as woefully insufficient, NBC's Sahil Kapur reports. (Among them, notably, is Rep. Elise Stefanik, who is thought to be considering a bid for governor.) Risking a revolt: 'Conservative Ralph Norman [(R-S.C.)] said that if moderates get a $30,000 SALT cap then they need to agree to even deeper spending cuts such as to Medicaid,' Bloomberg notes. And that, in turn, is likely to alienate even more moderates. Follow the latest today at Inside Congress Live THE MAGA REVOLUTION IN AND OUT: The series of high-profile Trump administration shake-ups continues, as the president last night fired Carla Hayden from the apolitical role of librarian of Congress, per POLITICO's Nick Wu, Lisa Kashinsky and Katherine Tully-McManus. Conservatives had targeted her to be purged for promoting books they disliked. The Fox News presidency: Trump also selected Jeanine Pirro as the acting U.S. attorney for D.C., ABC's Katherine Faulders and Will Steakin report. The Fox News host, a former DA who pushed false claims about the 2020 election on TV, will replace lightning rod Ed Martin, whose nomination couldn't get through the Senate. But Martin got a plum new perch at the Justice Department as director of a 'weaponization working group,' associate deputy AG and pardon attorney. Another name to know: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem is tapping David Richardson to take over FEMA on an interim basis after she canned acting leader Cameron Hamilton, WSJ's Michelle Hackman and Tarini Parti report. BILL OF HEALTH: Another of Trump's new replacement choices, Casey Means for surgeon general, is facing more scrutiny over her record. The L.A. Times' Jenny Jarvie reports that Means dropped out of her surgical residency due to anxiety and stress. … After HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. praised Means' non-traditional background and said she was top of her class at Stanford, CNN's Daniel Dale fact-checked that Stanford doesn't rank its med students. Up next: Trump's major announcement coming Monday, which he previously teased as 'truly earth-shattering,' will be a 'most favored nation' drug-pricing policy, CBS' Jennifer Jacobs and Alexander Tin report. LAW AND ORDERS: A new federal investigation is examining New York AG Letitia James and allegations of falsifying paperwork, per the Guardian's Hugo Lowell. James' lawyer says she made a simple mistake and that Trump is targeting her out of retaliation. MORE SLASHING: NOAA is shuttering a 45-year-old major disaster database, which 'will make it next to impossible for the public to track the cost of extreme weather and climate events' in the future, CNN's Andrew Freedman scooped. … The National Science Foundation's 37 divisions are being closed, with layoffs coming, Science's Jeffrey Mervis scooped. E-RING READING: After getting the Supreme Court's green light, the Pentagon will begin to boot thousands of transgender service members from the military next month, Reuters' Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali scooped. … Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's campaign to erase curricula that acknowledge negative aspects of U.S. history has upended classes at West Point, leading to canceled courses, purged books and scrubbed lessons, per NYT's Greg Jaffe. BEST OF THE REST FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — Tough news cycle for Fetterman: An internal survey shows that a plurality of Democratic voters in Pittsburgh now view Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) unfavorably, POLITICO's Holly Otterbein reports. Other public polls have shown Fetterman much stronger with Pennsylvania Dems, but this one 'has shocked some Democrats in the state.' 2026 WATCH: Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) officially jumped into the race to take on Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, per The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Greg Bluestein. He quickly sought to frame himself as a staunch Trump ally. But Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp plans to meet with Trump to align on the best candidate for the race — possibly Reps. Mike Collins or Brian Jack, or Small Business Administrator Kelly Loeffler, Axios' Marc Caputo and Alex Isenstadt scooped. Race for the states: Ohio Lt. Gov. Jim Tressel is new to his role, but he's already weighing a gubernatorial bid, he told NBC's Henry Gomez. … Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) says his decision about running for governor will come down to whether he thinks he can win the general election, not pressure from Trump, POLITICO's Emily Ngo reports. HEADING TO SCOTUS: The fates of more than half a million Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans are now in the hands of the Supreme Court, after the Trump administration appealed to the justices to be allowed to revoke their humanitarian parole en masse, per NBC. REDISTRICTING ROUNDUP: A federal court yesterday said Alabama's 2023 congressional map illegally, purposefully limited Black voters' political power, per Heather Gann. That could keep the current, court-ordered redraw in place, which allowed Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures to flip a seat last year. THE WEEKEND AHEAD TV TONIGHT — PBS' 'Washington Week': Susan Glasser, Asma Khalid, David Sanger and Nancy Youssef. SUNDAY SO FAR … NBC 'Meet the Press': Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy … Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) … Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Panel: Matt Gorman, Sahil Kapur, Carol Lee and Neera Tanden. MSNBC 'The Weekend': Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear … Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Ras Baraka. Fox News 'Sunday Morning Futures': Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) … Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) … Maria Corina Machado … Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano. NewsNation 'The Hill Sunday': Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). Panel: Tamara Keith, Megan McArdle, Margaret Talev and Ian Swanson. FOX 'Fox News Sunday': Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Panel: Francesca Chambers, Josh Kraushaar, Marc Thiessen and Juan Williams. CBS 'Face the Nation': New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. CNN 'State of the Union': Chris Sununu and Rahm Emanuel. Panel: Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), Brad Todd, Xochitl Hinojosa and Kristen Soltis Anderson. TALK OF THE TOWN Donald Norcross is now back home after rehab, his office announced. Bill Gates slammed the Trump administration's foreign aid cuts, singling out Elon Musk's role. 'The picture of the world's richest man killing the world's poorest children is not a pretty one,' he told the Financial Times. Ivanka Trump made her first big appearance since her father returned to office, promoting her produce company Planet Harvest. Curtis Yarvin, whose once-fringe anti-government writing helped shape the New Right and many MAGA ideas, compared DOGE to incels and 'an orchestra of chimpanzees trying to perform Wagner.' Melania Trump celebrated Barbara Bush with a new postage stamp. IN MEMORIAM — 'Kenneth Walker Dies at 73; His Journalism Bared Apartheid's Brutality,' by NYT's Sam Roberts: He was 'an Emmy Award-winning journalist whose reporting for the ABC News program 'Nightline' helped bring the brutality of South Africa's racist apartheid system to the attention of the American public, propelling it onto the agenda of U.S. policymakers … Mr. Walker was a reporter for The Washington Star … for 'Nightline' … and for NPR.' — 'Joseph Nye, Political Scientist Who Extolled 'Soft Power,' Dies at 88,' by NYT's Trip Gabriel: 'He coined the term, arguing that a country's global influence can't be built on military might alone. Diplomats around the world paid heed. … Sometimes considered the dean of American political science, Mr. Nye led the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and held senior jobs in the Carter and Clinton administrations.' OUT AND ABOUT — Axel Springer's Mathias Döpfner was honored by The America Abroad Media awards held last night at the Fairmont hotel. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) introduced Döpfner, calling him a 'uniquely authentic truth-teller.' Other honorees included Ziad Doueiri, Iran International's Samira Gharae, Gelareh Hon, Marzia Hussaini and Mehdi Parpanchi, and Moira Forbes. SPOTTED: James Jeffrey, Ed and Marie Royce, Jason and Yeganeh Rezaian, Jan Bayer, Robert Albritton, Chris and Jennifer Isham, Anita Kumar, Zak Hudak, Elliot Ackerman, Aaron Lobel, French Ambassador Laurent Bili, Danita Johnson, Morgan Ortagus, Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, Esin Erkan, Jim Jeffrey, Joel Rayburn, Sara Bloomfield, Brett Ratner, Antoun Sehnaoui, Egyptian Ambassador Motaz Zahran, Azerbaijani Ambassador Khazar Ibrahim, Sherry Phillips, Elliot and Lea Ackerman, Sofia and Michael Haft, and Karim Sadjadpour. — The Daily Wire hosted a happy hour at Butterworth's last night, after announcing a new D.C. office and greater presence in the city. SPOTTED: Sonny Nelson, Kaelan Dorr, Brock Belcher, Brent Scher, Raheem Kassam, Russell Dye, Ryan Tillman, Matt Foldi, Michael Abboud, Maggie Abboud, Corinne Day, Mary Margaret Olohan, Shelby Talcott, Dave Hookstead, Bradley Bishop, Caleb Robinson, Greg Price, Bryn Jeffers, Josh Christenson, Gabe Kaminsky, Tim Rice, Roma Daravi, CJ Pearson, Bradley Jaye, Taylor Rogers, Kieghan Nangle, Olivia Wales and Terry Schilling. — EMILYs List held its annual national gala in D.C. on Wednesday night, marking its 40th anniversary. SPOTTED: Deb Haaland, Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Laphonza Butler, Barbara Mikulski, Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.), Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.), Sharice Davids (D-Kan.), Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.), Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.), Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), Gabby Giffords, Donna Edwards, Ellen Malcolm, Stephanie Schriock and Jessica Mackler. — Trust for the National Mall hosted its annual 'America's Ball For The Mall: The Road to 250' on Wednesday in a tent on the Mall, where it launched the 'Our Monumental Moment' campaign to raise $250 million in honor of America's 250th anniversary. The black-tie gala honored Commanders owner Josh Harris and America250 Chair Rosie Rios with the Trust's History, Heroes & Hope Awards, hosted by emcee Pamela Brown and co-chairs Georgette 'Gigi' Dixon, Stacy Kerr and CR Wooters, and Katie and Robby Zirkelbach. SPOTTED: Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Japanese Ambassador Shigeo Yamada, Larry Hogan, Wolf Blitzer, David Rubenstein, Ted Decker, Mark Clouse, Chip and Sally Akridge, Catherine Townsend, Bruce Broussard, Kellyanne Conway, Renee Fleming and Mark Ein. — SPOTTED at the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute Gala on Wednesday evening, which honored Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Dominican President Luis Abinader: Mary Ann Gomez Orta, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), Rob Menendez (D-N.J.), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Jose Mallea, Daniel Garza and Daniel Diaz-Balart. — SPOTTED at a party for Graydon Carter's new book, 'When the Going Was Good' ($32), hosted by Keith McNally at Lucy Mercer at Minetta Tavern on Wednesday night: Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.), Richard E. Grant, Antonia Hitchens, Kaitlan Collins, Phil Rucker, Kara Swisher and Amanda Katz, Robert Costa, Brooke Singman, Chris Isham, Shawn McCreesh, Maureen Dowd, Isabel Gouveia and Mana Afsari. MEDIA MOVE — Gemma Fox is joining Time as editorial director of news. She previously was deputy U.S. editor at The Times of London. The announcement TRANSITIONS — Evan Meyers and Tessa Berner are joining the Ingram Group as members. Meyers previously was deputy executive counsel for Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp. Berner previously was director of finance data at the RNC. … Rebecca Fatima Sta Maria is now a senior adviser in Kuala Lumpur at The Asia Group. She previously was executive director of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. … K&L Gates has added Marne Marotta and David Skillman as partners in its public policy and law practice. They previously were at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, and are Hill alums. … … Robert Blair is joining WestExec Advisors as a principal. He most recently led U.S. government affairs at Microsoft focused on national security and emerging technology issues, and is a Trump Commerce and White House alum. … Alan Estevez is now a senior adviser at Covington & Burling. He previously was undersecretary of Commerce for industry and security. … Riley Cagle is joining the Consumer Brands Association as manager of product policy. He previously managed the grassroots advocacy program and state advocacy teams at the American Industrial Hygiene Association. WEDDINGS — Andrew Smith, who recently started as health policy adviser for Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio), and Anna Newton, a professional staff member for the Senate Appropriations Committee, got married in Leesburg, Virginia, on April 12. Pic — Joseph Richardson Sprott, social media manager at the Truth Initiative, and Claire S. Gould, digital director of Al Gore's The Climate Reality Project, got married recently at Nina May. Pic, via Sam Hurd … Another pic HAPPY BIRTHDAY: NYT's Ezra Klein … Fox News' Dana Perino and Garrett Tenney … John McEntee … Justin Miller … Joel Kaplan … Parker Poling … Dhara Nayyar … NBC's Peter Nicholas … Third Way's Jon Cowan … Mark Leibovich … Taylor Andreae … POLITICO's Victoria Guida, Chris ReShore, Madi Alexander and James Romoser … Fabion Seaton … Ashley Schapitl … David Perera … Chris Ullman of Ullman Communications … Lauren Decot … Jason Linde … David Gergen … former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt … John Ashcroft … Kent Knutson … former Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) … Krystal Knight … Nihal Krishan … Theo LeCompte … Jonah Wendt … BGR Group's Anna Reese Couhig … Will Judson of Rep. Nathaniel Moran's (R-Texas) office … Stu Sandler Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here. Send Playbookers tips to playbook@ or text us on Signal here. Playbook couldn't happen without our editor Zack Stanton and Playbook Daily Briefing producer Callan Tansill-Suddath. Correction: Yesterday's Playbook misgendered Toby Douthat. She is a woman.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘The Dumbest S--t Ever': Ex-Pelosi Adviser Gets Candid About Jeffries
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries received mad props from the base this spring for his showdown with the GOP over Elon Musk and a potential government shutdown. But to hear one longtime Nancy Pelosi whisperer tell it, the New York Democrat's leadership is lacking. For Playbook Deep Dive's podcast this week, I invited the woman who ran the former speaker's anti-Trump war room, Ashley Etienne, to discuss Democrats' latest efforts to find a path back to political relevance. We talked about what Democratic kingmakers need to do to win back voters — from building out a better ground game to ditching attention-grabbing stunts that reek of desperation. She scoffed at the Democratic Party's failure to conduct an autopsy of what went wrong in 2024, which has left the party reaching contradictory conclusions about how to fix its problems. But the most interesting part of our conversation centered on Jeffries. While Etienne said she has 'a tremendous amount of respect' for Jeffries, she gave voice to concerns I've heard from some Democrats privately: that the New York Democrat hasn't shown enough backbone as a leader, and that his organizational skills are deficient at a time when strong, creative leadership is badly needed. 'Trump is just giving us all this incredible red meat. I mean, incredible. I've never seen anything like this before. It's like the biggest gift any party has been given by the opposition and we're just squandering it,' Etienne said, pointing to Jeffries as the main culprit. Etienne believes Jeffries isn't doing enough to wire the Democratic infrastructure with an anti-Trump message. He's not coordinating enough with outside groups and elected officials around the country, she said, or deploying his moderates to argue that the party needs to heed the center. 'If you don't have coordination, you've just got words on a paper that you're calling talking points,' she said. 'It's meaningless. And I think that's where we are right now.' Her criticism speaks volumes. Not only did she have a front-row seat to Pelosi as speaker — and her famed political instincts and iron grip on the party — Etienne ran point for the speaker on coordinating messaging. Earlier she worked for Barack Obama and House Oversight bull Elijah Cummings, and most recently, she served in the Biden White House, where she advised Kamala Harris for a time. The most shocking part of our conversation: Etienne said Jeffries' team has spurned the idea of seeking advice from Pelosi or her former team. She said she recently ran into Jeffries staffers and offered to help them. But they told her that 'the members don't want any Pelosi.' 'I was hearing from leadership staff that the leadership on Capitol Hill right now wants to sort of move away from that Pelosi era — that they … don't want to embrace anyone or anything that's like Pelosi,' she said. 'Which I just think is the dumbest s-h-i-t ever.' Pelosi, she added, is 'the baddest in the business. We actually landed punches. We actually won 40 seats. I'm just surprised that they're not calling everybody that has landed some punches on Trump asking for the best advice.' Jeffries spokesperson Christie Stephenson disputed the characterization of Jeffries' relationship with Pelosi as well as the description of the office's outreach. She said Jeffries often seeks the ex-speaker's input, something Pelosi's office confirmed. As for coordination, Stephenson said their office holds weekly calls with outside grassroots where attendance regularly tops 100 people, and often schedules calls with talking heads and outside strategists. To be sure, Jeffries has had some winning moments as leader, which Etienne acknowledged. Democrats credit him in part with helping push Joe Biden out of the 2024 race — though Pelosi herself started the mutiny behind the scenes. And months after taking over, Jeffries rallied his caucus to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker at a time when many were predicting that the party would fracture and the California Republican would survive. More recently, he's received praise for presenting a united front against the GOP's tax bill. Some centrist Democrats who might be enticed to negotiate with Republicans have instead blasted the bill as a giveaway to the rich. Still, Etienne is not wrong that Pelosi dominated the party apparatus in a way that Jeffries does not — at least not yet. In many ways, Pelosi operated like the conductor of a sprawling orchestra, bringing in liberal groups when she needed them to fire at Trump and cueing moderates when she needed the center to cool down the left. She knew exactly what turn of phrase would make Trump go ballistic — and she'd often press his buttons for maximum impact at just the moment to suit her needs. Jeffries is still finding his conductor's baton, Etienne suggested. Outside groups are thirsting for more guidance and many are asking her how to help replicate what she did with Pelosi's team. 'They're not hearing from Capitol Hill right now, and I think that's a huge loss,' Etienne said. Not everyone agrees. Some believe Pelosi's outreach amounted to getting groups on the phone and dictating to them. Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee told me last night that 'we hear more for Jeffries than we ever heard from Pelosi.' Yet during our interview in the POLITICO newsroom Wednesday, Etienne held up her phone and gave an example. That very morning, she noted, Jeffries was giving a speech about 100 days fighting Trump, but no one from his team sent talking points about what he said. 'And I'm going to be doing TV and this interview all day,' she said. 'That's a failure.' 'How do you get to discipline if you're not telling people what the hell you want them to say?' she added. Jeffries' office says they did multiple calls with outside groups to preview the speech and that Etienne was on one of them. Meanwhile, some longtime centrist party bosses have privately questioned whether Jeffries can stand up to the left. His decision to embrace a shutdown earlier this year — averted only after Chuck Schumer threw himself on the sword — has led some to question whether the new leader has what it takes to tell the base no, though Etienne did give him credit for keeping the caucus together. Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, did it all the time, 'I need your energy, not your policy,' she'd often say. And the former speaker would regularly quash progressive ideas bubbling up in her own caucus, from Medicare for All to the Green New Deal. Jeffries hasn't done much to push back on the left so far. Some Democrats wanted him to rebuke Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) for his outburst during Trump's joint address to Congress; Jeffries refused. Others argued that he bowed to liberal groups when he decided to whip his members against a GOP bill targeting sanctuary cities, even as the party maintains abysmal poll numbers on immigration. Jeffries is generally known for his caution, sticking to his talking points and rehearsed lines. He's a former corporate lawyer and often acts like it. But with Democrats divided, Etienne said members are craving forceful and visionary leadership. She's heard some House Democrats express frustration that Jeffries — who has a reputation for governing by consensus — solicits too much feedback before making a decision. (Though some Democrats like that he's the opposite of Pelosi's top-down approach.) 'He takes too much counsel and then takes too long to make a decision — which says that maybe you don't trust your gut in the moment — which, you know, is also fair when you're a new leader, because you're still trying to figure it all out,' Etienne said. But it 'might also suggest maybe you don't have a handle on the caucus — or you don't have a hand on how to actually land some punches on Donald Trump.' Even when Jeffries has planted a flag, she points out that he's had trouble containing his members at times. During Trump's address to Congress, Jeffries specifically instructed his caucus not to protest; instead, dozens of them made such a pitiful scene breaking decorum rules that the party became the story instead of the controversial president at the podium. One thing Pelosi did in moments like this was 'leverage the moderate Democrats against the progressive Democrats,' Etienne said. I remember it well from covering her: Behind the scenes, she'd green light people like then-Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) or other frontline members to blast ideas from the left — like impeaching Trump or defunding the police and ICE — as dumb politics. 'Where Pelosi would always start is: We've got to get to a win — that's all that matters,' she said. 'Without the moderates, we don't win. Without winning, we don't have the majority. We can't do what we really want to do. And progressives would eventually cower to that argument.' Etienne has a simple theory on why she says Jeffries isn't going to Pelosi for help: 'Ego — I hate to say it.' She said Jeffries and his team are trying to establish themselves as leaders — and in fairness, it's hard to imagine Pelosi as a quiet sidekick who wouldn't dominate the entire conversation. But Jeffries could certainly pick up some useful pointers from his predecessor even as he puts his own stamp on the role. After all, Pelosi had decades to hone her skills before she met her greatest match in Trump. Jeffries is effectively learning everything on the job. Per Etienne, maybe he should pick up the phone and call Nancy more often.
Politico
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
‘The Dumbest S--t Ever': Ex-Pelosi Adviser Gets Candid About Jeffries
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries received mad props from the base this spring for his showdown with the GOP over Elon Musk and a potential government shutdown. But to hear one longtime Nancy Pelosi whisperer tell it, the New York Democrat's leadership is lacking. For Playbook Deep Dive's podcast this week, I invited the woman who ran the former speaker's anti-Trump war room, Ashley Etienne, to discuss Democrats' latest efforts to find a path back to political relevance. We talked about what Democratic kingmakers need to do to win back voters — from building out a better ground game to ditching attention-grabbing stunts that reek of desperation. She scoffed at the Democratic Party's failure to conduct an autopsy of what went wrong in 2024, which has left the party reaching contradictory conclusions about how to fix its problems. But the most interesting part of our conversation centered on Jeffries. While Etienne said she has 'a tremendous amount of respect' for Jeffries, she gave voice to concerns I've heard from some Democrats privately: that the New York Democrat hasn't shown enough backbone as a leader, and that his organizational skills are deficient at a time when strong, creative leadership is badly needed. 'Trump is just giving us all this incredible red meat. I mean, incredible. I've never seen anything like this before. It's like the biggest gift any party has been given by the opposition and we're just squandering it,' Etienne said, pointing to Jeffries as the main culprit. Etienne believes Jeffries isn't doing enough to wire the Democratic infrastructure with an anti-Trump message. He's not coordinating enough with outside groups and elected officials around the country, she said, or deploying his moderates to argue that the party needs to heed the center. 'If you don't have coordination, you've just got words on a paper that you're calling talking points,' she said. 'It's meaningless. And I think that's where we are right now.' Her criticism speaks volumes. Not only did she have a front-row seat to Pelosi as speaker — and her famed political instincts and iron grip on the party — Etienne ran point for the speaker on coordinating messaging. Earlier she worked for Barack Obama and House Oversight bull Elijah Cummings, and most recently, she served in the Biden White House, where she advised Kamala Harris for a time. The most shocking part of our conversation: Etienne said Jeffries' team has spurned the idea of seeking advice from Pelosi or her former team. She said she recently ran into Jeffries staffers and offered to help them. But they told her that 'the members don't want any Pelosi.' 'I was hearing from leadership staff that the leadership on Capitol Hill right now wants to sort of move away from that Pelosi era — that they … don't want to embrace anyone or anything that's like Pelosi,' she said. 'Which I just think is the dumbest s-h-i-t ever.' Pelosi, she added, is 'the baddest in the business. We actually landed punches. We actually won 40 seats. I'm just surprised that they're not calling everybody that has landed some punches on Trump asking for the best advice.' Jeffries spokesperson Christie Stephenson disputed the characterization of Jeffries' relationship with Pelosi as well as the description of the office's outreach. She said Jeffries often seeks the ex-speaker's input, something Pelosi's office confirmed. As for coordination, Stephenson said their office holds weekly calls with outside grassroots where attendance regularly tops 100 people, and often schedules calls with talking heads and outside strategists. To be sure, Jeffries has had some winning moments as leader, which Etienne acknowledged. Democrats credit him in part with helping push Joe Biden out of the 2024 race — though Pelosi herself started the mutiny behind the scenes. And months after taking over, Jeffries rallied his caucus to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker at a time when many were predicting that the party would fracture and the California Republican would survive. More recently, he's received praise for presenting a united front against the GOP's tax bill. Some centrist Democrats who might be enticed to negotiate with Republicans have instead blasted the bill as a giveaway to the rich. Still, Etienne is not wrong that Pelosi dominated the party apparatus in a way that Jeffries does not — at least not yet. In many ways, Pelosi operated like the conductor of a sprawling orchestra, bringing in liberal groups when she needed them to fire at Trump and cueing moderates when she needed the center to cool down the left. She knew exactly what turn of phrase would make Trump go ballistic — and she'd often press his buttons for maximum impact at just the moment to suit her needs. Jeffries is still finding his conductor's baton, Etienne suggested. Outside groups are thirsting for more guidance and many are asking her how to help replicate what she did with Pelosi's team. 'They're not hearing from Capitol Hill right now, and I think that's a huge loss,' Etienne said. Not everyone agrees. Some believe Pelosi's outreach amounted to getting groups on the phone and dictating to them. Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee told me last night that 'we hear more for Jeffries than we ever heard from Pelosi.' Yet during our interview in the POLITICO newsroom Wednesday, Etienne held up her phone and gave an example. That very morning, she noted, Jeffries was giving a speech about 100 days fighting Trump, but no one from his team sent talking points about what he said. 'And I'm going to be doing TV and this interview all day,' she said. 'That's a failure.' 'How do you get to discipline if you're not telling people what the hell you want them to say?' she added. Jeffries' office says they did multiple calls with outside groups to preview the speech and that Etienne was on one of them. Meanwhile, some longtime centrist party bosses have privately questioned whether Jeffries can stand up to the left. His decision to embrace a shutdown earlier this year — averted only after Chuck Schumer threw himself on the sword — has led some to question whether the new leader has what it takes to tell the base no, though Etienne did give him credit for keeping the caucus together. Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, did it all the time, 'I need your energy, not your policy,' she'd often say. And the former speaker would regularly quash progressive ideas bubbling up in her own caucus, from Medicare for All to the Green New Deal. Jeffries hasn't done much to push back on the left so far. Some Democrats wanted him to rebuke Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) for his outburst during Trump's joint address to Congress; Jeffries refused. Others argued that he bowed to liberal groups when he decided to whip his members against a GOP bill targeting sanctuary cities, even as the party maintains abysmal poll numbers on immigration. Jeffries is generally known for his caution, sticking to his talking points and rehearsed lines. He's a former corporate lawyer and often acts like it. But with Democrats divided, Etienne said members are craving forceful and visionary leadership. She's heard some House Democrats express frustration that Jeffries — who has a reputation for governing by consensus — solicits too much feedback before making a decision. (Though some Democrats like that he's the opposite of Pelosi's top-down approach.) 'He takes too much counsel and then takes too long to make a decision — which says that maybe you don't trust your gut in the moment — which, you know, is also fair when you're a new leader, because you're still trying to figure it all out,' Etienne said. But it 'might also suggest maybe you don't have a handle on the caucus — or you don't have a hand on how to actually land some punches on Donald Trump.' Even when Jeffries has planted a flag, she points out that he's had trouble containing his members at times. During Trump's address to Congress, Jeffries specifically instructed his caucus not to protest; instead, dozens of them made such a pitiful scene breaking decorum rules that the party became the story instead of the controversial president at the podium. One thing Pelosi did in moments like this was 'leverage the moderate Democrats against the progressive Democrats,' Etienne said. I remember it well from covering her: Behind the scenes, she'd green light people like then-Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) or other frontline members to blast ideas from the left — like impeaching Trump or defunding the police and ICE — as dumb politics. 'Where Pelosi would always start is: We've got to get to a win — that's all that matters,' she said. 'Without the moderates, we don't win. Without winning, we don't have the majority. We can't do what we really want to do. And progressives would eventually cower to that argument.' Etienne has a simple theory on why she says Jeffries isn't going to Pelosi for help: 'Ego — I hate to say it.' She said Jeffries and his team are trying to establish themselves as leaders — and in fairness, it's hard to imagine Pelosi as a quiet sidekick who wouldn't dominate the entire conversation. But Jeffries could certainly pick up some useful pointers from his predecessor even as he puts his own stamp on the role. After all, Pelosi had decades to hone her skills before she met her greatest match in Trump. Jeffries is effectively learning everything on the job. Per Etienne, maybe he should pick up the phone and call Nancy more often.
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former Clinton Adviser: Democrats Should Follow Bernie Sanders and AOC
As Democrats grapple with how to find their way back to power, one party strategist has some surprising advice. Or at least, it may be surprising coming from him. Doug Sosnik is a longtime Democratic strategist best known for being a top adviser to Bill Clinton. He's a self-described member of the party's centrist wing. But he says it's now time for Democrats to take a page from the progressive left's playbook. 'I think that what Bernie Sanders and AOC have been saying — which is really a populist economic agenda — I think that is an important element for the Democratic Party going forward,' he said in an interview with thePlaybook Deep Dive podcast. Sosnik is also blunt about Democrats' predicament as President Donald Trump upends Washington, but argues the party has an opportunity to refine its message ahead of 2026, and more importantly, 2028. 'We're out of power. We can't get anything done,' he said. 'But at least we need to be able to articulate a coherent narrative about the future that can appeal to the middle class.' Sosnik also talked about which Democrats intrigued him as potential 2028 presidential contenders — mostly governors, but one senator did come up — as well as who was not likely to end up as the nominee. 'There are indoor politicians and outdoor politicians,' Sosnik said. 'Indoor politicians have a roof over them. They're senators, they give speeches. Outdoor politicians are people that are out there in the field, they're in the crowds.' Keep an eye on the ones outside. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Renee Klahr and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the full Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here: Doug, you've got this set of slides out and some information that you want to share with the party, with the voters, with the political class. What was the goal here? I used to say in the runup to the 2024 election, you can't understand the 2024 election tree if you don't understand the forest that it's sitting in. And we're going through an historic period of transition in our country, and it's in real time. It roots back 50 years or so to the early 1970s with the beginning of the decline of the middle class in America. In combination with that, there is a feeling by a lot of people of alienation toward our leaders and institutions. I want to talk about where the Democrats are in this moment, because we are watching a party that's trying to figure it out, and there are a number of different ways people are going about it: You have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders out there trying to rally progressives and the youth. You have James Carville saying, let's just hush up and be quiet and watch what Trump does and let him do the damage himself. And then you have Gavin Newsom out there launching a podcast, talking to Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and trying to bridge some of those partisan divides. Do you want to settle the argument? What's the right way to do this? I'll answer that question, but some context first: The Democratic Party is long overdue for what we're doing right now. For the last quarter of a century, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and the Obama-Biden presidency have dominated the Democratic Party. So there's been a whole generation of elected officials who have never had an opportunity to step forward to see who's got the right stuff. That's happening now. And the other thing is, for the last nine years, the organizing principle of the Democratic Party has not been who we are and what we want. It's been organized solely around our opposition to Donald Trump. So we have not had an opportunity as a party to sort out who we are, what we believe in, and who our leaders have been. So we're beginning this process now, and it's not a very pleasant process to watch. But we shouldn't be surprised that the Democrats are in turmoil. We shouldn't be surprised that there's no leader right now — we're in the opposition. We shouldn't be surprised that we're flailing around, trying to figure out who we are and what we're about because we have not been dealing with these challenges for a long, long time and there's no quick fix. Are any of the directions that the Democrats are trying out right now the right way to go? Or do you think it all needs to happen at the same time? Well, I think it has to be sequential. We didn't get in this situation overnight as a party with our popularity now under 30 percent, and we're not going to fix it overnight. I think there are several steps that we need to take going forward. The first is we have to have a narrative of defining Trump and the Republicans based on what they're doing or not doing to help people in this country. If we talk about, as an example, Elon Musk. It doesn't do us any good to go after Musk in the abstract. It has to go back to Trump and his presidency, not about Musk himself. I think we also have to at least pass the laugh test [of having an] agenda for the future. We're out of power. We can't get anything done. But at least we need to be able to articulate a coherent narrative about the future that can appeal to the middle class and particularly people in this country, the 70 percent who don't have a four-year college degree. Now, I worked for Bill Clinton for six years and I would say I come from that wing of the Democratic Party. But I'll have to say, on economic issues, I think that what Bernie Sanders and AOC have been saying — which is really a populist economic agenda — I think that is an important element for the Democratic Party going forward. I think they are right about their economic message, and I think the message that we need as a party to largely focus on is economics and how it ties back to the middle class. The last couple things I'll say is we need to do well in the midterms, and I think we probably will. But that's just an incremental part of the solution. The long-term solution for our party is going to sink or swim based on who we nominate for president and whether or not they win the election. So Democrats should have their eye on the prize for 2028, not 2026? Well, I think we have to multitask. What we need to do to be successful in 2026 is not in conflict with what we need to do in 2028. I say there's always one and a half political parties in America. There's the party that's in control of the White House and then there's the half party, which is in the opposition. We are the half party right now. We are in control of nothing. Now, for us to get back, we have to be able to define the Republicans and Trump, and they're helping us a lot. But we have to be able to define them in a way that drives down their numbers, which is happening in real time right now. And that's part of it. But ultimately, we could have a wildly successful midterm — in 2010, the Republicans had the most successful midterm since World War II, and two years later, they lost the White House. So it's only an element. But the job is ultimately to not make the Democratic Party brand so toxic that it brings down our 2028 nominee. Do you think that Democrats like Sen. Chris Van Hollen fighting these deportations is playing into Trump's hands? Do you think these are the issues people want to see Democrats stand up for? Well, I think that ultimately the most important issues for us to focus on are the issues that people care about, which is their lives and the economy. I do think that we have a moral obligation that when something is so manifestly wrong, on the deportations and what they're doing to that poor guy in El Salvador, I think we have an obligation to speak out about that, even though it's not our best argument against Trump. Do you see Democrats missing the moment? Because you said that there have been multiple instances where the Trump administration has given you guys these gifts, these opportunities to point out wrongdoing. Well, we're the opposition party. We're out of power. By definition, you can look at it one of two ways: Either we have a large number of leaders or we have no leader. And we fundamentally, as the opposition party, don't have a leader. And we're not going to have a leader until we have a nominee in 2028. It's not going to be the congressional wing of the party that's going to — That's a long time, though, to wait for someone to come out of the woodwork and lead. Most people either do campaigns or they do government. And that's one of the problems I think Trump has right now is he's running the government like it's a campaign. Ultimately, the Republicans and Trump are going to be defined by what they do or don't do in governing, and how they govern and whether people's lives have improved or not. If the public is very dissatisfied with the Republican leadership, which I think they are going to be, that's a prerequisite for Democrats to come back to power. But that's not going to be enough. That's the first step and it's an important step, but ultimately, there's such distrust with Democrats and who we are and how we've governed that even if the Republicans implode, that doesn't guarantee the Democrats are going to assume power. I think what your slides show is that Democrats have struggled both with message and messenger, with policy and policy makers. How do you find your way out of that? I think we can work on an architecture of a message, which shows our values. And I think, again, as I said earlier about AOC and Bernie, I think a lot of their economic messages against the rich and the oligarchs [are a good start] and I think having a pro-middle class agenda, like say, a federal minimum wage — Do you think that's the stronger direction versus what Gavin Newsom is doing in trying to maybe appeal more to the center and bringing on conservative folks onto his platform? Gavin Newsom is doing something tactically to show that he can hang out with people who don't believe what he believes in. But AOC and Bernie Sanders — and I'm not from that wing of the party — what they are doing is talking about what they think should be done from a policy perspective to improve people's lives. We need a strategy, not a tactic. And our strategy should be based at least on what our values are and what agenda we would have if we ever were able to return to power. And I think their economic populist message is an important element for that. You wrote once in an op-ed for the New York Times about how one of the reasons Democrats rebounded with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama was because they weren't really from the establishment. Does that mean that the future for the party in 2028 might be more like a Mark Cuban or a Stephen A. Smith rather than a Gretchen Whitmer or a Gavin Newsom? I don't think the future of our party is looking for a Mark Cuban or Steven A. Smith, let me start with that. I think it's probably either an elected official or a citizen leader from the states and not from Washington. And not from the coast. Someone who's authentic, who, you know — You're talking governors, mayors. Yes. Governors and mayors are CEOs. They do stuff, right? They're executives. They live above the restaurant and come down every day to work. I'll tell you, the way I look at politics is there are indoor politicians and outdoor politicians. Indoor politicians have a roof over them. They're senators, they give speeches. Outdoor politicians are people that are out there in the field, they're in the crowds. The people are sweating on them. And Trump's an outdoor politician, by the way. Yes, he is. I've been outdoors a lot with him. Politics has changed significantly, but one of the things that hasn't changed is people want happy warriors as candidates. They want people who are running for office who they feel are enjoying themselves and that they like people. And, you know, I think there's a toxic, angry sort of vibe to the Trump rallies, but there's also kind of the joy of the event. Oh, yeah. I mean, it has a fair-like vibe, right? People bring their kids, they bring picnic baskets — it's kind of a party. Yes and I think that Trump — he is what he is. And so there's an authenticity to what I think is a profoundly horrible human being, but there's an authenticity to him that I think in an age where people are cynical and feel like nothing's on the level, at least they can take him for what he is. I have spent the last four years traveling the country and seeing what you have put into these slides play out on the ground: People without a college degree, more voters of color and young people gravitating toward Trump. And like you said, Trump is a symptom but this has been a long time evolution and change within the parties. I think the original bad seed for what's happened in America goes back to the Vietnam War in the 1960s. That was the first war where we were not all in this together. That was the first time that if you had money and power, you could game the system. I think that began this schism in our society between the people who have money and power and the other people who don't. And I think for the people who don't have money and power, they resent it. That is literally what Trump has used as part of his rallying cry: The system is rigged against you, and I'm for you. Why have Democrats so struggled to capture that? I think we're captured a little bit by who we are and who we hang out with. Go back to Biden's victory. Biden was the first president to get elected since Bush in '88 without a political base. The Democratic Party was like a federation of special interests that all came together. They feared in the early primaries in 2020 that we were heading to nominating Bernie Sanders to be president. So, almost like a chemical reaction, the party coalesced around Biden because they thought that Sanders would bring the party down. And that's how Biden became the nominee. Do you think they were wrong in that assessment? No, I think history has proven they were right in the sense that Biden won, and by the way, he barely won. And I don't see anyone else who was running at the time that would have won. But the point is, Biden came to office beholden to a federation of special interests. I don't remember a single time in his presidency where he took on any single interest group. The combination of having special interest groups driving the party and elites who are college educated and concentrated on the coasts and in college towns — as a result of that, we became out of touch with America. The fundamental question I've been trying to get a sense of with Democrats is, is the answer in this moment to fully oppose Trump or to see if there are ways that you can work with him? What is the way to get back some of those people who went toward Trump because of their frustrations with the party? As I said earlier, I think we have to do two things. One is we have to define Trump in a consistent way so that everything we say about him goes back to the same narrative — which I think is largely built around his administration is screwing the middle class in this country. But who does that? Do you put out the playbook and everyone follows it? Or is there some edict from the DNC? How do you actually get the messengers of the party that are out there right now on the same page about that? Well, there's nobody in control by definition. I think it would be helpful for the federal wing, the congressional wing of the Democratic Party, to be able to come together with an agreement on what that is. We have a lot of people, but we need to create a center of gravity. In terms of what success looks like two years later, we want to have a good midterm. I think we'll win the governor's race in Virginia this year and the press will overstate how important that is. It's good to do well in politics, so we should do that. And we need to be able to define Trump and I think, back to your question, I think he makes it easy. The Republicans in Congress — even if you wanted to work with them, they're making it impossible based on the policy positions they're taking, based on how they're governing. So even if you want to work with this administration, it's almost impossible to do based on the fact that he's completely driven by his MAGA base. The way he's executing the office of the president is something we've never seen in our country before. So you think there's no benefit to Democrats trying to work with the Republican Party in this moment? You think opposition is the answer? I think if we can find something to agree on, we should. But I don't think, based on how they're governing, that's going to be a real problem for Democrats. But you do see it being a problem for Democrats. The image floating around of Gretchen Whitmer in the Oval Office with the binders in front of her face — I think that is an image that captures the bind the Democrats are in. They want to be there but they don't want to be there. I don't think there's been a clear answer of, 'Do we participate and try to find common ground or are we just the opposition?' And when you try to do both, you end up in the Oval with a binder in front of your face. Well, let's talk about that for a moment. That's a good example of how the process of running for president weeds out people. So, she walked into that room not expecting what happened to have happened. Probably the best thing to have done — and I'm sure if she could do it over again, she would not have used the binder strategy — is that she should have walked up to the desk where the president was and explained what was coming out of his mouth — she's completely opposed to it, and these are the reasons why. And then she should have left. So, that's a perfect example of a process that's going to help weed out — Do you think Whitmer's been weeded out? No, of course not. I think Obama and Clinton back in the early days of their campaigns made similar mistakes. So the question isn't, do you make a mistake like that? The question is, as you campaign and operate, do you learn from that? And she, of course, could be an extremely viable person. That's part of the benefit of going through all this. We've talked about a number of names: Whitmer, Newsom. What about Kamala Harris? Should she try to run for the White House again? Well, the first thing she has to decide is whether she's going to run for governor and obviously you have to think about whether she'll run for president. Should she run for governor? I think she shouldn't decide what she's going to do for any elected office unless she knows why she's running. If you can't answer that, you shouldn't run. Do you think, given the toxicity of the Democratic brand that you talked about, that some of the leaders that were so visible at a time when the Democratic brand was so toxic should still be out front and center? The short answer is no. I think the country wants new leadership. Give me some names that make you optimistic about the party. I think a variety of governors around the country. You mentioned Whitmer, [JB] Pritzker. [Josh] Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. [Jared] Polis out in Colorado. These are people who have been governors. They've performed extremely well. They have credibility in talking about where they want to lead the country based on what they've accomplished as governor. You know, maybe [Gov. Wes] Moore from Maryland. I think we have a half a dozen to a dozen people who potentially could be attractive candidates but, again, we are never really going to know who's got what until they're out there and are forced to perform. Talk to your party. What should they do over the next year? I think the most important thing is to have a narrative both about defining Trump and the Republican Party, every single day — we bring it back to that narrative. And the second thing is we ought to have a set of principles and positions that are primarily economic that demonstrate what we are for and who we are as a party. And I think that largely that's what we should be doing between now and the midterm. Are there issues that Democrats need to let go of, put on the back burner? Well, when I run campaigns, there are two kinds of issues. There are issues you win on and issues you lose on. So if you're running a campaign, what you want to do is try to neutralize the issues you lose on so you can talk about the issues you can win on. And so to me, the issues that we can win on are economic and I think that the populist economic message that Sanders and AOC are putting out is largely the direction as a party that we should pursue. I think we are better off not talking about social issues and to the extent that we do, I think that we should try to figure out how to neutralize those issues so that we can move back to the issues that we could win on, because I firmly believe that this country is going to learn, in very real terms and very soon, what the implications are of the shock and awe, first 100 days of Trump and how it's going to impact their lives. I also believe that an increasing number of people in this country are dependent on what government does for them; and while they may not appreciate it as much now, they're going to appreciate it more when they see the impact of all the DOGE cuts. And it wasn't strategic. It was a fire now and aim later. It's a countless number of things that people take for granted in our government right now. And when they're no longer being performed by our government and people see the impact in their lives, they are going to know who to blame. Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
