It takes a lot for Donald Trump to shock a political audience at this point, but that’s what happened during last week’s debate when he said he’d let us all know whether he’d accept the election results once Election Day gets here. That followed weeks of claiming that the election is rigged against him and of warnings to his followers that the whole thing might be stolen at the ballot box.
The display was enough to make a person hate politics. But I have a surprising cure for you if you’re looking for a more inspiring example of American statesmanship — the moment in 1995 when House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt gave the speaker’s gavel to Newt Gingrich after the GOP won control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years.
If you haven’t watched the video of the handoff lately, you should. There in the grainy C-SPAN footage, you’ll see two adversaries rising together to a level of great leadership after a bitter campaign. Gephardt, magnanimous in defeat, told Gingrich, “with faith and with friendship and the deepest respect, you are now my speaker.”
Gingrich, who some remember only for his bareknuckled partisan brawls, was equally gracious in victory. He thanked Gephardt and outgoing Speaker Tom Foley for their hard work in the House before him and gently scolded his own caucus for cheering the Democrats’ defeat on the House floor moments earlier.
The two men went on to spar with each other as leaders for the next four years, but they had a mutual respect for each other then and remain friends today. At an event that they headlined together in Atlanta last week, Gephardt remembered his thoughts on the morning he prepared to lead the same peaceful transition of power that had defined American democracy for more than 200 years before that day.
“I wanted to say the right things to put it in the right context,” Gephardt recalled. “To say, ‘This is a big moment, this is the end of 40 years of Democratic rule. We say it with resignation, because we lost, but we also say it with respect, because you are now our speaker and we will help you and work with you in anyway we can to make this work for all Americans.’”
Gingrich remembered walking from his apartment in the Methodist Building that morning to the Capitol, choking up as he described the moment he looked from the Speakers balcony toward the Lincoln Monument.
“I thinking, ‘I’m a lieutenant colonel’s son, who has been awarded by the people of Georgia 16 years representing them and selected by his colleagues, and I’m not about to have this burden,’” Gingrich said. “‘And my job is to represent the country for as long as the country wants me to.’”
The years that followed for the two weren’t exactly a picnic. Republicans pushed government shutdowns in 1995 and 1996. Later, they pursued the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. But even with those emotional scenes playing out in the headlines, Congress continued doing the work of keeping the government running, while also passing major legislation like welfare reform and delivering balanced budgets.
How did they do it? Both men described a recipe that any legislator will recognize — the need for patience, persistence, literally years of meetings, and taking the long view. They also both spoke of a process that was agonizing and frustrating, but ultimately worthwhile.
“The great genius of the American system is, tomorrow morning, the dance continues,” Gingrich said. “No matter what happens, the dance continues. Whoever wins in November, the dance continues.”
But what if one of the dancers isn’t dancing to the same tune? What if the political climate has become so dislodged from American tradition that a competitor like Trump refuses to accept the election results, no matter the outcome?
At a press conference after the event, both Gephardt and Gingrich said Trump had the right to wait until Election Day to decide how to handle the election. But that was where the similarities ended. Gingrich agreed with Trump that “the system” is rigged against conservatives and outsiders and asked why a Trump challenge to the election results would be any different from what Al Gore did in 2000.
But Gephardt said he is “horrified” by Trump’s rigged rhetoric, which “tears at the very foundation of our democracy.”
“As a former candidate, I can understand any candidate’s position that you do not want to preapprove the procedure by which an election is conducted,” Gephardt said in a later conversation. “But it is completely unacceptable for Candidate Trump to assert that this election is rigged against him. It is also completely unacceptable for him to assert that he will not accept the decision of the American people in this election.”
That the two men could disagree so strongly on Trump’s conduct of the election but also sit down earlier to discuss the strength of American democracy did not undercut their message of respect and unity — it reinforced it. Gingrich and Gephardt could agree on some matters, disagree on others, and the dance continued. As it always should.
Roll Call columnist Patricia Murphy covers national politics for The Daily Beast. Previously, she was the Capitol Hill bureau chief for Politics Daily and founder and editor of Citizen Jane Politics. Follow her on Twitter @1PatriciaMurphy.
Jessica Gail became the chairwoman of the Democratic Communicators Network in August. By day, she’s the communications director for Indiana Democratic Rep. André Carson.
The network, commonly called DCNet, was started in 2007 by Will Jenkins, who worked on the Hill for five years and is now in public affairs at the White House.
Gail, 31, first came to the Hill in 2013 to work for former Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson from Utah. When he announced his retirement in 2014, she had to search for another job.
“I knew I wanted to stay on the Hill,” she said. “I found DCNet, got to know more [communications] people and just that networking helped me find a job.”
DCNet is made up of Democrats who work in communications for the House, Senate and executive branch. Its goal is to connect Democratic messaging operations.
Besides Gail, there is an active board made up of seven members who each help plan and carry out the activities.
“I think it’s so important to make sure that people and communicators who work on the Hill have a network and a way to get to know people to turn to when they have questions,” Gail said. “Because when I came to the Hill, I had so many questions. I didn’t know how it worked.”
“There will be a lot of new people coming in so a big goal we have in November, December, January, is making sure that right out of the gate, people know about DCNet,” she added. “They know about the things we can provide. Because it took me 10 months before I was like, ‘Oh, it exists.’”
The network’s mentee program set Gail up with Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s deputy communications director, Emily Latimer. The two meet frequently and are in constant contact over email.
“[Emily is] trying to move up the ranks a little bit and I’ve helped her with speechwriting and trying to build better relationships with reporters,” Gail said.
On becoming a mentor, she said it depends on how ready you feel.
“I knew being on the Hill three and a half years that I had enough experience,” she said. “People have a general feeling.”
The network has 1,100 staffers on its email list.
In terms of its events, “It’s kind of a mix between doing things socially, happy hours and things like that, and doing things that we’re learning from,” Gail said.
In March, there is an annual New York trip during which the network meets with news organizations. They also have various panels throughout the year such as one on speechwriting.
“So many of my friends are involved or on the Hill and to me, this is fun and this is something I enjoy doing,” Gail said. “It’s something I’m passionate about because I want to make sure people have the resources they need to do a good job.”
And Carson, her boss, has the same mindset too, Gail said.
“I think he’s so young and had great mentors in his life that he wants to see people thrive. His grandmother was in Congress and he’s really worked his way up. My goal is not to be in Congress but my goal is to have people reach their full potential and that’s his goal for everybody as well,” she said.
One of the most patriotic toasts, often used at social occasions in the military, is “To the President of the United States.” It is part of what binds us as a country and it is a hallmark of the social compact that supports the world’s most successful democracy.
Donald Trump — during the last presidential debate of his fast-imploding career — repudiated that proud tradition with the most shocking comment that he has uttered in his inflammatory campaign. Asked whether he would accept the results of an election that he seems destined to lose, Trump said, “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.”
During the same answer Trump rediscovered his authoritarian side by dramatically announcing that his Democratic opponent “shouldn’t be allowed to run. It’s crooked.” That’s right — because of charges about her homebrew email server that the FBI director said did not warrant prosecution — Trump would have banned Hillary Clinton from the ballot.
It is worth recalling that in 1920, Eugene Debs, as the Socialist candidate for president, received nearly 1 million votes while serving as Prisoner 9653 in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. Debs’ conviction for opposing American entry into World War I was unjust. But back in 1920, no one suggested that he should be banned from the ballot in a democracy.
Little more than three weeks ago, on a debate stage at Hofstra University, the last realistic hope of a Trump presidency died. The polls today might have been different if the former reality-show host had actually rehearsed for the first debate; had he refrained from bragging about not paying taxes; had he resisted the urge to interrupt the first woman nominated for president; and had he not taken Hillary’s bait about his belittling a Miss Universe winner.
But that would have required a candidate with more maturity than the 70-year-old megalomaniac with a rapidly tarnishing brand.
Somewhere in Trump Tower, there must be a portrait of the pensive, statesmanlike Donald Trump with his chin resting on his right hand as he ponders global problems. But in the reverse of “The Picture of Dorian Gray” all the grace lies in the portrait while Trump the Candidate is a snarling mass of prejudice, misinformation and deliberate lies.
There was an interlude at the beginning of this debate, adroitly moderated by Chris Wallace, when that other Donald Trump was on display. His answers during the opening segment on the Supreme Court were conventional right-wing Republican boilerplate as he talked about “putting pro-life justices on the court” so that the states would decide whether abortion were legal.
The bilious billionaire even maintained his composure, for a while, when the topic turned to the hot-button issue of immigration. Even as Clinton egged Trump on — suggesting that “he choked” during his meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto — the Republican nominee resisted the provocation. That is, until Clinton used a mention of Wikileaks to switch the subject to Vladimir Putin.
Trump initially held his own by making the apt point, “That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders. OK? How did we get to Putin?” But then, rather than scrambling back to the border issue, Trump insisted on talking about a fantasy world where “Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS.”
That gave Clinton an opportunity to use a line that she had obviously rehearsed about how Putin would “rather have a puppet as president of the United States.” Within seconds — in a moment that the late Jim Henson, the creator of the Muppets might have cherished — Trump was reduced to shouting “No puppet. No puppet.”
Before long, as he harked back to a bizarre riff that he has employed whenever Putin was blamed for intruding on the American election, Trump once again denied the assessment of the US intelligence community that Russian hackers were responsible for the Wikileaks release of Clinton campaign documents. As Trump put it, in a dismissive rejection of his own government intelligence briefing, “Our country has no idea.”
But the moment when Trump finally lost his last ounce of self-control — the moment that he forgot every debate briefing that he had dutifully endured — came during the closing minutes of the Vegas Non-Valentine. Of all the trigger lines that Hillary Clinton had rehearsed, the one that finally turned Trump into a sputtering firecracker were the words “replenish the Social Security Trust Fund.”
As soon as she uttered that explosive phrase, Trump interrupted with an epithet that will be a centerpiece of all college gender studies courses for the next generation, “Such a nasty woman.”
One of Trump’s favorite words is “disaster” which he used 10 times in the debate to describe everything from trade deals to open borders to Aleppo to Obamacare to life in the inner city. But what is an unmentioned disaster is the presidential campaign of the man that a cheering Republican Party nominated in Cleveland.
Trump, judging from the polls and his performance in the final debate, is headed for a presidential defeat on par with Michael Dukakis’ loss to a triumphant George H.W. Bush in 1988. That was a year when the Democrats should have won back the White House after a sad-eyed, scandal-plagued end to the Ronald Reagan presidency. But they nominated the wrong candidate.
Michael Dukakis is an honorable man. Donald Trump is an affront to American democracy and the political party that nominated him. I hope that Republican Chairman Reince Priebus — who pronounced the GOP race over after May 3 Indiana primary and stifled dissent at the Cleveland convention — enjoyed the last debate of a drowning Trump candidacy.
It was all going so well Wednesday night, with moderator Chris Wallace keeping the audience relatively quiet and the candidates focused on issues — the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, immigration and gun control.
But then it became a reality TV show gone bad, with the worst cliffhanger ever, when Donald Trump promised to keep the country “in suspense” when asked if he would accept the results of the Nov. 8 election.
“I will tell you at the time,” he said, when Wallace pressed the question, after Trump doubled-down on his disproved assertions that voting is “rigged,” his increasingly ominous rally warnings of rampant fraud in the “cities,” and his recruitment of freelance poll-watchers to do something about it.
Hillary Clinton called the debate comments “horrifying,” and anyone who respects our Constitution, who believes in the American experiment, as occasionally flawed as it may be, had to agree.
And that was before Trump, who said no one respects women more than he does, called his opponent a “nasty woman.”
Though I’ve never been a fan of reality shows, I can understand their appeal. Delving into the everyday of the famous and not so famous — knowing all are playing for the camera — provides a respite from our own lives, which may actually be more troubling and dramatic than what a viewer sees onscreen.
So it was appropriate that the debate was staged in Las Vegas, the setting for spectacular stage shows and prize fights. And just like at those fights, celebrities and surprise guests sat ringside, from Obama’s half-brother on the Trump side to billionaire Mark Cuban for Clinton, to challenge the size of candidate Trump’s wallet.
But the 2016 presidential race has proved to be more real than even our entertainment-hungry society craves. Sure, the ratings have been through the roof, but you may want to take a long shower afterward. Up to now, it’s playing out more like another popular series “American Horror Story,” this one labeled “Campaign 2016,” and Wednesday night brought a surprise no one wanted, though some Republican leaders may have dreaded it.
Some of them, from Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona to Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, immediately condemned Trump for dancing around whether making America great again means questioning the presidential election results.
The third and last presidential debate Wednesday night between Clinton and Trump was supposed to be about a list laid out by moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, and for a while it was, with each candidate playing to his and her constituency. Certainly some things, like climate change, had hardly been mentioned and were not on Wednesday night. Criminal justice reform never got much air time, either, a particularly noteworthy omission in a previous debate not that far from Ferguson, Missouri, subject of a shooting, its violent aftermath and a scathing Justice Department report of police procedure. It, too, got scant mention this time.
For this final meeting just weeks before Election Day and with early voting already starting, there were headlines, charges and countercharges. While some tuned in for a picture of what a future Clinton or Trump administration would look like, no doubt others just wanted to grab some popcorn and enjoy. There were greatest hits, as well as tough questions on what has transpired since the last debate — Clinton’s leaked emails and the parade of women who have accused Trump of doing the things he bragged about on a video tape.
There’s a reason President Barack Obama’s popularity is rising as he fades into the distance, stylishly with first lady Michelle Obama at a state dinner for the Italian prime minister. Whatever one thought of Obama’s politics — and watching his Supreme Court nominee languish for a record number of weeks and months is proof of a partisan divide that remains — Americans could be proud of the family image presented to the world, the calm and measured presence he was sometimes criticized for.
For those who wanted to pivot to something a little more exciting, Clinton-Trump was a change, all right. Besides being an escape, reality shows also allow a bit of smug superiority, the ability to judge someone whose life is “really” a mess. But did anyone want this much mess?
There is talk of conspiracies, rigged elections and one candidate threatening to paralyze the country if he doesn’t get awarded the winning rose from the American people. Trump, upset when he didn’t get that Emmy, can do a lot more damage with the presidency in the balance.
It’s a preview of a new season that moves from outrageous to scary, an assault on the democratic process that is all too real. The prevailing mood seems to be exhaustion and depression — and no one is entertained.
Though we haven’t yet had Election 2016, many viewers just want this show to be cancelled.
Roll Call columnist Mary C. Curtis has worked at The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun and The Charlotte Observer. Follow her on Twitter @mcurtisnc3.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
That’s a great motto for a lawless lawman in an old Western movie.
Not so much for two House committee chairmen who called for the removal of State Department undersecretary Pat Kennedy earlier this week. Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Devin Nunes, R-Calif., were responding to a trove of FBI notes on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server that mentioned Kennedy had tried to persuade the FBI to not classify one of Clinton’s emails before it was publicly released.
One person interviewed by the FBI said Kennedy discussed a “quid pro quo” exchange, in which the email in question would remain unclassified and the FBI would get new overseas postings for agents. The FBI said no, and the positions overseas never materialized. While administration officials have said that the two issues were discussed in the same conversation, they have also denied that there was an offer of a trade-off.
Given the allegation, it would be reasonable for members of Congress to look into whether there was an attempt to improperly influence the FBI’s decision-making process. It is not reasonable for them to say, as they did, that Kennedy should be removed from his job, “pending” an investigation. Nor was it reasonable for Donald Trump to call for his ouster, which the Republican presidential nominee did through a spokesman.
Trump’s “lock her up” disease — a psychological affliction distorting an American candidate’s thinking to the point where he argues it’s OK to jail opponents or fire bureaucrats who haven’t been charged with any wrongdoing — has temporarily infected Capitol Hill.
Here’s what Chaffetz, chairman of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Nunes, chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and the department’s inspector general, Steve Linick. “We find Undersecretary Kennedy’s actions extremely disturbing. Those who receive classified intelligence should not barter in it — that is reckless behavior with our nation’s secrets,” they wrote. “Someone who would try to get classification markings doctored should not continue serving in the State Department or retain access to classified information. Therefore, President Obama and Secretary Kerry should immediately remove Undersecretary Kennedy, pending a full investigation.”
They make it sound like Kennedy was giving classified information to someone who shouldn’t have it. That’s not true. And the person who used the words “quid pro quo” was a secondhand source, not the person who was engaged in the conversation.
No one — no one — in any official capacity who has any direct knowledge of the investigation has accused Kennedy of any wrongdoing, much less charged him with anything. Kennedy, a veteran of the Foreign Service who has worked under presidents of both parties, has defended his institution in ways that benefit Clinton and infuriate congressional Republicans who failed to destroy her with their serial Benghazi investigations. And therein lies the rub.
They’re not calling for Kennedy to be fired or suspended from his job because they expect he will be prosecuted and convicted for some crime. They’re doing it precisely because they can’t imagine that scenario playing out. He won’t be of use later. Now is the moment when Kennedy, who is appropriately described as a Clinton ally, has his greatest political currency. And make no mistake about how Chaffetz and Nunes are trying to expend it: in an nakedly partisan and decidedly unjust way.
In my reporting on the State Department, for a book I co-authored in 2014, on the Benghazi investigations and on other matters, I’ve come across Kennedy’s name a lot. He’s known for being inaccessible and transactional — not unusual for a high-ranking and long-serving bureaucrat — and intensely loyal to the State Department.
But is what he did either illegal or unethical? It’s hard to see how it would be illegal, even if Kennedy — who is savvy enough not to make this mistake — used the magic words of promising an exchange of an official act on his part for an official action by the FBI. In government, that’s known as “horse-trading” — or “logrolling” when it’s specific to Congress. That’s how laws are made, and it’s how bureaucracies do business.
Without any evidence of an offer of a direct exchange — and the term “quid pro quo” appears to have been used in layman’s, rather than lawyer’s, terms — there’s no bribery. Ask any member of Congress who holds a fundraiser and rakes in money from industry lobbyists right before a big markup or floor vote on legislation affecting the industry or industries that donated to him. That’s not bribery in our legal system; it’s just a coincidence of interests. Curse the system, or change it, but don’t deny its existence.
A less politically motivated read of the situation is that Kennedy, acting in the interests of his department and his former boss, sensed an opportunity to limit what he saw as over-classification of Clinton’s emails. Whether it’s unethical for a public official to explicitly or implicitly trade favors with another public official is a reasonable question. And perhaps it merits investigation by the administration or Congress.
But the effort by Chaffetz and Nunes to evict Kennedy before gathering any facts is prima facie evidence that they don’t really care to find out what happened as much as they want to damage Clinton. American justice isn’t supposed to work that way. Maybe that will change if Trump wins.
Roll Call columnist Jonathan Allen is co-author of the New York Times-bestselling Clinton biography “HRC” and has covered Congress, the White House and elections over the past 15 years.
In 1980, there was only one debate between President Jimmy Carter and former Gov. Ronald Reagan. I hereby propose we pledge today to hold just one debate in 2020.
OK. I’d settle for two.
My take on this final debate is rather anticlimactic: Despite some fireworks, it changes nothing. Hillary Clinton won. But even a tie would have cemented her status as the (very) likely next president.
Maybe we put too much hope in these debates? In recent years, the hidden camera has replaced the podium as the catalyst for game-changing moments. Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” gaffe was probably much more damaging than what has infamously come to be known as the “Candy Crowley debate.” And Donald Trump’s disgraceful “Access Hollywood” comments might just be remembered more than anything else he has said in any of the debates.
Or maybe not.
We might have witnessed a throwback to a bygone era. When asked if he would accept the election results, Trump refused to commit, saying only that he would keep us “in suspense.” If this isn’t the defining moment of the election, it is most likely going to be a consequential moment that lingers in the minds of the voters who tuned in — it will be the last thing we recall from the debates.
Once again, it didn’t have to be this way. Compared with past debates, Trump appeared more subdued. The caveat here is that we are talking about Donald Trump — so the bar is necessarily low.
[Somebody Had to Win. This Time It Was Clinton]
Just as he needed to do, Trump repeatedly pointed out that Clinton hasn’t been able to change things during her thirty years of political involvement. In a country where 70 percent of Americans aren’t happy with the direction of the nation, highlighting Clinton’s status as a career politician was a crafty move. Ask yourself this: What would have happened had Trump been able to prosecute this case in a consistent and disciplined manner throughout this campaign?
We also got an answer to a question that has been plaguing me for some time now. If anyone was wondering why so many evangelicals were supporting Trump, despite his numerous flaws, the first few minutes of this third debate provided an obvious explanation.
I’m speaking, of course, about Clinton’s pledge to support activist Supreme Court justices who will advance liberal special interest policies, as well as her pro-abortion rights position. Granted, we might have intellectually comprehended that these issues were driving social conservative leaders to Trump’s corner, but witnessing this rather graphic discussion about partial-birth abortion really drove the point home.
On the negative side, Trump once again had to revisit and answer for things he has said and allegedly done to women. And, although Trump and Clinton took turns scoring points with zingers (they accused one another of being Putin’s “puppet”), I feel sure that Trump’s aggressive demeanor toward Clinton might have repulsed the very cohort of "gettable" voters Trump most needs to win over — college-educated Republican women. Had it not been for Trump’s refusal to say he would accept defeat, we might be more focused on his referring to Clinton as a “nasty woman.”
Oh yeah, and he also managed to attack Reagan on trade. But who’s counting?
The thing to know about debates is that nobody scores the 90 minutes and then adds up the points. One big soundbite overshadows lots of little points and logical arguments. And the big moment of this debate was Trump's refusal to say he would graciously concede.
But again, in terms of the election results, none of this matters. The only way this debate could have moved the needle would have been if Trump had scored an unequivocal knockout.
And since that didn’t happen, all that matters is that this debate season is (mercifully) over.
[For Trump, Getting Even Is More Important Than Getting Ahead]
Let’s just be honest. We are all tired and ready for this carnival ride to end. The first debate was greeted with excitement. By the third debate, most people I know would have much preferred watching the Cubs play. Or going to bed (perhaps until the election is over).
And it seems that this demoralized attitude transcends those of us who cover elections for a living. An uneasy American people stand with us in our apathetic corner. Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness isn’t just a killer album by The Smashing Pumpkins — it could describe the emotional state of American voters at the end of a brutal election cycle.
It might just be that three debates are too many debates. Like the Godfather franchise, maybe we should’ve stopped at two.
Then again, sometimes the third time is — while not terrific — at least entertaining. In Rocky III, there’s a scene where Rocky Balboa and Thunder Lips (Hulk Hogan) hold an exhibition charity match that turns into a melee. At the end of the fight, the announcer can be heard saying, “See you all next year. Thank God.”
My next debate column will likely not come out for another four years.
Roll Call columnist Matt K. Lewis is a senior contributor to the Daily Caller and author of the book “Too Dumb to Fail.” Follow him on Twitter @MattKLewis.
Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.