Can Americans still have a sensible and friendly political discussion across the partisan divide? The answer is yes, and we prove it every week. Julie Roginsky, a Democrat, and Mike DuHaime, a Republican, are consultants who have worked on opposite teams for their entire careers yet have remained friends. Here, they discuss the week’s events with editorial page editor Tom Moran.
Q. President Biden halted delivery of 3,500 bombs to Israel, and warned Prime Minister Netanyahu against invading Rafah, the city in southern Gaza where about 1 million civilians have taken refuge. “I’ve made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet, they’re not going to get our support if in fact they go on these population centers,” Biden said. What happens if Israel does invade Rafah, as Netanyahu promises? And with Republicans sharply critical of Biden’s move, how does this play politically?
Mike: This is complex foreign policy and a difficult line for Biden to straddle. Netanyahu has long taken US support while simultaneously rejecting US advice. At some point, there must be repercussions, even for a great ally, for constantly rebuffing the president’s explicit requests, which date back well before the October massacre. Biden is in a terrible spot politically. The pro-Palestinian wing of the Democratic Party thinks he is far too pro-Israel, while the pro-Israel wing will feel he is not doing enough if he pulls this support.
Julie: This is not a situation that lends itself to quick one-liners. As Mike points out, President Biden has to contend with domestic politics in an election year, while trying to stand by Israel even as it engages in tactics that even many Israelis and lifelong supporters of Israel question. Netanyahu is prosecuting this war while having to appease the extremists in his governing coalition, while seemingly ignoring massive protests by Israelis who oppose his prosecution of the war – because if his coalition falls apart, there will be new elections called, he will likely lose his premiership and a criminal case against him will move forward. Concurrently, Biden and some of our Arab allies in the Middle East are trying to negotiate a cease-fire not only with Israel, where Bibi is facing these domestic pressures, but with Hamas, which is a nihilistic terrorist organization that has suddenly become more relevant than it has been in decades and may be unwilling or unable to come to a deal. So for all that everyone has an opinion on Biden’s decision, please understand that there are literally no good options here.
Q. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene suffered a lopsided defeat in her bid to remove Speaker Mike Johnson, as Democrats made history by supporting Johnson in a 359 to 43 vote, the first time the opposition party has supported an incumbent Speaker. Does this mean the hard-right faction in the House is losing its mojo? What about her claim that “The Democrats now control Speaker Johnson”?
Mike: Marjorie Taylor Greene is such a clown that all the other clowns at the circus think she’s an embarrassment to the clown profession.
Julie: “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right” is how I would describe the House Republican conference. (Sorry, Stealers Wheel!) Democrats have once again proven themselves to be the adults in the room. If not for them, the House would again grind to a stand-still. Why in the world would voters reward Republicans with control of Congress when they can’t actually govern without Democrats?
Q. Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway, who is headed to Washington later this month to discuss antisemitism on campus, is facing criticism over concessions he made to student protesters who interrupted final exams during their recent protest against Israel. Did he give away too much? Or does he deserve credit for ending the encampment peacefully, while refusing core demands, including divestment, and cutting ties with Tel Aviv University?
Mike: I disagree with my fellow Republicans here and stand with my alma mater’s president. The concessions were minuscule and reasonable in the grand scheme of what was at stake. On the major demands of divestment from Israel and ending ties with Tel Aviv University, Rutgers rightly rejected them. The demonstration disbanded peacefully without the chaos we saw at Columbia or the violence seen at UCLA. Exams resumed and life went on as it should, safely for students. I am sick of the far-right in Washington banding in a crazy alliance with the far-left protestors to undermine higher education in the US. Too many put political theatre, where they view themselves as the star, ahead of what’s actually good for the country.
Julie: I disagree. You don’t negotiate with hostage takers and that is exactly what these protesters turned out to be. It’s one thing to demonstrate peacefully, which I support. There are protesters at Princeton who are on a hunger strike at the moment and while I do not agree with their reasoning, their hunger strike does not disrupt anyone else’s ability to learn. But at Rutgers, some of these protesters called for disrupting finals and infringing on the rights of their fellow students to receive the education for which they are paying. When that happened, the university should have immediately shut them down and punished them for violating university policies. Once the administration started negotiating with them, it sent the signal that they will be rewarded for these kinds of despicable tactics. Mark my words, if this war is not resolved by September, the demands from these protesters will continue to grow – along with escalating behavior to ensure that they get their way. And why would they not continue to threaten or act on further disruption? The only penalties were to the students whose lives were disrupted. The disrupters got at least some of what they wanted.
Mike: The protesters postponed one morning of finals in one portion of campus. Do you not think finals would have been disrupted if police moved in and cleared the protesters with force? This is not 1968. Universities of tens of thousands of people spread over multiple campuses and many square miles are not ground to a halt by one protest of a few hundred people isolated to one section of one campus. All the politicians talk tough with none of the responsibility for the repercussions. You give the protesters what they want if you engage in heavy-handed tactics.
Julie: That’s the point. Police would not have had to move in at all if people had been peacefully protesting, without threatening to disrupt finals. If can protest peacefully without disturbing anyone, there is no need for cops.
Mike: That’s a different view and the proper one. Blame the protesters. Too many find fault with those who try to enforce the rules without giving the protesters the escalation they seek. Blame the rule breakers, where blame belongs.
Julie: But that’s the issue. They were not protesting peacefully. They were threatening disruption. And instead of getting punished, they got rewarded by having some of their demands met.
Q. As Donald Trump plans a rally at the Shore Saturday, a dark money group, “Kitchen Table Inc.,” released an advertisement attacking Bill Spadea, the 101.5 shock jock, over his previous criticism of Trump, adding “Spadea isn’t MAGA.” What do you make of that? What do you expect at the rally?
Mike: The rally is a smart idea for two reasons. First, this is Rep. Van Drew’s home turf, so it rewards a key ally in a part of the state that has trended Republican for 15 years, accelerating during Trump’s time. More importantly, this rally will get serious media coverage on Philadelphia news. Pennsylvania is perhaps the most important battleground state, and a Wildwood rally will be on the 11pm news on every major Philadelphia station. Philly TV covers 40% of Pennsylvania voters, many of whom have ridden the roller coasters of Wildwood.
Julie: The anti-Spadea ad tells me that Kellyanne Conway, Larry Weitzner and the other Republicans behind that ad are smart enough to know that if they want to win the governor’s race next year, Bill Spadea is not the party’s ticket to Drumthwacket.
Q. The Democratic primary in the 8th District, pitting Rep. Rob Menendez Jr. against Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla, is getting feisty, with a fresh lawsuit charging Bhalla with unethical behavior, and Menendez Jr. weighed down by his father’s indictment and his refusal to return donations from dad. What are you watching in that race, one of next month’s few contested primaries?
Mike: I’m watching to see if there’s a name brand backlash in this race. Historically, name brands have helped in American politics – Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, and Kean and Menendez here in New Jersey. Heck, the value of name brand in US politics goes back to John Quincy Adams, probably. The Menendez name helped Rob win the seat; now, can he keep it despite the allegations surrounding his father? Rob Jr. has worked hard to create his own relationships and reputation, but Bhalla is a strong opponent with popularity in a marquis, growing city in the district.
Julie: This race has gotten ugly, fast. In addition to everything else Mike said, it is also about organizational strength at a time when the line is no longer in effect. Rep. Menendez has the support of the Hudson County Democratic Organization and many of the powerful mayors in the county. Mayor Bhalla has his own source of support from some progressives (though not all) and a lot of money to spend. It’s a race to which people even outside the 8th CD should be paying attention, for all those reasons.
Q. The state Supreme Court struck another blow against gag orders last week, ruling that a state law banning enforcement of such orders also covers “non-disparagement” clauses that ban criticism. That was a win for Christine Savage, a former police sergeant in Neptune, who signed a non-disparagement clause when settling a sexual harassment complaint against the department, then described it as “a good old boys club.” How big a deal is this?
Mike: This will make it harder for settlements to get done, whether they are in contentious lawsuits or settling more routine business matters. I guess that’s the point. Without non-disparagement clauses, more of these cases will go to trial.
Julie: Luckily, I co-founded a nonprofit organization that has specific data to rebut Mike’s argument. In 2019, New Jersey became the first state in the nation to ban non-disclosure agreements under any state’s human rights law. In 2023, with four years of data under our belt, we partnered with Penn State to conduct a qualitative study to analyze the effects of this law. It found that there is absolutely no impact whatsoever on either a plaintiff’s ability to settle or on the amount of the settlement. The decision this week to apply the law to include non-disparagement agreements is a win not just for Christine Savage but for every single survivor in New Jersey. Laypeople should not be required to constantly play employment lawyer and wonder whether they are disparaging someone when recounting a toxic workplace experience or whether they are simply stating the facts around that experience. With his opinion, Chief Justice Rabner has made New Jersey the leading state in the nation (along with Washington) in giving survivors of workplace toxicity the ability to tell their stories without fear of being sued into oblivion. It will help transform workplace culture for every single worker in the state. At a time when the Supreme Court in Washington takes every opportunity to stick it to women, it is immensely gratifying that the Rabner Court is interpreting the law in ways that will make it much easier for women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and other traditionally disenfranchised groups to hold bad actors accountable.
Q. Finally, a plan that blows my mind: After years of political dysfunction has left dozens of crippling vacancies in New Jersey courts, Senate President Nick Scutari wants to deepen the challenge by stripping the Supreme Court of the power to appoint judges to the Appellate Division. He suggests amending the Constitution to give that power to the governor, with approval of the Senate, the same system that has been unable to fill existing vacancies. What gives?
Mike: Frankly, I thought the governor already appointed all the judges in the state with advice and consent of the Senate. I doubt the voters will be up in arms about some procedure they know nothing about.
Julie: I appreciate the senate president’s point that there are deeply qualified attorneys who might be well-suited to going straight to the appellate division. The federal judiciary does not require someone to serve as a district judge before going to the court of appeals. But practically speaking, this governor and this legislature have not done a fantastic job of filling judicial vacancies in a timely manner, a problem that would only be exacerbated if they also had to appoint and confirm appellate judges. Showing some impetus would be appropriate before moving forward with this plan.
A note to readers: Mike and Julie are deeply engaged in politics and commercial advocacy in New Jersey, so both have connections to many players discussed in this column. DuHaime, the founder of MAD Global, has worked for Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and President George W. Bush. Roginsky, a principal of Comprehensive Communications Group, has served as senior advisor to campaigns of Cory Booker, Frank Lautenberg, and Phil Murphy. We will disclose specific connections only when readers might otherwise be misled.
Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.comOpinion on Facebook.
