Skip to main content

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued.

The two pieces (here and here) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both:

To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals.

So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens.

But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set out to woo those reporters, trying to raise her public visibility on the eve of her fourth term in Congress.

If so, it was a risky move. She was gambling that the glossy publicity would be enough to offset the drubbing she would likely take at the hands of the “liberal” media.

She got off easy. Both articles do indeed chronicle her descent from “the future of the moderate Republican party” — whatever that is — into the deep cesspool of Trumpdom. But there’s no drubbing in evidence. Both pieces spend much time on her human side, on the personal cost of life in that cesspool.

Her one-time headmistress, who once admired her, sums up that cost: “She basically abandoned her own core values for a man who had no core values.” Her longtime friends have taken notice, and most have dumped her. Cue the violins.

But while neither article is a hatchet job, it’s easy to read between the lines of both reporters: Stefanik was once recognizable as human, but she made a conscious, measured decision to turn herself into a monster. They say it nicer than I do.

But whether she’s behind the two stories or not, the takeaways are the same: She’s smart. She’s fiercely ambitious. She welcomes the spotlight. And she wants to be president.

She bought the URL ‘’ eight years ago.

That said, she has at least twenty years to plot a course to that goal. Why would she throw in with Trump now? Why sacrifice so much credibility, not to mention respectability? Is she calculating that Trump has a future? Does she think there’s a Trump mantle she can somehow seize?

She’s not a natural liar. She came to politics with talent, institutional savvy, and what might be called a generic set of middle-class ideals, all of which made her welcome even in the liberal bastions of the Ivy Leagues. 

You can still find those ideals on her website, under "Congresswoman Stefanik's Priorities.” If you ignore the few clunkers — “second amendment rights,” “communist China,” etc. — you could easily mistake her for an Obama Democrat. If she senses any disconnect between those priorities and how she works to undermine them, you wouldn’t know it.

Just below her priorities, you can scan the list of “Congresswoman Stefanik's Results,” where she takes full credit for all the federal funding she brought to her district, somehow neglecting to mention that she voted against all of it.

When Trump first announced his run in 2015, she was utterly repulsed by him. When he was nominated, then elected, she held her nose and supported him, but only tepidly.

Then in 2019, she drank the Kool-Aid. We all remember her strident defense of Trump at his first impeachment. It was a thankless job, but she gave it her all — deftly lying, deflecting, and gaslighting with the verbal dexterity of a con man twice her age.

If you watch her interviews these days — which only happen in the right-wing media bubble — there’s a certain breathlessness to her delivery, an impatient spew of all her rehearsed MAGA talking points, almost as if she can’t believe she has to say this shit.

This suspension of disbelief is a required skill in MAGA world, and she’s a quick study. Every day, she grows more proficient at discussing pedophilia a la QAnon, “White Replacement Theory” a la Tucker Carlson, and whatever the fake border crisis du jour might be.

When Trump announced his supposed candidacy for 2024, she was one of the few high-profile Republicans to publicly endorse him. Which still seems strange for someone who could easily have laid low and tested the waters first.

Trump is, after all, fast becoming poison in the party, if not in the minds of his dwindling base. Plus, he’s up to his eyeballs in criminal exposure. Why would she jump on a bandwagon that’s rolling off a cliff?

Whatever her reasons, she is now at the point where she can allow no truth to pass her lips. Her job is to lie, all the time, possibly for the rest of her career. Which sounds exhausting.

And the strangest part is that she knew what she was getting into. She had plenty of time to see what happens to people who get sucked into Trump’s orbit. How could she fail to notice that Trump-stink never wears off? She bought in anyway.

And for what? Trump is already on record as not trusting her. Nobody believes she’s a true believer.

But still, she puts herself out there. And she stands out, especially among the knuckle-draggers in the GOP conference. If Kevin McCarthy’s food fight for the speakership had turned out differently, she was a logical third or fourth choice to replace him.

Others have speculated that she’s angling to become Trump’s running mate in 2024, but I’m skeptical. Not that she wouldn’t want the job. It’s just that she has to suspect, as do we all, that Trump’s candidacy is nothing more than an embarrassing scam. She’s better off working the GOP donors.

And those donors have surely taken notice. Like her, they are no doubt looking past Trump, to the future of Trumpism without him. In their eyes, she’s young, well-connected, and ideologically sound. She has a lot of what they like about Trump, but she won’t pee on the rug.

She will most likely outlive Trump by several decades, so she can afford to wait for the party to come to her. She’s too smart to be making bonehead political moves, yet that’s just what she appears to be doing.

Are the appearances deceiving? Does she know something we don’t? Is there opportunity only she can see?

Stefanik is all questions and very few answers. But the biggest question is one we could be asking for the next twenty years:

How do we stop her from becoming president?


  1. "Trump stink never wears off" Five words that say so much. Hooray for you.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blackmail for Fun and Profit

Once in a while, I like to use this space to indulge in some idle speculation, taking a few what-ifs and seeing where they lead. I tend to do this in response to some stimulus, some ping to my brain. Which is just what Keith Olbermann provided in one of his podcasts last week. He was talking about Jeff Bezos’ upcoming wedding to Lauren Sanchez, the woman with whom Bezos had been having the affair that ultimately ended his marriage. You'll recall that in 2019, Trump operators had a heavy hand in that breakup, having attempted to blackmail Bezos into coercing The Washington Post, which he owns, into covering Trump more obsequiously. It's rare to see such an instance of high-level blackmail surface in public, and we only know about it because Bezos didn't bite. He outed himself, he went public about the whole affair, thereby ending his marriage, which was apparently on the ropes anyway. An unusually happy postscript to this otherwise routine multi-bill

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance. What she said about the "both sides" problem in journalism is nothing new. But to those of us who've been screaming about it for years, it's refreshing to hear it denounced by a mainstream journalist of her stature, in a venue that serves as an incubator of mainstream journalism. While she declined to mention names, there was no doubt about the targets of her irritation. CNN and its chairman, Chris Licht, were still licking their wounds from their treacherous but buffoonish

The Definition of Defamation is Up in the Air

Underlying all the recent commotion surrounding Fox, Tucker Carlson, and the mess they've created for themselves, there's an important legal issue that has flown largely under the radar, but may soon be ready for its closeup. It's a First Amendment issue concerning the meaning of defamation, and the standard that must be met to prove it. The constitutionality of the existing standard was expected to be tested in the Fox-Dominion case, had that case come to trial. But since that didn't happen, I figured it would go back to the back burner. But then, last week, Ron DeSantis had it blow up in his face , giving the whole issue new momentum, and from a surprising direction. His own people took him down. DeSantis had talked his pet legislature into launching an outrageous assault on freedom of the press, eviscerating existing libel laws, and making it easier for public figures — like, say, DeSantis himself— to sue for defamation. One can just imagine DeSantis cackling