Political Whoas

Shutdown City or Shakedown City?
Have you noticed how Trump's threats to shut down the government if the Congress doesn't give him enough money to build his stupid wall have disappeared?  He is no longer on the offensive--and I do mean offensive--about immigration policy; the legal danger has thrown him, and he can barely think about doing his job.  While I feel it's sad that Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen will go to jail for their crimes--I am sad for anyone's misfortune, even if it were of their own making--I am encouraged that this thing will continue to distract the Maladministration and will reduce the harm that ImPotus can do.

If it came to it, I would be in favor of appropriating a small amount--a few hundred million or so--for an expanded prototype of the wall, a few kilometers wide.  We can stop there--it would be Trump's Monument to Stupidity, and we could paint his ugly puss on the wall on both sides so that all could see, for time immemorial, what an idiot we once had for a President.

Meanwhile, I see the US economy, while currently very strong, on a path that will lead to a crash in the medium term.  The Drumpfian trade policies are leading to inflation, and his jawboning the Fed against higher interest rates will paradoxically lead, fairly soon,  to sharper interest rate rises if he gets his way.  There is even the possibility that we will repeat the errors leading to the last crater, as consumer debt rises and collateralized loan obligations for weak mortgages, once again with layering to produce bogus investment-grade ratings, have returned to financial markets.

There is one essential result needed in the short run to guarantee his political demise:  the Democrats must win control of the House (winning the Senate is a longshot).  If that does not happen, people may become convinced that this mess has been endorsed by the voters.  The House contest is a difficult one to handicap, but I like (and am backing up with my bets on predictit.org) an estimate of 225-235 Democratic seats,  with a fairly wide margin of error.  In that situation, it is critical that we understand the seats that are truly balanced on the edge.  We are studying the many competitive races and trying to identify the ones whom I should give my (relatively small) contributions; now that the primaries are ending, I am becoming less concerned the money will be wasted on internecine party battles. 

A couple of particular personal political bugaboos of recent weeks:  I have been getting a bunch of emails daily from Danny O'Connor, the Ohio Congressional candidate who trails narrowly in the special election held recently.  He is somewhat deceptively arguing he will need a bunch of money for a recount.  The real deal is that the recount is not going to happen, or if it does, it will not put him into Congress.  He should be more honest and say that he needs the money to win his rematch in November, which will ultimately matter more than the outcome of the special, though it will never have the same media attention. The other one concerns one of the key governor's races, in Arizona.  There's a closely-contested Democratic primary coming to a conclusion, which has inhibited my getting involved; however, the importance of Arizona and Georgia, as potential breakthrough states for the Democrats in 2020 is paramount.  I had thought there was even a dimension of even more critical importance there, which turned out not to be the case:  if John McCain were to resign due to health or to die in the near future, that governor could appoint a Senator which could be decisive for the majority.  Except...I have been advised that Arizona has a shocking law that the appointed senator must be of the same party as the previous incumbent.  This elevates party membership to the level of state law--we are expecting a Democrat to appoint a Republican to replace him? If this ends up being a pivotal seat for a majority, there will be a huge issue, both constitutional and political.

Donnelly's Dilemma -
Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana exemplifies the political problem that McConnell has posed, through the nomination, and its timing, of Brettt Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.   For several Democratic senators in states which had large Republican majorities in 2016, a difficult set of choices will present themselves.

Donnelly is in a tough race against a formidable opponent, and thus a prime target for the Republicans to pick up a seat.  Everyone knows that Indiana went for Trump very solidly (10% margin). Not everyone remembers that Obama defeated McCain in the state, and therein lies the rub.  Indiana can be a competitive state with a strong Democratic turnout;  can Donnelly produce it?

The Republican voices pretend to be sympathetic for Donnelly's difficulties. "We know he'd want to vote the way his constituents want, but he's pressured by Schumer...."  What they mean is, please give us this vote to beat you over the head--we need a campaign message.

Donnelly is trying to walk the high road, saying that he would make his judgment purely on the merits of the nominee.   Of course. He is very likely to vote for confirmation with that positioning, as this was not some rash (or destructive) selection, but instead one based on careful preparation and designed to get 100% Republican votes for confirmation.  If that happens, then Donnelly's vote can not be decisive (even if another Republican senator goes down; then the Pence tiebreaker would decide) and he would be free to vote "his conscience" (which, by this logic, would be to confirm).

On the other side of the scales is the weight of his obligation to the Democratic party and its leadership, which seeks to apply pressure in the reverse on some Republican senators who would differ with Kavanaugh on some big issues, like abortion or same-sex marriage, but may feel compelled to maintain unity on their side.  (As things stand, with no Democrats supporting the nomination, the Republicans would need to stay 100% united.)

Chuck Schumer has leverage as representing all the rest of the country's Democrats, who would like Donnelly to do the right thing in opposing this political ploy.  To do less than resist is to help empower their despicable tactics.

In my view, this is not about overturning Roe v. Wade, as some more hysterical emails have threatened to me.  One way or the other, Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and he will push the court's decisions further in the direction of restricting access to abortion--without revoking the legal access now provided to women, at least in their first trimester. So, that is what is going to happen there, with the resulting damage to our society.

(Spoiler alert)The stage is set, and the timing of the climactic vote seems destined for the last week of September or first week of October.   The critical vote will actually be the cloture one, to end debate, which now only requires a majority vote in this case.  Here, Donnelly--and the other similarly conflicted senators, namely Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester, Nelson, and McCaskill--must stand firm and make the Republicans vote unanimously to close off the debate.  For this vote, the Democrats have all the merit of the argument:  the process will have been rushed, without sufficient consideration, and the vote's premature timing forced for political reasons.

Unfortunately, I feel the Republicans will do it/   50-49 for cloture, and then the final confirmation vote may differ substantially, when Democrats in weak political positions can argue the 'merits' of the candidate's qualifications.

So, I will judge Donnelly--who is a moderate, pro-life Democrat right in the center--by whether he stands with the party in the cloture vote.  If not, he should lose all support from thinking Democrats, who must learn to punish their own DINO's.  In this knife-edge year, it is not the right time to primary the Donnelly's of the times.  But he must justify the support of Democrats, too, especially in his state, but also those outside--his national party organizations and email base--who are asked (constantly) for help.