The Republican party is not dead; long live the filibuster

Sorry I can't remember where I got this image from. If it is yours let me know and I will change it. 

Majority leader Harry Reid has been castigated over the last few days after what was supposed to be a filibuster-busting vote to reform the way the Senate works. It didn't pan out that way, to the ire of many,  particularly MSNBC primetime pundit Ed Schultz who blasted Reid on The Ed Show as being wary of the Senate passing gun control legislation with some vulnerable Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2014. 

While I think Schultz's concern is slightly misguided, his core principle is correct. While everyone has treated the 2012 election as the death of the Republican Party, there is a very real chance that in two years' time the House of Representatives and the Senate could be controlled by Republicans. 

Mark Begich in Alaska, Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Tim Johnson in South Dakota, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Max Baucus from Montana are all Democrats defending seats in conservative states (although to be fair Baucus' Senate partner from Montana, Jon Tester, won re-election last November). Adding to Democrat woes are the retirements of long-time senators Jay Rockerfeller in West Virginia and Tom Harkin of Iowa. In West Virginia (which can and does elect Democrats) the challenger Rockerfeller was going to face was Republican Shelley Moore Capito, who is now most certainly the front-runner for that seat. While Harkin was correctly regarded a liberal during his terms, it is worth pointing out that Iowa's other Senator, Chuck Grassley, is most certainly not. There is absolutely nothing to justify speculation that Harkin may be replaced by anyone like him. And although Minnesota is beginning to slide firmly into the blue column, Senator Al Franken won his election in 2008 by only 312 votes (in an election in which 2.8-million were cast). 

By my count that is 8 Democrats Senate seats at risk, plus Franken. And the Democrat pickup opportunities are slender, with hopes being pinned on Georgia (due to Saxby Chambliss' retirement and possible strong Democrat contender in Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed), Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and Susan Collins in Maine; however, all of these are reliant on a serious right-wing Tea Party-backed candidate being so unelectable that people are driven to Democrats (see Todd Akin). None of these three are probable. 

When it comes to the House of Representatives, Republicans are unlikely to lose this until 2020 when re-districting takes place after the census. In this last election Democrats won 1.2-percentage points more of the vote than Republicans but still see a deficit of 33 seats. Some estimates claim Democrats may need to win by as much as seven points to retake the House. 

From my point of view, it looks as if Reid is mindful of the fact that Democrats could be on the receiving end of a bad midterm election in 2014 (cast your mid back to the Democrat disaster that was 2010). This Senate reform undertaken on Thursday shouldn't even really be filed under anything resembling "filibuster reform" because it hardly did any of that. 

The rules around filibustering were preserved mostly by what is being referred to as the "old guard" - and it's noticeable that the two senators spearheading this cause were freshmen (Jeff Merkely from Oregon and Tom Udall from New Mexico). The old folks are far more keen to preserve Senate traditions - Reid even added on Thursday, "With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House," - and it is tradition that is really being preserved here. It isn't difficult to extrapolate that Republicans feel the same about the filibuster, and are unlikely to mess much with it should they take control in the next Congress. Had Democrats busted tradition this time around, there would have been ample reason for Republicans to do the same at the beginning of the 114th, should they win control of the Senate. 

The Republican Party is not dead. And neither is the filibuster. 

I don't even know what to title this post

Image from Politico

Because Jennifer Rubin's most recent diatribe on Chuck Hagel (Chuck Schumer’s Hagel problem on her blog at the Washington Post) has left me dumbfounded. 

Rubin's argument, summed up, is that New York Senator Chuck Schumer - one of the highest ranking people in the Senate - is in a pickle over President Barack Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for defence secretary because he sits on the Armed Services Committee: the one who will carry out Hagel's confirmation hearing. Oh, and he is from a state full of Jewish people and gays. The criticism of Hagel's nomination has centered around two issues: i) an alleged lack of 100%-dedicated support for Israel and ii) his views on homosexuals (including supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell). 

For example, Rubin's keyboard mangled this together: "Schumer fancies himself as a great defender of Israel and extra tough on Iran. He repeats ad nauseam that his name derives from the Hebrew word “shomer” (guard). He tells groups:  “We need to be guardians of America and its strongest ally – Israel.” So how will it look and what happens to Schumer’s image as the great guardian of the U.S.-Israel relationship if he votes to confirm Hagel, who has spent a career outside the mainstream bipartisan consensus that supports the Jewish state? Hasn’t Hagel made quite clear he does not see the specialness of the U.S.-Israel relationship?"

For politeness, let's assume Rubin is not creating conclusions in the same manner that David Copperfield makes boats disappear... but the answer to her question is no. While Hagel does not lie down his coat so that Israel ened not walk through a puddle, it doesn't mean he has forgone any Israeli security issues. He has indeed said that the USA's relationship with Israel shouldn't be at the expense of every other Muslim-heavy country - I am unsure if I need to explain that not every country with a plurality of Muslims wants to see Israel nuked off the map (Rubin conversely reminds us with this subtle clause: "Newsflash: Many Muslim countries want Israel to vanish."). The USA may treat Israel as its top ally in the Middle East, but don't forget it also shares beneficial relationships with Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Turkey (a NATO-member). 

It is virtually impossible to be elected to any role in the USA's federal government if a significantly strong stance on Israel isn't apparent, but if recent electoral history is anything to go by, this does not mean total deference to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Barack Obama was elected with nearly 70% support by Jewish Americans (and 51% of everyone, to be fair), after his opponents spent the campaign bashing him for not being pro-Israel enough. This line of attack against Schumer, should he vote for Hagel as defence secretary, is unlikely to work any better. 

Rubin has also decided that Democrats running for re-election to the US Senate in 2014 are all going to balk at voting for Hagel's nomination because they are all shaking in their shoes about cuts to the military budget (do you remember how successful Mitt Romney's electoral tactic of upping military spending worked out for him?). She cites Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard who says, "Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine isn’t up for reelection for six years. But he’s from a state with a huge military population and he now sits on the Armed Service Committee. Will he support a nominee who is being sold as the man to preside over “huge cuts” to the military? And what about Joe Donnelly, a Democrat from Indiana? Like Kaine, he’s not up for six years, but with a seat on the Armed Services Committee and representing a red state like Indiana, a vote for “huge cuts” at the Pentagon won’t be an easy one. Kay Hagan, a Democrat on Armed Services, hails from North Carolina. She’s up in 2014. Does she want to run for reelection defending her vote for “huge cuts” to the Pentagon? Mark Pryor, from Arkansas, isn’t on Armed Services but is up in 2014. How would Arkansas voters feel about “huge cuts” to the Pentagon?

 

What about Alaska’s Mark Begich? North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp? Virginia’s Mark Warner? Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu? Joe Manchin from West Virginia? And Jon Tester from Montana?"

Where Hayes is quite correct is that there are a number of vulnerable Democrats running for re-election in 2014: of the 33 Senators up for a vote, 20 are Democrats, and six of those Democrats are running in traditionally conservative states (although I may be harshly judging Tom Harkin in Iowa). 

It is worth pointing out that of these six, Tom Harkin (Iowa) is a veteran, and Tim Johnson (South Dakota) is known for sticking up for veterans. Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) represents the only state in which the US military bought land (expanded!) last year. Kay Hagan (North Carolina) has previously argued for expansion of the military to lengthen downtime for soldiers on active duty: cutting the cost of the overall defence budget doesn't make this plan implausible. (Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas might not be so lucky on the military front, but Pryor has an approval rating over 50%.) Also, these are Democrats who have been mandated by their state to govern! While Rubin thinks a vote for Hagel could be career-ending for these senators, does she remember that the Senate has only voted down a presidential cabinet appointee nine times? 

I am also not really prepared to take into account what may happen to Virginia's Tim Kaine or Mark Warner, or North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp: a vote for Hagel is hardly a vote for TARP. I am also not really prepared to start predicting what may happen in 2018 when Heitkamp, Kaine, Joe Manchin and John Tester (who just beat a strong opponent in Montana) are all up for re-election. A month is a long time in politics, let alone six years. No one can begin tossing around possibilities on a vote like this. One could have with a major vote on something like Obamacare, or the Iraq War; the nomination of a presidential cabinet member is not that kind of vote. 

Opposition coming in from the left, from senators like Ben Cardin of Maryland, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Bob Menendez from New Jersey, shouldn't be hard to deal with from the White House or Harry Reid. Signs point to Obama leading a largely liberalish agenda in this second term, and this vote can easily be negotiated for another. Plus it's a fairly arguable point for Democrats to start saving money on the military before one begins slashing at Medicare, for example. 

So don't read Rubin for any sort of analysis. 

Conspiracy theories - maybe not so conspiratorial.

Image from theweek.com

There is a theory floating around that Senate Republicans are so against the nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice because they want Senator John Kerry (of Massachusetts) to be picked instead. Why? Because this will trigger a special election in Massachusetts which they think Republican Senator Scott Brown might win (Brown lost his seat in the recent election to Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren).

Up until now I haven't really bought into this theory because Arizona Senator John McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham, along with their new recruit, New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte (who has replaced Joe Lieberman in their triumvirate) are a combination of bitter and difficult (McCain), hawkish (Graham) and inexperienced (Ayotte). They are blaming Rice for going on TV and reporting the views of her administration relating to the 11 September attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, were killed. These views turned out to be incorrect, but Rice claims this was the intelligence available at the time - which is actually a pretty reasonable excuse as the correct story broke before the election. 

But yesterday usually reliably intelligent and reasonable Senator Susan Collins of Maine (who serves as ranking member on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) met with Rice. 

Politico reports:
Collins, the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, accused Rice of playing a “political role” during the height of the presidential election, making the rounds on the Sunday shows and reciting administration talking points just days after the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The administration’s response to the incursion, Collins said, had an “eerie echo” of the 1998 bombings of two embassies in Africa, which occurred under Rice’s watch when she was an assistant secretary of state for African Affairs in the Bill Clinton administration.

“Those bombings in 1998 resulted in the loss of life of 12 Americans as well as many other foreign nationals, and 4,000 people were injured,” Collins said.

A spokeswoman for Rice declined to comment Wednesday on the criticism by Collins. The Maine senator said she would not join other GOP colleagues who have vowed to hold up her nomination. But that doesn’t mean she would vote for Rice if she is nominated, Collins said.

“I would need to have additional information before I could support her nomination,” she said. “There is much to be learned and I think it would be premature for me to reach that judgment now.”

Not only is Collins spearing Rice's nomination for doing what Rice's boss told her to, she is bringing up  something that happened 14 years ago when Rice was "an assistant secretary of state for African Affairs in the Bill Clinton administration", which bears virtually zero relevance to the attack in Benghazi. In 1998 a series of bombs exploded at US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, and Osama Bin Laden was found to have planned it all. Let's contextualise that quickly: Condoleezza Rice was a United States National Security Advisor to President George W Bush when the World Trade Center was attacked in 2001 - did that disqualify her from being Bush's second Secretary of State from 2005?

Not for Susan Collins. Lookie here - she backed the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State in 2005, saying "She has both the professional experience and the personal integrity to be a strong Secretary of State." Hmmm, there's a yawning double standard here from someone who is usually a solid voice of reason.

Which lends credence to the theory that Republicans are trying to do little more than get Kerry into the Secretary of State post to force a special election in Massachusetts. Incidentally, the Democrat most likely to contest that hypothetical election is state attorney general Martha Coakely (who lost to Brown in the special election in 2010 after Ted Kennedy died).

According to Foreign Policy, should Kerry be picked by Obama, next in line Senator from California Barbara Boxer will pass the chairpersonship onto third in line, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, whose favourite bug bear is Iran - he is likely to be rougher when it comes to sanctions on Iran than the Obama administration, and will be in a position to push for such things, which suit the hawkish folks on the Republican side of the table somewhat.

There is considerable Republican benefit to Kerry getting a position in Obama's cabinet, and Rice being sacrificed for it.

UPDATE: I am watching Rachel Maddow from last night on DVR who makes this point too. For the record I wrote this before I saw her show (which I usually watch when I eat lunch the day after it is broadcast). 

Wondering why Republicans are willing to compromise?

Image via Politico, thanks be. 

Democrats are pretty powerful in these "fiscal cliff" (it isn't a cliff at all, and is irresponsible media reporting to call it such, but we'll get to that later today or tomorrow) negotiations, and there is a very simple reason - they are using Republicans' own tax mantra against them.

Democrat Rep. Jerold Nadler (NY-8 - actually where I used to live in Manhattan) described it aptly on Up With Chris Hayes two weeks ago. It is well known that Barack Obama favours the Bush tax cuts expiring for income above $250,000 per year, and his stance in these "fiscal cliff" negotiations has not wavered from this point. 

Well, on 1 January, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone (that's part of the "fiscal cliff"). If Democrats are prepared to play chicken, they could wait it out, let the tax cuts expire for everyone, and then introduce a bill to continue the Bush tax cuts for all income up to $250,000. 

And dare the Republicans to vote against a tax deduction. 

What is Romney doing in Pennsylvania?

This post has been updated.

Romney is going to be speaking at a rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania later today, for which he is receiving an immense amount of flak; Pennsylvania has not voted for a Republican since 1988 (for George HW Bush). 

Romney deserves criticism for only starting to play in this somewhat blue state within the last week, as he is seeking out a route to 270 electoral votes that doesn't include Ohio. There was always a chance Democrats could take Ohio and Romney was never more than three percentage points ahead since receiving the Republican nomination. 

Western Pennsylvania is prone to voting Republican. Pennsylvania, in a very facile way, has a hugely Democrat presence in congressional districts in Philadelphia, and this needs to be counterbalanced by Republicans elsewhere. Western Pennsylvania, where you will find Pittsburgh, is prone to voting conservatively. If Romney is going to find himself a decent-sized bloc of voters somewhere in Pennsylvania, it will be in Pittsburgh. 

Had Romney spent 10% of the time he spend in Ohio somewhere in western Pennsylvania, there was a remote chance he could flip this state. I have spent time in Crawford County, about 90 minutes north of Pittsburgh, and it is a Republican stronghold. 

Pennsylvania may have voted Democrat for the last five elections, but it is not a sure thing every time folks go to the polls. Romney left it way too late to even have a chance of exploiting any chance he may have had. And there was a chance - for goodness sake this is the state that sent Rick Santorum to the Senate twice, and whose junior Senator is Republican Pat Toomey. 

The chance was remote, but it is quite evident Romney never took it seriously anyway. One week of advertising and one campaign rally do not any kind of effort make.

Update: 15:25, 5 November: there is, of course, an arguable explanation that Romney has excess cash to spend, and hotly contested media markets in the usually swing states are full. I live near some swing districts in Chicago and there is political advertising flat out, virtually every advert during every advertising break.