Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Prepares to Run the Gauntlet

This week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has begun meeting with senators, as he tries to make sure his appointment to lead the Department of Health and Human Services is approved by the upper chamber. No Democrats are buying what he's selling, but he's got appointments with about two dozen Republicans.

While Junior is on the Hill, the Kennedy opposition is rallying, in hopes of derailing his bid for the secretaryship. There is much arm-twisting going on behind the scenes. On top of that, the anti-Kennedy forces have also purchased ads in key states, encouraging voters to call their senators and express their opposition to the son of Bobby.

Is he in danger of actually failing, though? The answer to that is: Nobody knows. As we have noted several times, there is absolutely no upside, and plenty of downside, for a Republican member to lay their cards on the table right now. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), willingly or not, became the face of the anti-Pete Hegseth movement, and she came in for withering fire from both Donald Trump and from MAGA fanatics. No senator particularly wants to be that kind of man or woman on an island.

That said, there are at least a couple of very subtle signs that the nomination could be in trouble. First, Donald Trump is putting on the full-court press, and threatening that any senator who dares oppose his nominees will face a primary opponent the next time they are up for reelection. That is a threat with some oomph behind it, but not unlimited oomph. First, it isn't going to faze folks who are not likely to run again, like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). It's also not too likely to bother folks whose next run is 4-6 years away, like Sen. John Curtis (R-UT). And it may not cow the folks who have to face a moderate electorate in 2026, and don't want to be burned by "yea" votes for whackadoodle candidates. Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Susan Collins (R-ME) would be in this group. In any event, the fact that Trump is throwing his weight around suggests that... he knows there's a need for him to throw his weight around.

The other (potentially) problematic sign for Kennedy is this: A number of Republicans have said that they want to hear about his views on vaccines before they decide whether to support him. The thing is, like everyone else, they already know full well what his views on vaccines are. So, this sounds like it could be a setup, so that the senators can claim that they had an "open mind" but that after doing their "due diligence" they just couldn't support him.

Admittedly, these are pretty thin clues. But thin clues are all we have, at the moment. (Z)

One for the Road for Manchin and Sinema

Sens. Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) are not Democrats anymore. And, in case anyone forgot, they provided a demonstration of that fact late last week.

As he prepares to exit, stage right, Joe Biden is trying to seat a handful of key appointments that will last beyond Jan. 20. One of the most important was chair of the National Labor Relations Board, the entity that mediates disputes between employers and labor. The current chair is Democratic appointee Lauren McFerran, who is very labor-friendly, and whose presence on the board gives Democratic appointees a 3-2 majority. Since McFerran has already been doing the job for 5 years, Biden thought it would be a good choice to have her do it for another 5 years. That would also mean a Democratic majority on the board for the first 2 years of Donald Trump's upcoming term.

Senate Republicans do not want that, and so they've been very good about attendance, to keep the Democrats from getting McFerran through. On a day that only one Republican was absent (Roger Wicker of Mississippi), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) scheduled a procedural vote on the nomination. Basically, what Schumer needed was for either Sinema or Manchin to stay away and cast no vote. That would have left it 49-49, and the tie would have been broken by President of the Senate Kamala Harris.

When Schumer brought the vote to the floor, he liked his chances, because Manchin was elsewhere in Washington at a function, while Sinema, who has basically checked out, hadn't shown up for a vote since September 21. So much for that, though. Sinema made her first appearance on the Senate floor in months, and cast a "nay" vote. And once he heard the news that Sinema had emerged from her fortress of solitude, Manchin hustled across town to cast the deciding, fatal vote. So the nomination failed, 49-50.

Manchin explained that he cast his vote as he did because McFerran supports an updated joint-employer rule that would make it easier for employees to claim they work for multiple employers (say, a temp agency AND the firm that hired their services from the temp agency). This would potentially create additional obligations for businesses, like leaving both employers on the hook for worker's compensation. Manchin does not like things that make life harder for business interests.

As to Sinema, as per usual, she did not explain herself. Maybe she cast her vote out of spite. Or, maybe she's become considerably more conservative over the past 6 years. Or, maybe she looks forward to a lucrative and easy post-Senate career serving on corporate boards, and she wants to maximize those paychecks. Could be any, though we have a pretty strong leaning as to which one it is. (Z)

In Congress: One Down, One Out (Maybe), and One... Who Knows?

There were several bits of interesting news out of the House of Representatives yesterday:

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): The Old Guard, in the person of Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA; age 74), scored a victory over the New Guard, in the person of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (age 35). The two representatives are running to be ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, and the Steering and Policy Committee voted 34-27 in favor of Connolly. The entire Democratic caucus will vote today (most likely), and while the Steering and Policy Committee vote is just a recommendation, the caucus usually follows the Committee's recommendations.
  
  If AOC does not get the gig, there will be a few reasons for it. First, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) favors Connolly. Pelosi may be a backbencher these days, and she may be in a hospital bed in Luxembourg right now, recovering from a hip replacement, but her reach... well, her reach extends across whole continents. Second, Ocasio-Cortez is very, very young for a high-profile committee assignment; there's certainly an element of "wait your turn." Third, the Representative has a history of backing primary challengers to sitting members; that has rubbed some members (like, say, the ones who were challenged) the wrong way. In view of this, AOC said she might change her approach in the future.
  
  
• Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Donald Trump is looking for someone to lead FEMA in his incoming administration, and Moskowitz has emerged as the favorite. He's certainly qualified, in that he did the same job for the state of Florida for 2 years. He's also pretty Blue Doggy, having embraced the DOGE project and a few other Trumpy initiatives. He's also got a relationship with both Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and incoming Chief of Staff Susan Wiles.
  
  It is possible that Trump's game here is to flip a House seat, and to give Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) a little more breathing room. However, Moskowitz' district is D+5, so that's probably not a great bet. Similarly, it's possible that Trump just wants to create a temporary opening in the House, so as to partly counter the openings that will be created by the resignations of Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Matt Gaetz and Mike Waltz (both R-FL). However, using a key job like this for a very short-term benefit doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
  
  Our guess—and we have no information here, just speculation—is that there are really two things going on here. First, Trump really wants to be thought of as someone who reinvented the Republican Party, bringing MAGA Democrats into the fold, and adding yet another semi-Democrat to his administration advances that goal. Second, FEMA is one of the places where Trump needs someone who is actually competent, and Moskowitz appears to be so.
  
  
• Victoria Spartz (R-IN): Yesterday, Spartz announced that she is not going to accept any committee assignments, she is going to stop attending meetings of the House Republican Conference, and that she will focus entirely on the DOGE effort until she sees "that Republican leadership in Congress is governing." She explained that "I do not need to be involved in circuses."
  
  Some observers are interpreting this as a sign that the cat-herding is about to get even more difficult for Mike Johnson. Maybe so, but let's take a wait-and-see approach before reaching any conclusions. Spartz is the most... mercurial member of the House Republican Conference. She "retired" last year, only to un-retire and run for reelection. During the most recent speaker elections, she voted for Johnson for several ballots, then voted against him for several ballots, then switched back to voting for him, without explanation for any of it. She's also known for having a hair-trigger temper, and has a turnover rate in her office that is four times the average. She and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) are far and away the worst in this regard. The point is, one cannot make too many predictions based on the (often erratic) behavior of Victoria Spartz.

That's the latest from the lower chamber. In theory, there are only 2 days left before the members leave for the break. However, given that they don't have a budget, maybe that schedule will require some adjustment. (Z)

Begging Your Pardon

The pardon power continues to be front and center, as is often the case in the waning months of a presidential administration.

To start, reporters have had time to go through the 1,500 or so pardons that Joe Biden issued last week, and they've found some... unpleasant things. One of the pardons went to Judge Michael Conahan, who sentenced kids to juvenile detention in exchange for kickbacks from the corporations running those facilities. Another went to Rita Crundwell, the city comptroller who looted the small town of Dixon, IL, to the tune of $54 million.

When pardons go to extremely dubious people like Conahan and Crundwell, the tendency is to smell a rat. In this case, however, there does not appear to be any corruption. This duo is not Marc Rich or Jeffrey Epstein; they're not in a position to write a fat check to a political party or to a particular politician. The facts are that moving thousands of white-collar offenders from federal prisons to house arrest 3-4 years ago served not only to protect inmates against the COVID pandemic, but also to reduce overcrowding. Sending these folks back, even with the pandemic in the rearview mirror, was not a great option, and they've all served some time in prison, and another 3-4 years under house arrest. That is to say, they've paid their debt, at least in part. The upshot is that the White House made an understandable decision, albeit one that still looks pretty bad.

Meanwhile, there is something of a public debate going on among high-profile Democrats, as to whether or not Biden should issue preemptive pardons to the "enemies" of Donald Trump. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was on Meet the Press this weekend, and said that Biden should "consider that very seriously." On the other hand, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was on This Week, at very nearly the same time, and said that he's not interested in a pardon, as he stands by the work that he and the 1/6 Committee did, and he doesn't think that mass, blanket pardons would be a good precedent to set.

Both men have a good point. On one hand, if Trump goes full-on Night of the Long Knives, then Democrats are going to regret Biden's failure to seize this opportunity while he still had it. On the other hand, if Biden pardons anyone and everyone whom the Trump administration might look askance at, then "pardon everyone" almost certainly will become a new American tradition. And that, in turn, would mean that the lawlessness that a president is now empowered to get away with would potentially extend to his whole administration.

It is pretty clear, at this point, that there are some serious problems with the pardon power. Unfortunately, they are probably not fixable. Since the pardon power is in the Constitution, a change would require an amendment, which is not likely to happen. Further, even if there was an amendment, it's hard to see an approach that would not trade one set of problems for another. The pardon power exists to correct injustices, and also to give a president a bargaining chip in times of crisis (e.g., the Whiskey Rebellion). If the power is watered down, or is partly given over to some sort of pardons board, then the original purpose would be partly or wholly lost, while the process would almost certainly become even more politicized.

And actually, the biggest problem here is not the pardon power. Yes, that's a problem, but it's not as big a problem as the fact that an unscrupulous president can weaponize the Justice Department against his enemies. For 250 years of U.S. history, excepting a few years in the 1970s and a few more in the 2010s, custom and presidential scruples kept that from happening. But it sure looks like those guardrails are in danger of failing, for at least 4 years. We don't foresee reform anytime in the near future, but if you want to hope and rally for something that is at least plausible, and within the power of Congress, hope and rally for the Department of Justice to be spun off as a quasi-public agency, along the lines of the Federal Reserve. (Z)

What's the Next Move for Harris?

Sometimes, when a major-party presidential candidate loses, that's their farewell to politics. Think Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole or Al Gore. Sometimes, they're done running for office, but they reemerge in some non-elective position. Think Adlai Stevenson, Walter Mondale or John Kerry. And sometimes, they go away, lick their wounds, and then re-enter the arena. It's the Richard Nixon plan. Or, if you prefer, the Mitt Romney plan. And there is little doubt that it will also be the Kamala Harris plan.

It is hardly a surprise that the VP is not quite done with politics. She's still fairly young, at 60. She has a strong record of success, with a 4-1 record in elections. And in the 1, she only had 100 days to campaign, and yet made a pretty decent go of it. The presidential campaign also gave her connections to donors and political movers and shakers, not to mention massive name recognition. That's not the profile of someone who's going to pack it in, and spend the rest of their life serving on corporate boards and teaching university classes.

That said, Harris has a pretty big decision to make, as there are two potential brass rings that she might reach for. Or, perhaps more precisely, one brass ring and one golden ring. The golden ring, of course, is the presidency. If she jumps into the 2028 presidential race, she'd certainly be one of the frontrunners, and maybe even the favorite. However, there are at least three pretty serious obstacles that would be in her path. The first, of course, is that she'd have some pretty heavy-duty competition for the Democratic nod. The second is that there's a very real possibility that, correct or not, Democratic primary voters in 2028 will decide "we just can't run a woman." The third is that there's a very real possibility that, correct or not, Democratic primary voters will decide "we just can't run Kamala Harris again."

The brass ring, meanwhile, is the governorship of California. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is term-limited, and thus far there's no clear-cut favorite to replace him. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and DHS Secretary Xavier Becerra are kicking the tires, and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D-CA) is probably the current frontrunner, but none of them appear to be world-beaters. If Harris gets in, many of the other potential contenders have already made clear they'd drop out, and she would likely be able to steamroll the rest. Put another way, the general consensus is that the job is hers for the asking.

What is NOT on the table is taking a shot at both jobs. If Harris was to run for governor, and win, she'd take office just months before she'd have to start campaigning for president. Democratic operatives, donors, and voters would not take kindly to so obviously treating the governorship as nothing more than a way station. And if she serves one full term as governor, then her next possible presidential opportunity would be 2032, at best. She would be 68 by then, which means 76 at the end of two presidential terms. Voters just love septuagenarian presidential candidates. And if the Democrats win the White House in 2028, then it would almost certainly mean her next presidential shot would be 2036 (a.k.a. ages 72-80).

So, it's one or the other, but not both. If Harris' team thinks that a second presidential bid is viable, then that will be the choice. If it seems to be too big a mountain to climb, then it's the governorship. She's got about 9 months to decide. (Z)

Merchan Rejects Half of Trump's Argument

Judge Juan Merchan has been pondering what to do in the Donald Trump hush-money case, and yesterday, he issued a 41-page decision addressing one of the two major questions that were before the Court, namely whether or not the verdict was based on information that should have been protected by presidential immunity.

Merchan's answer, in short, is "no." Actually, more like "NO." The Judge found that: (1) If Trump wanted to make the immunity argument, he should have raised it at trial, which he did not; (2) Even if he had raised the immunity argument, he would not have prevailed; and (3) Even if he had raised the immunity argument and prevailed, he still would have lost the case, as there was enough stuff to convict him that does not come from his presidency.

In theory, Trump could still win on the second part of his argument, which is that the entire case should be tossed out because he is now the president-elect. However, his odds there are not great, for two reasons. First, it's a pretty desperate, Hail Mary argument. Maybe a president can do damn near anything he wants while in office, but that does not negate the things he did before taking office. Second, if Merchan was preparing to toss the whole thing, he probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of writing a 41-page decision explaining why the conviction was perfectly valid. (Z)

Germany Headed for a New Government

Yesterday, there were headlines, worldwide, announcing that the German government has fallen, and that Chancellor Olaf Scholz lost a vote of no confidence, 394 to 207, with 116 abstaining.

These things are true, though if you don't read beyond the headline, you might be left with the wrong impression. Having learned certain lessons the hard way in the 1930s, the Germans make it relatively difficult for a chancellor to dissolve a parliament before its natural expiration date. The coalition government that Scholz had been leading was no longer functional, and so it was he who called for, and lobbied for, the vote of no confidence. So, in losing the vote, he actually won.

At least, he won for now. Obviously, Scholz thinks he has a better chance of returning a favorable result now—the election is expected Feb. 23—as opposed to waiting until the natural expiry of parliament in August. Good luck with that, Olaf. We don't know too much about German politics, but we do know that: (1) It's hard to follow a legend like Angela Merkel, and (2) the world is in the middle of a "throw the bums out" era.

The fall of the German government means that yet another of the key leaders of the free world, and of the pro-Ukraine war effort, has been thrown into uncertainty. This is not the most desirable thing, at a time when Trump v2.0 is imminent, but that's how it runs sometimes in world affairs. Meanwhile, if there is a German reader who can say something more substantive about what went wrong for Scholz and his coalition, and what might happen when the election is held, please let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, Day 10: Bezos Christmas Cards

The Donald Trump Christmas cards we had yesterday were, more or less, cards he might actually send. Today's Jeff Bezos Christmas cards go in something of a different direction. You may detect a theme that runs through many of them:

• C.E. in Murrysville, PA: Scaredy-cat:
  
  
  
  
• M.B. in Los Angeles, CA: The grinch:
  
  
  
  
• M.G. in Weymouth, MA: The Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz:
  
  
  
  No, wait, that's unfair to the Cowardly Lion.
  
  
• R.B. in Santa Monica, CA: Is this a little too on-point?
  
  
  
  
• D.M. in Asheville, NC:
  
  
  
  
• A.G. in Scranton, PA: I just wanted Mr. Bezos to know he has options for his belly:
  
  

Tomorrow, it's Tulsi Gabbard. There's still time for suggestions at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger