|
 |
Good afternoon, and welcome back to Press Pass, The Bulwark’s twice-weekly newsletter on Congress, campaigns, and the way Washington works (or fails to work). If you’re new here, you should know that today’s newsletter is free for anyone to read, but Thursday editions are behind a paywall. I know it can be irritating to hit these digital hard stops when you want to read on, but revenue from subscriptions is vital for sustaining truly independent journalism. If you want to support our work, please consider subscribing at the link below. But regardless of whether you do, I hope you enjoy today’s edition. We’ve got a lot to discuss.
Today’s newsletter poses a simple question: Do lawmakers believe that personal character matters when deciding if a candidate should be in the Senate? Right now, each party is dealing with a high-profile candidate in a key race who has significant fidelity issues: Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton in Texas and Democratic Senate primary challenger Graham Platner in Maine. I asked lawmakers in both parties if they are second-guessing their respective dudes.
In addition, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has been floating a truly silly idea: suspending international travel to and from so-called “sanctuary cities” until they cooperate with federal immigration laws. The proposal is genuinely nuts. But don’t take my word for it. Even key Republican senators with whom I spoke were quick to dismiss it as unfeasible and horribly disruptive to the U.S. economy. Lastly, do you ever wonder why some politicians seem like they just don’t know a single thing about sports? Read on and wonder no more.
Character Matters—for the Other Party
Asked about Platner and Paxton, lawmakers condemned the opposing party’s most problematic aspiring senator while defending their own.
|
| ||||||||||||
 |
The creep
Maine Democratic Senate primary candidate Graham Platner and Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton are different candidates dealing with different scandals. Paxton’s infidelity is not the same as Platner’s, nor is Paxton’s pattern of corruption and other moral shortcomings the same as Platner’s Nazi tattoo and history of racist comments online. I am not equating their wrongdoings, nor do I propose doing so.
But the scandal-infused coverage about each candidate has given rise to a similar debate in their respective parties. It’s a debate about fitness for office and whether character—that fickle quality that is separate from a candidate’s policies, but which can result in good or bad policymaking—should be a consideration at all in a time when voters are demanding wins at any cost.
I asked some senators from both parties, many of whom either jettisoned all principles after coming to Washington or came to power in the first place simply by not having any, whether Americans should demand more of their elected officials on the character front.
Yes, they all seemed to agree: Americans should hold politicians from the other party to a higher standard.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he’s “of course” backing Paxton.
“You know who his opponent is, don’t you?” Grassley asked me. “If you look at who the opponent is and what he believes about transgender and all that stuff, you’d have a whole different view of Paxton.”
Asked about both candidates, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) expressed support for Paxton but opposition to Platner, although not for character-related reasons, exactly.
“I’m gonna support the attorney general. On Mr. Platner, that’s something the Democrats—I can give you my opinion about Mr. Platner—I’m sure Jesus loves him, but everybody else thinks he’s an idiot.”
When I asked if he considers it a double standard that Republicans are judging Platner for character problems while skating over Paxton’s issues in that domain, Kennedy wouldn’t hear of it. “Well that’s your opinion” he replied, curiously treating my question as a statement of the facts instead.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), whom Paxton defeated in last week’s primary, told reporters he stands by his characterization of his triumphant opponent as a “crook.”
“I’ve said no, he’s not [fit for office],” Cornyn said. “But he won the race fair and square.” Cornyn has pledged to vote for the ticket in November—implying that Paxton will get his support.
Democrats I spoke with also tended to downplay the relative importance of character in today’s political environment. But they also did seem to feel a need to offer a lot more excuses for this.
I spoke with Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), a man who understands better than most the political risks that lawmakers take on when they embrace open corruption and immorality. Kim succeeded longtime Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) after a jury found the latter guilty of accepting bribes and acting as a foreign agent.
When I asked for his thoughts on Platner’s situation, Kim said, “I’ll take a look where things stand, but we’re gonna fight everywhere we can.”
Asked if character is an important component in assessing a candidate, Kim said it is, but he added the caveat that policy is an equally significant part of the assessment.
“Look, I’m in the Senate by virtue of a corruption scandal,” he said. “There’s a reason I took on this race—my race—because I certainly have concerns about that. And character matters. It matters not just in terms of their personal behavior, it also depends on who they vote for for Supreme Court justices [and] in terms of what is ultimately our job, which is trying to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and whether or not, you know, people can be trusted.
“So, look,” he concluded, with a bit of a punt: “the voters will take all of that into account.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of Platner’s early and most high-profile backers, remains a Platner backer.
“I think it might be a good idea if we focused on the important issues facing the working families of Maine and this country,” Sanders told a gaggle of reporters on Monday. “My understanding is that Amy—Graham Platner’s wife, who I met—is working with her husband, loves her husband, feels that their marriage is working, and maybe as a nation we focus on issues more important than the Platner marriage.”
“Is he a