Three Reasons Appointing Max Baucus Ambassador to China was Political Genius

Whoever in the West Wing dreamed up the idea of appointing Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) as Ambassador to China is probably patting themselves on the back today. The Chinese post has a history of providing a solution to various political headaches; no sane politician or elder statesman could pass on the opportunity to serve as America’s representative to the world’s most populous nation. In 2009, the Obama administration viewed Jon Hunstman as a dangerous rival for the presidency in 2012, so they appointed him to the position. Upon his return, he took flak from the conservative base for daring to serve a President they viewed as radical. The choice of Baucus might prove to be even more of a masterstroke: it allows the Democratic party to shore up not one, but two vulnerable Senate seats for 2014 and reduces the chance that the White House will be pigeonholed into dealing with tax reform that would provoke fits of rage from their base.

1. Making Montana less vulnerable in 2014

Appointing Baucus to a diplomatic post means that his vacant seat will be filled by somebody appointed by Montana Governor Steve Bullock, a Democrat. It appears likely that Bullock will choose Lieutenant Governor John Walsh, who will have a year to build his profile and fundraising network from Washington and have the opportunity to run as an incumbent Senator, which could dramatically improve his chances in a race that the Cook Political Report currently categorizes as leaning Republican.

2. Ending Baucus’ tax-reform plans

As a moderate senator from a state that swung to Romney by 14 points in the 2012 Presidential election with the ability to control the agenda in the Senate on tax reform, Baucus’ endorsement of lowered corporate tax rates and proposal to replace the current patchwork system of renewable energy tax credits with just two measures made some on the left nervous. Packing him off to China means that while his proposals are circulating through the media, the Senate Committee on Finance will now be chaired by Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is more in line with the party on taxation and less likely to accept compromises from the Republicans – or author them himself – that would make the White House uncomfortable.

3. Bolstering Mary Landrieu

Wyden’s impending departure to greener pastures on the Committee on Finance means that the chairmanship of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will fall to Mary Landrieu (D-LA) who, despite her embrace of the Affordable Care Act and other Democratic priorities, is significantly more pro-drilling and oil development than Wyden. Landrieu wholeheartedly supports the Keystone XL pipeline, voted against cloture on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act in 2008, and has a lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters of 49 percent. Wyden, by contast, has a score of 89 percent. Landrieu’s assent to the chair of the committee will help increase her chances in a tough reelection battle in a deep-red state in the deep-red south by allowing her to point to the fact that she will have significantly more control over oil development in Louisiana than would a comparable freshman Republican, theoretically making her a much more valuable ally to the oil industry in the state.

Chicken Soup for the Democrat’s Soul: the State of the Senate

Although the race for the White House has received the lion’s share of political coverage this fall, the Senate has several interesting races and the news here is much better than anyone would have expected last year. If Governor Romney wins the Presidential election, the Senate will – rightly or wrongly – be the final firewall against the Tea Party Congress passing radical budgets that will gut Medicare and Social Security or laws that will increase government control of women’s reproductive rights. It will also be the only defense against President Romney nominated Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Most of the seats up for reelection are held by Democrats, so through pure chance it seemed as though Democrats were in for some bad news. Several recent events have changed that, though.

Two of these fall into the category of male GOP candidates forgetting that women have the right to vote, and making statements about rape that were shocking. In Missouri, where Senator Claire McCaskill seemed certain to lose, Todd Akin lost 10% of his support in a single week by attempting to differentiate between “legitimate” rape and whatever other kind there is. Months later, when the controversy had all but died, Indiana candidate Richard Mourdock revived it by referring to pregnancies resulting from rape as God’s will. Mourdock, the former state treasurer, is a Tea Party candidate who successfully defeated bipartisan-minded (read: he supported reducing the number of nuclear missiles in the world) long-time Senator Richard Lugar in the primary. Had Luger been up for reelection, he almost certainly would have won. Once again, the Tea Party seems on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by selecting candidates that would make an Ayatollah proud.

Continue reading