Two United States Senators: Re-enter The Donald and The Sunday Times

John McCain, left, and Sen. Chuck Schumer

This week, two US senators, John McCain and Chuck Shumer, have hit the news. Both are well known and respected members of Congress. McCain is a four term Republican senator for Arizona and Shumer is a two term Democratic senator for New York State and has indicated he will retire in 2016.

John McCain must have thought his involvement in Presidential politics was over. He was defeated by George W Bush in the 2000 Republican nomination race. Then there was his unsuccessful campaign in 2008, when, as the Republican nominee who chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, he was trounced by Barack Obama.

True, McCain has been an influential legislator. He made a valiant attempt to rein in campaign spending. The McCain Feingold Act of 2002 was passed by Congress, regulating hard money contributions and seeking to outlaw soft money. The Supreme Court tore the Bill to shreds.

McCain was again the target last week. Donald Trump questioned McCain’s hero status as a Vietnam War veteran on the ridiculous grounds that McCain had been a POW for five years. On any view, Trump’s comments, from a man who has not served one day in the American armed forces, were beyond despicable and crossed the line of American politics. Is The Donald immune from the laws of political gravity or has he now delivered his own torpedo? Will he be isolated and regarded as an object of scorn or curiosity, rather than of Presidential seriousness? Will that please moderate Republicans?

Trump has dominated coverage of the Republican Presidential race with nonstop interviews and over-the-top comments. It has to be admitted he is a skilled showman who is able to command attention with his combative verbal style. But there is so much more to becoming President than Trump’s displays. The unwarranted attack on McCain ought to mark a turning point for Trump the politician.

Few Republicans have gone on the record to criticise Trump. Perhaps there is no desire to put themselves into direct conflict with him. Maybe Trump’s current poll ratings offer him an ill-deserved protection. According to The Washington Post, one source described Trump’s attack as “lethal” and another said he expects “a complete cratering” of Trump’s support. A third predicted that Trump would become “a niche candidate” and a sideshow to the main event.

Those who have gone on the record include Rick Perry, the former Texas Governor, who said: "His comments have reached a new low in American politics. His attack on veterans make him unfit to be Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, and he should immediately withdraw from the race for President.” Marco Rubio, another leading Republican presidential hopeful, called Mr. Trump's comments "absurd, offensive and ridiculous".

Trump’s candidacy for the GOP nomination is a knot of contradictions. He disparages the Affordable Care Act but has called for a universal national health-care program. He calls himself pro-life after earlier saying he was pro-choice. He wants to expand Social Security benefits. He has repeatedly mocked his opponents in the most personal ways. How can someone like that unite the Republican Party, as well as the country? Yet The Donald has a sufficient lead in the polls to get him a seat at the 5^th August Republican nominee debate.

Eventually, every candidate who seeks to become a serious contender for the Presidency has to cross a threshold of acceptability with the voters. That is measured by not only where candidates stand on issues or how authentic they seem, but whether voters conclude they have the temperament, character and judgment to sit in the Oval Office. Perhaps the debate will be The Donald’s final political act.

In this week’s The Sunday Times, an article headlined, “Iran deal in hands of US senator,” suggested that Chuck Shumer might decide the fate of the Iran nuclear treaty. The story reported how Shumer was likely to support Israel’s position on the Treaty. Why? Because so many New York voters were Jewish. How simplistic can you get? Shumer will be an influential voice in the Iran nuclear treaty debate but can just one Senator possibly be so influential?

What the newspaper article neither investigated nor explained was Constitutional and Congressional math. Let us assume the Treaty is rejected by the Senate and that the President exercises his veto. Congress can override the veto if there is a two thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 100 votes in the Senate. 67 are needed to override a veto. The Republicans hold 54 Senate seats and there are two independents. So if no Republican and independent votes against the override motion, there will still have to be 11 Democratic Senators voting to defeat the Treaty’s ratification. The article makes no mention of where these 11 Senate votes will come from.

Furthermore, the article is silent about the House of Representatives. 290 votes in the House are needed to override but there are only 246 Republican congressmen, so 44 Democrats would have to defect. To make things clear and beyond dispute, if the House votes against an override motion, the Treaty survives, regardless of what happens in the Senate.

A quality broadsheet like The Sunday Times should offer better reporting. By dumbing down and trivialising the Treaty ratification by over-emphasising the importance of an individual Senator brings serious politics into the gutter. News International and the Murdoch era should have a lot to answer for.