Secretary of state nominee Mike Pompeo may not get a thumbs-up from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With libertarian, non-interventionist Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the “no” camp, an otherwise straight party-line vote would give him 10 votes in favor, and 11 opposed to confirmation. Senate rules nevertheless would allow the nomination to go to the floor.
If Paul remains the only no and Pompeo gets every other Republican, he could sneak through with a 50-50 vote, giving Vice President Pence the tie-breaking vote. If, however, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — who is battling brain cancer and is presently hospitalized for an infection — cannot be there to cast a vote, Pompeo would need at least one Democratic vote.
News that Pompeo made a trip to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un should help grease the skids for his confirmation. The Post reports:
CIA Director Mike Pompeo made a top-secret visit to North Korea over Easter weekend as an envoy for President Trump to meet with that country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, according to two people with direct knowledge of the trip.
The extraordinary meeting between one of Trump’s most trusted emissaries and the authoritarian head of a rogue state was part of an effort to lay the groundwork for direct talks between Trump and Kim about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, according to the two people, who requested anonymity because of the highly classified nature of the talks.
Since Pompeo has begun on arguably the most difficult diplomatic endeavor of the Trump presidency, the Senate may be hesitant to disrupt whatever progress he made. Before news of Pompeo’s visit surfaced, Pompeo’s confirmation was anything but a slam dunk.
Politico reports: “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) … was among 15 Democratic caucus members to support Pompeo’s CIA nomination last year. Schumer, however, said Tuesday he still hasn’t decided on Pompeo’s promotion.” The report continues: “The red-state Democrats whose votes could make all the difference are largely publicly undecided. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said Tuesday that she is ‘still evaluating’ him; Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he has an ‘open mind’; and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is waiting until she meets with him privately.”
Left-leaning members of the Democratic caucus with political and substantive concerns, especially about Pompeo’s closeness to Trump and his hawkish stances, may want to vote no. However, there is a good argument that for red-state Democrats, voting no does not make much sense.
First, on the politics: With the political winds blowing the Democrats’ way, these Democrats may have an easier time than they predicted getting reelected. Nevertheless, the ability to tell voters they occasionally will defy the more progressive views of their party leaders is helpful in states Trump won overwhelmingly in 2016. (Indeed, Manchin, running in a state where Trump is very popular, has in recent days been saying he’s open to supporting Pompeo.) Red-state Democrats will have a chance to cast a progressive base-pleasing no vote, if they feel compelled, when considering the confirmation of CIA director nominee Gina Haspel (who will need to explain her actions at a CIA “black site” in Thailand) and that of Veterans Affairs nominee Ronny L. Jackson (who seems wholly unqualified). They do not need to cast a no vote on Pompeo.
On the merits, Pompeo came to his confirmation entirely prepared. He made the case that he’ll be in a diplomatic role, not an intelligence or defense post, so he will make every effort to pursue diplomatic solutions. His meeting with the North Korean leader will underscore his ability to transition from an intelligence to a diplomatic and policymaking role. His promise to repair the damage wrought at the State Department by his predecessor, fill open slots, boost morale and work with (not in isolation from) career Foreign Service personnel was compelling.
As for his closeness to Trump, let’s be realistic: No one who goes toe-to-toe with Trump repeatedly (or certainly publicly) is going to survive. Only someone Trump trusts and likes will be able to influence the erratic, ignorant president. The trick here is finding someone independent enough to talk sense to Trump but friendly enough to stay in Trump’s good graces. (Frankly, pulling that trick off at CIA suggests that Pompeo’s “diplomatic” skills are razor-sharp.)
Would it be better to have someone heading the State Department who had been more judicious about use of force, with a record of embracing imperfect solutions to avoid military conflicts? For these Democrats, the answer is almost certainly yes. (As an aside, CIA chief Pompeo has worked cooperatively with foreign intelligence services, so it is not as if he is unfamiliar with the challenges of reaching accommodation with our allies.)
But considering the sorts of people who at this stage would work for Trump, Pompeo is likely about the best available. (While Pompeo was not forthcoming about a conversation with Trump pertaining to the Russia investigation, there is every indication that he is fully cooperating with the special counsel.)
Two other factors should work in Pompeo’s favor. First, progress is being made in Iran talks with our allies. Pompeo will have every interest in seeing that through. He’ll then be in a better position to tell Trump what a great deal Trump got and why the United States need not back out of the deal. (What a tremendous accomplishment, Mr. President! The best Iran deal EVER!) Second, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis will be there exercising restraint and, we pray, preventing an international calamity. In other words, Pompeo is unlikely to prevail in internecine battles with Mattis over the use of force.
It may be a close call for some red-state Democrats, but both on the politics and the merits, voting to confirm Pompeo seems to be the smart move. Savvy members might even get some commitments on issues of importance to them (e.g., senators from farm states do not want tariffs in the worst way). And remember, if Pompeo goes down, imagine the nominee Trump might then dredge up.