GOP Principles Give Way on Blanche, Putin May Test NATO Article 5

What happens when political principles collide with political survival, presidential power runs into constitutional limits, and one of the world’s most important military alliances confronts a question nobody wants answered the hard way?

Jeff Alan Wolf looks at the growing political drama surrounding Todd Blanche and the Republican senators who could determine his future as attorney general. 

Senator’s Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have each taken positions that raise a larger question about Washington: When politicians talk about principle, how much of what we’re hearing is conviction, and how much is calculation?

Donald Trump’s controversial $400 million White House ballroom is back in the courts, and the latest development could have implications reaching far beyond one enormous construction project. 

The fight over the White House raises a fundamental question about presidential power, Congress and just how much freedom any president should have to reshape the People’s House.

Then there’s Vladimir Putin, NATO and Article 5. A recent U.S. intelligence assessment raises an unsettling possibility about what Putin may be considering and why the real objective might have less to do with winning a conventional war than discovering whether NATO’s most important promise is as strong as its members say it is.

For more than 75 years, NATO deterrence has depended on potential adversaries believing that an attack against one member means confronting the entire alliance. 

But what happens when an adversary starts wondering whether everybody would actually keep that promise when keeping it suddenly becomes dangerous?

In this episode of A World Gone Mad, Jeff digs beneath the headlines to examine political loyalty in Washington, the boundaries of presidential authority and a potential challenge to NATO that could carry consequences far beyond Europe. 
The questions are already uncomfortable. 
The answers could be considerably more so.

Subscribe to A World Gone Mad with Jeff Alan Wolf for independent news commentary that looks beyond today’s headlines to the bigger forces shaping American democracy.

Looking for more independent news commentary and original articles?

Visit Jeff’s Substack The Wolf’s Den

https://open.substack.com/pub/jeffalanwolf

AWorldGoneMadPodcast@gmail.com

Transcript

A World Gone Mad Opens

SPEAKER_01 0:00

This is the world on mad. This is a world on mad.

SPEAKER_00 0:09

From Studio 19, I'm Jeff Allen Wolf, and this is definitely a world gone mad.

Cassidy And The Blanche Confirmation

SPEAKER_00 0:16

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy says he'll vote to confirm Todd Blanche as Attorney General. Of course he will. Because apparently the most renewable resource in Washington is in solar energy. It's principles. They can be recycled, repackaged, placed back on the shelf whenever politically convenient. Cassidy was one of the last Republican holdouts on Blanche. He acknowledged concerns. He weighed everything carefully. Cassidy apparently stared deeply into the constitutional abyss, contemplated the independence of the Justice Department, and finally emerged with the courageous conclusion every political fortune teller could have predicted. Yeah, okay, I'll vote yes. Seriously? Cassidy says Blanche isn't perfect. But nobody is. Fair enough. My mechanic isn't perfect either. But if he accidentally installs my steering wheel in the trunk, I'm probably not saying, well, nobody's perfect. Give him another shot. Cassidy's vote matters because Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, two names that keep popping up, right? Are opposing Blanche's nomination, leaving Cassidy in a position to essentially clear the runway for Blanche's confirmation. And let's dive deeper into Susan Collins. Susan Collins opposing a Trump nominee always fascinates me because Collins has spent years perfecting a political maneuver that should probably have its own Olympic event. Collins looking deeply concerned while remaining remarkably compatible with almost everything happening around her. Nobody does concern like Susan Collins. Eyebrows slightly raised, voice lowered, perhaps a thoughtful pause. Somewhere a staff member of Collins releases a dove. And suddenly we're supposed to believe the Republic has found its conscience. To understand Collins' attempt to brand herself as an anti-Blanche warrior for public integrity, can't even say that without laughing, look no further than the latest main senator polling, or rather, Senate polling. A recent University of New Hampshire poll found Collins trailing her Democratic challenger, Troy Jackson, 49 to 46%, with a majority of voters disapproving of Susan Collins' job performance. Despite positioning herself as a check on Trump's corruption, public voting data reveals Collins supported the MAGA agenda nearly 95% of the time. 95%. No wonder Trump endorsed Collins last month. Now Collins certainly has broken with Trump on significant votes, but she's also heading into another difficult main election, which means every high-profile vote comes with an additional piece of political equipment attached to it. A calculator. That doesn't prove Collins' vote against Blanche is motivated by re-election. Seriously? Senator Murkowski has her own reasons for opposing Blanche as well. But this is Washington where every declaration of principle deserves at least one follow-up question. Would you still feel this strongly if nobody were counting votes back home? That's the part that wears people down. Not disagreement, not compromise, political courage that somehow becomes much easier when courage and political survival happen to be traveling in the same direction. Cassidy supports Blanche. Collins and Murkowski oppose him. Blanche will become attorney general. Another dog and pony confirmation hearing will move forward. And Washington once again reminds us that principles are absolutely sacred. Right up until someone checks the polling, counts the votes, and discovers exactly how sacred principles can afford to be.

Courts Block Trump’s Ballroom Plan

SPEAKER_00 5:07

And speaking of Washington discovering just how flexible the rules can be, that brings me back to Donald Trump's White House ballroom. I've talked about Trump's White House ballroom in previous episodes, and now there's another major development in the story that apparently refuses to leave the constitutional renovation business. The latest appeals court ruling has come down, and this one puts another roadblock in front of Trump's plans. Hopefully, this roadblock will actually accomplish something positive. Donald Trump wanted a new White House ballroom. Not a little ballroom, not a tasteful little addition where somebody moves a ficus tree, knocks out a wall, and suddenly there's enough room for 12 more people at Thanksgiving. A 90,000 square foot ballroom costing roughly $400 million, built where the East Wing once stood. Old news that pretty much everyone knows. And now a federal appeals court has essentially said, you know, there's a Congress, right? The D.C. Circuit Court ruled 2-1 that the president cannot simply make a fundamental alteration to the White House without congressional approval, blocking above-ground construction, while giving the administration two weeks to seek Supreme Court review. Now, what fascinates me about this story isn't whether America needs a ballroom. Maybe we do. Maybe somewhere buried deep inside the Constitution, right between freedom of speech and unreasonable search and seizure, James Madison scribble, and if possible, install one hell of a dance floor. The issue is something much simpler. Who gets to decide? The White House isn't Trump Tower. It isn't Mar-a-Lago. It isn't the house you bought in Scottsdale, Arizona, where you decide Tuesday morning that the kitchen needs granite countertops. And by Friday there are six contractors standing in your door driveway. Now the White House belongs to the country. Presidents live there temporarily. That's rather the point. You get four years, maybe eight, then somebody else gets the keys. That's why we have processes for changing national landmarks. Government is deliberately cumbersome because the alternative is allowing whoever currently occupies an office to treat public property like they just wanted on an episode of WHGTV. And this is bigger than architecture. Presidential power almost never expands with a marching band announcing, attention, everyone, executive authority is now being expanded. It happens one decision at a time. This is easier. Congress takes too long. The president should just do it. Why bother asking? Eventually the exception becomes the expectation. And that's why courts exist. Not to decide whether the drapes are attractive, not to determine whether the chandeliers are sufficiently presidential, but to occasionally remind everyone occupying the most powerful office in the country that there are still other branches of government. Trump may eventually win at the Supreme Court. The ballroom project may continue. That legal story isn't finished, but the principle being tested is worth remembering. The White House is called the People's House, which apparently means even the guy currently living there sometimes has to ask the people's representatives before knocking down another wall.

Putin And The Article 5 Stress Test

SPEAKER_00 9:16

And finally, this last bit of madness: U.S. Intel assesses Putin could launch an attack aimed at testing NATO unity. There are news stories that make you angry. There are news stories that make you laugh. And then there are news stories where you quietly put down the coffee and think, ah, well, that's not good. Recent U.S. intelligence assessments reportedly examine the possibility that Vladimir Putin could test NATO with some kind of limited escalation. Possibly a cyberattack or even a small incursion against an allied country, designed to see whether NATO members really mean what they've spent more than 75 years promising each other. An attack on one is an attack on all. Article 5. The sentence that has helped hold NATO together since 1949. And apparently, Putin may be wondering whether that sentence still comes with a warranty. Now, this does not mean American intelligence believes Putin has decided to attack NATO. That distinction matters. Intelligence agencies examine possibilities, intentions, and scenarios. They're essentially paid to spend every day imagining horrible things so the rest of us don't have to. But the possibility being examined tells us something important. Putin doesn't necessarily need to invade half of Europe to challenge NATO. He only needs to find the loose thread. And like I said, maybe it's a cyber attack, maybe it's a small military incursion. Maybe it's something ambiguous enough that 32 NATO countries suddenly begin arguing about whether it technically qualifies as an attack. Because that's the nightmare. Not merely what Putin does, what everyone else does next. NATO works largely because potential adversaries believe attacking Estonia is effectively attacking the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, and every other NATO member. That deterrence doesn't require every country to like one another. Thank God, because family Thanksgiving has taught us that isn't realistic. It requires those NATO countries to believe the promise. NATO leaders reaffirmed that commitment at their Ankara summit just last month. An attack against one ally is an attack against all. Putin understands something about alliances. You don't always destroy them by attacking countries head on. Sometimes you test them. You push here, you provoke there, you create uncertainty. Then you watch. What country hesitates? What country argues? What country says technically, because the most dangerous word in any mutual defense agreement may eventually become technically. Article five has survived because nobody has successfully demonstrated that NATO members won't honor it. That's why even the possibility of Putin testing it deserves attention. The real target wouldn't simply be Poland or the Baltic states. The target would be the promise itself. And if NATO were tested and one or more members decided that Article V was something they could choose whether or not to honor, the world would discover that a promise written in a treaty had become optional. Putting the words back on that page won't make them powerful again.

Wolfpack Thanks And Next Steps

SPEAKER_00 13:25

Wolfpack. I know it's a summer and you're very busy, but you're taking a few minutes to listen to this podcast. I thank you for that. I would love for you to send me an email with your thoughts and comments on this or any other episode or anything that's on your mind. Wolfpacktalks at gmail.com. And please subscribe to this podcast. It's free. There's no obligation. But when you subscribe, you automatically get notification on a new episode to make it easier for you to listen. And if you would really like to help me, if you could leave a review on Apple Podcasts, that goes a long way. And please, check out my Substack. It's also free. Go to Substack if you don't have the app. Search for me, Jeff Allen Wolf, The Wolf's Den. Please subscribe to that as well. And again, there's no obligation. I'm Jeff Allen Wolf. This is definitely a world gone mad. I'll be back Monday. Until then, I urge you the wolf back. Remain skeptical. Question everything. Please don't lose hope. And most of all, stay alert.

unknown 14:43

There is chaos in the world.

SPEAKER_01 14:46

Can't you see? And we need to stand up and freeze a democracy.