Politics roundup: Border wall funding could lead to a government shutdown

Funding disputes, White House inflexibility, and the U.S.-Mexico border wall could all lead to a government shutdown before the end of this year.

Shutdown looms – over a wall

It’s one or the other, apparently. Our congressional representatives either sign off on funding for the much-discussed, still-nonexistent border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, or the government shuts down.

Of course, it’s never quite that simple. For a while there, it looked like it would be. Then, the Senate approved a stopgap funding bill that would kick the can down the road, just a little farther, until February 8. At least then it would be the next Congress’ problem. Crisis temporarily averted. That is, until someone asked the president.

See, that bill would have to be signed by the president before it can take effect. And the president in question is apparently digging in his heels and refusing to take up a pen. After meeting with outgoing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and other Republicans, the president has made it clear that the current bill is a no-go.

Now, it looks more and more possible that we’ll enter a partial government shutdown as a result. That means a number of different things: large swaths of the national park system will be closed or unstaffed, government employees with either be on forced vacation or will work without pay, and independent agencies like the FDA, the EPA, and NASA will close.

What was so wrong with the compromise? Conservative members of the House Republican Conference argue that a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives will never approve billions of dollars in funding for a controversial wall.

They’re probably right. Even now, with just a couple weeks left of a fully Republican-controlled Congress, the chances of such a bill passing are dubious at best. Even Republicans who are not part of ultra-conservative groups like the House Freedom Caucus have expressed reservations about funding the border wall.

Meanwhile, Trump may be ready to implement one of his signature campaign promises. He spent many weeks in 2016 promising to build such a wall. No matter that he also said Mexico would pay for it. Perhaps voters in 2020 would be able to overlook the fact that $5 billion went out of their own nation’s pocket if the wall was up at that point.

Incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has said that her party would be open to approving the wall funds, assuming they come with more money for causes like disaster relief. However, a last-minute House bill that included $5.7 billion for the wall and almost $8 billion for disaster relief fizzled in the Senate.

Trump, meanwhile, is seemingly ready to hold the government hostage. He says that a partial shutdown of this sort could last “for a very long time” if members of the House and the Senate do not capitulate. Earlier, he told Pelosi and Senate Minority Chuck Schumer that he would be “proud to shut down the government for border security.”

Troops ordered to withdraw from Syria, Mattis resigns

On Wednesday, the president announced via Twitter that the United States would be pulling its troops out of Syria. Troops in Afghanistan will be reduced by half. The sudden move brought widespread criticism from politicians of different persuasions, including prominent Republicans like South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.

Said Graham: “I am confident… that this decision did not come based on advice from his national security team, it came from the president himself.”

The move is extraordinary in large part because the president’s own national security team is not in favor of the troop withdrawal. Just a day before the announcement, U.S. special representative for Syria engagement James Jeffrey had said that the American military commitment to was still strong.

Many argue that the recent defeat of Islamic State extremists in Syria’s northeast region is not enough cause to rapidly call home around 2,000 U.S. soldiers. Neither is it a sound idea to leave Syria open to influence from Iran, which has itself hardly been friendly to the United States in recent years (what with the failure of the Iran nuclear deal and recent U.S. sanctions). National security adviser John Bolton has been especially wary of Iranian troops waiting to take over in Syria.

As with other presidential tweet-announcements of this nature, the details are still cloudy. the consequences of such a move, which would leave the fight against the Islamic State largely to Iran and Syria, could have lasting consequences for the relationship of all the nations involved.

In response, Defense Secretary James Mattis, often considered one of the more respectable and even-natured members of the president’s cabinet, has resigned. In his resignation letter to the President, Mattis wrote: “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.” Though the inner workings of the White House are still sometimes obscure, many worry that Mattis was often a restraining factor and voice of reason. Will a new Secretary of Defense continue to be marginally sensible, or will they enable an increasingly unmoderated president?

Flynn’s sentencing delayed

Though former national security advisor Michael Flynn gained some serious leniency recommendations from Mueller’s investigation, the judge in his sentencing case hasn’t gone easy on him. On Monday, Judge Emmet Sullivan told Flynn that “Arguably, you sold your country out.” Sure, Flynn may have made things easier for the Russia inquiry, along with two other investigations. He may even still have some scrap of credibility left over from his three decades of public and military service.

Even then, Judge Sullivan made no effort to conceal his “disdain” or “disgust,” as he described it, for Flynn’s crimes. And the crimes, as they stand, are quite serious. Flynn repeatedly and blatantly lied to investigators, claiming that he had next to no contact with Russian nationals when he was very much in their pockets. Far from being an innocent, Flynn was well aware of actions against Russia by the Obama administration and discussed it on multiple occasions with Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak.

That Judge Sullivan postponed Flynn’s sentence to March 13, then, must come as something of a relief to Flynn and his legal team. “I can’t consider the full extent of your cooperation in this case,” Sullivan said. “If you want to postpone this, that’s fine with me.”

Flynn is still in the midst of cooperating with the government on multiple investigations. He will probably testify in a case looking into Turkish lobbying early next year. That case, in Virginia’s Eastern District, involves two of Flynn’s associates who allegedly acted as agents of the Turkish government.

McSally will become Arizona’s next senator

Sometimes, it really pays off to be a gracious loser. For Senate hopeful Martha McSally, it got her the Senate seat she had hoped for back in November.

For all that the 2018 midterms were dramatic and often contentious, McSally’s concession to her challenger, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, was awfully kind. It’s not as if theirs was an easy election. Sinema won with a tight margin, securing the seat vacated by retiring Senator Jeff Flake. It all followed a sometimes tense election, in which McSally once accused Sinema of treason. It was a rather dramatic victory in a traditional Republican-friendly state.

Now, this isn’t to say that McSally or other defeated politicians aren’t capable of civility. But many wondered if McSally was feeling relaxed, knowing that her state’s second seat would open up shortly. See, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey had appointed Jon Kyl (himself a former senator) to the Senate position left vacant after the death of Senator John McCain in August.

McSally, it appears, had become the favorite to fill the seat after Kyl announced that he would be stepping down at the end of this year. With two terms in the House of Representatives, the newly re-appointed Governor Ducey has said that McSally is qualified to fill the spot.

And, finally, your palate cleanser

The holidays are, mildly speaking, a social minefield. At every turn, it seems, there is a chance for an argument about something, anything to arise. Maybe it’s something of great import, like on of the stories mentioned above. Then again, maybe you’re working yourself up into a spittle-flecked rage over something that – let’s be real – doesn’t really matter. Let’s take the matter of “holiday movies” as an example. What counts as one?

For many, 1988 action classic Die Hard is also a tried-and-true holiday film. Sure, its characters aren’t exactly spreading Christmas cheer or wearing Santa hats. Then again, the gang of criminals led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) does take over Nakatomi Plaza during an office holiday party on Christmas Eve. NYPD cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) is at least partially using the holiday season to woo back his estranged wife, Holly, played by Bonnie Bedelia.

So, it Die Hard worthy of the holiday shelf? Sure, it’s not in the same vein as It’s a Wonderful Life or even The Nightmare Before Christmas. Even then, there’s still a case to be made for its inclusion. 20th Century Fox seems to think so, with its remixed holiday-riffic trailer included here, a somewhat cheesy poem, and a re-released edition.

If you don’t think Die Hard is really a Christmas movie, the staff of Rotten Tomatoes and even Bruce Willis himself will agree. Don’t dismiss it completely, though. Chances are that, at a certain, you’ll be sick to death of saccharine family scenes and that weird, fake snowfall in every holiday movie.

If that is ever so, don’t be afraid to reach for Die Hard as a seasonally-appropriate palate cleanser this year.