In an attempted act of political finesse, president Obama declined to call the mass slaughter of Armenians, carried out by the Turks 100 years ago, a genocide.

“Armenian-American leaders have urged Mr. Obama each year to keep a pledge he made as a presidential candidate in 2008, when he said the United States government had a responsibility to recognize the attacks as genocide and vowed to do so if elected,” the New York Times reported. “Mr. Obama’s failure to fulfill that pledge in his final annual statement on the massacre infuriated advocates and lawmakers who accused the president of outsourcing America’s moral voice to Turkey, which staunchly opposes the genocide label.” As McClatchy observed, president Obama has dodged the term eight years in a row. 

Unusual criticism

In California, where Armenian-Americans have a substantial presence in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Obama’s unwillingness to follow through on the issue provoked unusually sharp criticism from within his own party. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank — Ranking Member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — said he was “gravely disappointed” in a statement directly admonishing president Obama. “For a president who knows the history so well, who spoke so passionately about the genocide as a senator and presidential candidate, and who has always championed human rights, the choice of silence and complicity is all the more painfully inexplicable,” he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

Officials worked to limit the damage. “The president has consistently stated his view of what occurred in 1915, and his views have not changed,” a senior administration official said, according to the Wall Street Journal. “The president and other senior administration officials have acknowledged as historical fact and mourned the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians who were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. They have stated that a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in our all interests, including Turkey’s, Armenia’s, and America’s.”

Mideast fault lines

Critics have portrayed the president’s choice as, at best, a misguided attempt at playing geopolitics in the fraught region encompassing Turkey and Armenia, which recently rekindled a longstanding military confrontation with neighboring Azerbaijan. (“Remaining silent in an effort to curry favor with Turkey is as morally indefensible as it will be ineffectual,” Schiff said.) But the Turks found fault even with Obama’s carefully couched remarks, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs calling them a “one-sided interpretation of history,” according to the Anadolou news agency. 

“Turkey has shown the will to build a joint future with peace based on the shared living experience for centuries between Turkish and Armenian nations,” the Ministry added, appealing to “a fair memory” in evaluating the historical record. “It is sad that friend and ally countries encourage the circle that [aim] to deepen the conflict instead of answering [Turkey’s] call. It is obvious that the efforts to politicize the pain suffered in history do not do any good to anyone so far.”

Some California Democrats, though disappointed with the president’s choice of words, seemed to concede the point that the stakes are too high — with Turkey a NATO ally increasingly trapped between greater authoritarianism and greater Islamism — to risk a breach over the matter. “This president, the last administration and the previous one before that have been concerned about our relations with Turkey, and they haven’t wanted to offend the Turkish government,” said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, McClatchy noted. “Costa is one of 66 members of the House of Representatives, including 23 from California, who are co-sponsoring a resolution that calls for ‘Turkey’s full acknowledgment of the facts and ongoing consequences of the Armenian Genocide.'”

If passed, the Senate would forward her bill to the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for possible reconciliation with a dissimilar drought bill pending there, H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act of 2014, by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

But why aren’t the Republican senatorial fish biting at the Democrat bait?

The mainstay of Feinstein’s bill is not based on repealing environmental laws, but on the greater “flexibility” of water allocations among fish, farmers and cities. Feinstein’s call to relax environmental regulations during the drought has incensed environmental organizations such as the Bay Institute in San Francisco.

By contrast, the GOP bill in the House does repeal environmental laws.

Except for Oregon, there is nothing in a California drought bill for most senators from states outside of California.

So back on Feb. 14, 2014, Feinstein, joined by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., smartly broadened the base of possible support for S. 2016 by getting support from both Democratic U.S. Senators from Oregon, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley.  Merkley is facing re-election in November against Republican challenger Monica Wehby, who is running on a platform of water deregulation.

Feinstein’s drought bill makes Merkley look like he is the candidate who wants to reduce inflexible regulations that prevent farmers from getting water in a drought.

Money

Feinstein claims the money allocated to drought relief in her bill would go to alleviating some of the impacts of drought along the Klamath River Basin in Oregon.  However, the $300 million in drought relief in the Feinstein bill is the same funding touted by President Barack Obama when he visited California in February.

The Farm Bill of 2013, approved by both houses of Congress, already allocated that funding.  So there is no new drought funding in the Feinstein bill that makes voting for it necessary.

Moreover, Section 13.2 of the Water Rights Decision 1641, adopted in 1999 by the California Water Resources Control Board, already provided the flexibility Feinstein says is needed to provide drought relief (see here and here).

Decision 1641 also provided that any subsequent decisions could override provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the U.S. Endangered Species Act in the “greater public interest” (Section 14.4).  That means water could be provided to farmers over fish in a drought.

Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition issued a statement recognizing Feinstein’s redundant gesture to relax environmental regulations during a drought:

“Elected officials are charged with representing the needs and interests of their constituents, a difficult challenge for Senators in a state as diverse as California. Elected officials, unlike agency staff, are accountable to the constituents they represent, and as such are the appropriate ones to engage in policy-making. When a law or other policy isn’t working, they have the responsibility to evaluate it and make the necessary changes.”

Wade also brought up the Bay Institute’s opposition to any purported relaxation of environmental regulations that might allocate more water to farmers:

“Environmental interest groups like the Bay Institute seem to want flexibility by everyone but themselves. There is little care for the people who are standing in food lines because no water is being delivered to support their jobs. In extreme years like this you would hope that even the most ardent environmental activists would show a little humanity.”

Elections

So why the mostly symbolic outrage by environmental organizations over the relaxation of environmental regulations that were already approved and met all requirements of CEQA and the Federal Endangered Species Act? Because elections are coming up.

Although neither U.S. Senate seat from California is part of this year’s election, Democrats are in danger of losing their majority. If Republicans take over the Senate, Feinstein would lose her chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence Committee and other posts; and Boxer would lose her position as chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and other posts.

So, as noted above, Democrats need Merkley to retain his Senate seat from Oregon.

Democrats in the House also are worried about losing more seats to the majority Republicans. The district of Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, is in the drought epicenter.  Costa is a member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power in the House. 

Costa has lifted his own drought bill in the House, H.R. 4039, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014. It is co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-Los Angeles, and Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel. Farr is an environmental advocate who is up for re-election in a congressional district where the Lompico Water District is likely to run out of water this summer.

The plan is for a rising tide of empty water bills to lifts all Democratic Party political ships in California for 2014.

So while the shutdown continues, lawmakers are now posed with a new question: To fundraise, or not to fundraise? In times of political crisis, lawmakers generally try to avoid fundraisers. After all, no elected official wants news to leak that they were eating shrimp with millionaires while 800,000 government workers are on furlough. But with the midterm elections just one year away, some politicians have decided it’s best to stay away. For some, it's a matter of logistics: House Speaker John Boehner had to cancel a significant weekend fundraiser last month, and he may be forced to miss an upcoming event in Orange County, Calif. as well.

Vulnerable lawmakers are likely to avoid fundraising. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., was seen at a National Association of Realtors fundraiser earlier this week. Republicans blasted the vulnerable Democrat for raising money instead of negotiating over the impasse.

But politicians in safe seats who can take some political heat are continuing to fundraise, even sounding indignant at times. Roll Call reported:

Several more Democrats in safe seats continued to prime the pump. Reps. John D. Dingell and Sander M. Levin of Michigan and Reps. Charles B. Rangel and Nydia M. Velázquez of New York went forward with their fundraising events.

“Why shouldn’t I?” Dingell responded to a question about one of his events. “I don’t have to ask permission to have a fundraiser do I?”

Dems and Reps

Roll Call also explained the difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue:

Some Democrats see the shutdown as the GOP’s fault and argue that fundraising is a means to combat Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. But other members, such as Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., canceled their events.

By comparison, Republicans are more skittish about raising money during the shutdown. One GOP operative said the only edict given to incumbents is “to use your head.”

And some have decided to just go ahead and fundraise — or at least try to keep their donors happy somehow:

Still, some staffers concede their bosses are continuing to fundraise quietly. With Congress in session over the weekends, many members can’t go home. As a result, they have blocks of unscheduled time on their hands — an unusual situation for members while they’re in Washington.

Typically, congressional staff are trained to spot such windows of free time and schedule call time for the boss. But even phone time has proven less fruitful. Members are burned out from the fundraising push at the end of the second quarter. More to the point, donors don’t want to hear their telephone pleas anyway.

Instead, aides say members are forced to use newfound free time for “donor maintenance” — offering thanks for previous donations.

And then there’s First Lady Michelle Obama, one of the most prolific Democratic fundraisers. She has made several trips to the political ATM otherwise known as California.  But even the First Lady had to cancel a swing to the west coast:

First Lady Michelle Obama has cancelled a planned fundraiser on Friday for the Democratic National Committee that was to be held at the home of “Everybody Loves Raymond” Phil Rosenthal and his wife Monica, sources say.

The first lady was to be the headliner at the event, billed as a first-time-in-California one hour “off the cuff discussion” with a limited number of guests. Tickets for the roundtable started at $10,000, with a lower price point for a reception at $1,250 per person.

The final quarter of the year is typically a slow time for fundraising, as the holiday season can keep members and their donors away from each other. But with the shutdown, it’s likely to be slower than ever. Some might argue that’s not such a bad thing.