Need to Know: House

Go Big and Go Home

One of the most legislatively successful sessions of Congress in modern history ends in historic losses for Democrats.

Susan Davis
See more stories about...
Susan Davis
Dec. 16, 2010, 12:23 p.m.

In its wan­ing days, the 111th Con­gress has taken on a Dick­ensi­an qual­ity for Demo­crats. They presided over one of the most con­sequen­tial ses­sions in mod­ern his­tory. They aimed high and hit their tar­gets more of­ten than not””then voters sent them pack­ing. Es­pe­cially for Demo­crats in the House, it has been the best of times and the worst of times.

Re­call the heady first months of 2009, when Pres­id­ent Obama was cruis­ing on ce­les­ti­al ap­prov­al rat­ings; there was talk of a per­man­ent Demo­crat­ic ma­jor­ity, and law­makers were eye­ing bold le­gis­lat­ive ac­tion, in­clud­ing a pub­lic health in­sur­ance op­tion and a cli­mate-change bill to cap car­bon emis­sions.

Cut to today. Demo­crats are strug­gling to de­fend their le­gis­lat­ive vic­tor­ies. One of Nancy Pelosi’s last acts as House speak­er will be to over­see a two-year ex­ten­sion of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealth­i­est Amer­ic­ans, a huge de­feat for Demo­crats who had pledged to re­peal them. Deeply di­vided by the White House deal on taxes, the Demo­crat­ic ma­jor­ity in the House saw con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al rat­ings drop to his­tor­ic lows in the fi­nal days of a Con­gress it con­trolled. Ac­cord­ing to polling from Gal­lup this week, barely one in eight Amer­ic­ans, 13 per­cent, ap­prove of the way Con­gress is do­ing its job.


Click to see a score­card of the 111th Con­gress

“The 111th Con­gress was an ex­traordin­ar­ily pro­duct­ive Con­gress, a trans­form­a­tion­al Con­gress whose mark will be felt in years to come, in health care, in eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery, in the fin­an­cial sec­tor,” said Trans­port­a­tion Com­mit­tee Chair­man James Ober­star of Min­nesota, who lost his bid for reelec­tion in one of the party’s sur­prise de­feats on Novem­ber 2. “His­tory will look bet­ter on this Con­gress in the next two to three years than the last elec­tion did.”

House Demo­crats, largely un­bowed by their re­pu­di­ation at the polls, be­lieve that their de­feat was linked to two factors: a weak eco­nomy and their own in­ab­il­ity to ar­tic­u­late their suc­cesses. It was not, they in­sist, a re­jec­tion of their le­gis­lat­ive product. “It was an ex­traordin­ar­ily pro­duct­ive Con­gress, but it’s hard to tell someone who doesn’t have a job or is los­ing his home, “˜Look at all the great stuff we did,’ “ said En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee Chair­man Henry Wax­man of Cali­for­nia. “What I think caused our de­feat was the eco­nomy, and there wasn’t any­thing any­one could say about our ac­com­plish­ments or pro­gress or any­thing else when people were hurt­ing so badly.”

The breadth of Demo­crats’ le­gis­lat­ive achieve­ment is not­able: from eco­nom­ic stim­u­lus, health care re­form, and fin­an­cial-reg­u­lat­ory over­haul to laws to bol­ster vo­lun­teer ser­vice and end gender dis­crim­in­a­tion in pay. In ad­di­tion, the House moved ma­jor le­gis­la­tion that failed to over­come the 60-vote threshold that gov­erns the Sen­ate’s abil­ity to act, in­clud­ing laws to curb car­bon emis­sions, re­form food-safety stand­ards, and tight­en cam­paign-fin­ance dis­clos­ure laws.

For Re­pub­lic­ans, poised to take con­trol of the House and with a six-seat gain in the Sen­ate, the tale of the 111th Con­gress is a cau­tion­ary one about how sweep­ing le­gis­lat­ive ac­tion can have severe elect­or­al con­sequences, even if law­makers be­lieve they are do­ing the right thing. Pelosi un­der­stood the elect­or­al risks. “We’re not here just to self-per­petu­ate our ser­vice in Con­gress,” she said earli­er this year. That was pres­ci­ent. Many of those who voted for the health care bill will not be back next year.

It is a les­son for the GOP to keep in mind as party lead­ers mull sweep­ing ac­tion of their own to de­fund the health care over­haul and re­form So­cial Se­cur­ity, im­mig­ra­tion laws, and the fed­er­al tax code. “His­tor­ic de­feats and ma­jor ac­com­plish­ments are not al­ways con­tra­dict­ory,” said out­go­ing House Budget Com­mit­tee Chair­man John Spratt of South Car­o­lina, who lost his reelec­tion bid. There are his­tor­ic par­al­lels. The ac­com­plish­ments of the 111th Con­gress have been com­pared to the Great So­ci­ety pro­grams of the 89th Con­gress and the John­son ad­min­is­tra­tion. Demo­crats did badly in both sub­sequent elec­tions””los­ing 47 House seats in 1966 and 63 this year.

“When you make the ma­jor de­cisions that are go­ing to res­ult in fun­da­ment­al change of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment and the lives of the Amer­ic­an people, it’s go­ing to be pain­ful, it’s go­ing to be mis­un­der­stood, and his­tory will have to show that it was the right thing to do,” said Rep. G.K. But­ter­field, D-N.C. “But in the mean­time, you pay a polit­ic­al price, and that’s what you see here.”

One factor that nearly all Demo­crats seem to agree on is that they lost the mes­sage war against a Re­pub­lic­an Party that marched in near-lock­step op­pos­i­tion to their agenda. Rep. Emanuel Cleav­er of Mis­souri, the in­com­ing chair­man of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Caucus and a former may­or of Kan­sas City, says there is no bet­ter ex­ample of this fail­ure than the health care bill. Demo­crats not only failed to sell it to the Amer­ic­an pub­lic but they also seemed deaf to voters’ eco­nom­ic con­cerns as de­bate over the le­gis­la­tion raged for months on Cap­it­ol Hill. “Every­body here talked about health care, and I went home and every­one there talked about jobs,” Cleav­er said. “I think we make a ter­rible mis­take if we deny there was a dis­con­nect.” Spratt echoed the sen­ti­ment: “We failed to com­mu­nic­ate with our con­stitu­en­cies on health care.”

A stronger mes­sage ef­fort may go hand in hand with a more com­bat­ive ap­proach to the GOP. The les­sons of the past two years go both ways. Wax­man, al­though crit­ic­al of Re­pub­lic­ans’ ef­forts, ac­know­ledges their polit­ic­al suc­cess. “I think there are les­sons to learn that are fairly neg­at­ive ones””that if you are the “˜Party of No’ and take the op­por­tun­ity to scare people, you can be suc­cess­ful, and that is a sad com­ment­ary,” he said. Sad per­haps, but a point Demo­crats will pon­der as they plan their de­fense against GOP ef­forts to dis­mantle their le­gis­lat­ive vic­tor­ies.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×