The Man Behind the Campaign to Defund Obamacare

None

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 03: U.S. Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) talks to a reporter while on his way to the House Chamber for a vote October 3, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The House has passed the Pay Our Guard and Reserve spending bill with a vote of 265 to 160.
National Journal
Tim Alberta
Nov. 5, 2013, 4:09 p.m.

Tom Graves was a man ahead of his time.

Long be­fore Ted Cruz was or­ches­trat­ing 21-hour hom­il­ies on the Sen­ate floor, Graves, a Re­pub­lic­an con­gress­man from Geor­gia, was wa­ging a lonely — and largely an­onym­ous — cam­paign to de­fund the Af­ford­able Care Act.

Graves won a June 2010 spe­cial elec­tion that brought him to Wash­ing­ton amid a dead le­gis­lat­ive sum­mer lead­ing up to midterm elec­tions. It was then that the former Geor­gia state rep­res­ent­at­ive saw an op­por­tun­ity to in­flu­ence the de­bate over Pres­id­ent Obama’s re­cently passed health care law. And those ef­forts forever changed his path in Con­gress.

Hav­ing run in the months im­me­di­ately fol­low­ing Obama­care’s pas­sage, Graves felt a unique con­nec­tion to the elect­or­ate and its dis­ap­prov­al of the new law. But he saw no Re­pub­lic­an pro­pos­al to stop the gov­ern­ment from pay­ing for it. In­tent on filling this le­gis­lat­ive “va­cu­um,” Graves in Ju­ly 2010 in­tro­duced the De­fund Obama­care Act — the very first bill he au­thored in Con­gress, and one he would in­tro­duce in each new ses­sion.

Three years later, as Re­pub­lic­ans grappled with a stalled ap­pro­pri­ations pro­cess and on­go­ing anxi­ety over fin­an­cing the law, the phone rang in Graves’s con­gres­sion­al of­fice. It was a staffer in Cruz’s of­fice. Cruz wanted to be­come the Sen­ate co­spon­sor of Graves’s de­fund bill, the staffer said. Would the Geor­gia con­gress­man be in­ter­ested in team­ing with the sen­at­or from Texas?

The rest, as they say, is his­tory.

Graves helped rally House Re­pub­lic­ans, in­clud­ing the lead­er­ship, around a strategy of de­fund­ing and delay­ing Obama­care in ex­change for fund­ing the rest of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. This strategy ul­ti­mately failed, as evid­enced by a 16-day gov­ern­ment shut­down that di­ver­ted at­ten­tion away from Obama­care’s dis­astrous rol­lout and left con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans guilty in the court of pub­lic opin­ion.

But for Graves, the anti-Obama­care push had an­oth­er un­in­ten­ded con­sequence. It el­ev­ated him to an au­thor­it­at­ive po­s­i­tion with­in the House GOP that, less than a year earli­er, ap­peared ut­terly im­prob­able.

“When we began hear­ing about “˜The Graves Plan’ and “˜The Graves Bill’ “¦ that’s when I star­ted re­cog­niz­ing that in­di­vidu­als were look­ing to me to provide what little lead­er­ship I could,” he said in a re­cent in­ter­view.

It’s not that Graves isn’t com­fort­able in this star­ring role; it’s that he had already au­di­tioned for the part and thought he had won it, only to have it un­ce­re­mo­ni­ously snatched away.

Graves spent his first full term as the right-hand man to his friend, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who was then chair­man of the Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee. Graves, who years earli­er had at­ten­ded an RSC meet­ing as a guest and grew wide-eyed watch­ing his “her­oes” de­lib­er­ate, had im­me­di­ately joined the group after be­ing elec­ted. After the midterm elec­tions ushered in a GOP ma­jor­ity, Graves dug in­to the RSC trenches, con­vinced that con­ser­vat­ives should hold lead­er­ship ac­count­able to ex­ecute the “Pledge to Amer­ica” they made in 2010.

RSC of­fi­cials soon viewed Graves as heir ap­par­ent to Jordan, and they even­tu­ally asked him to pur­sue the po­s­i­tion. Graves ob­liged, and when the time came for can­did­ates to in­ter­view, the young Geor­gi­an dazzled the “founders,” a pan­el of former RSC chair­men tasked with en­dors­ing a can­did­ate. That group also met with an­oth­er im­press­ive con­tender, Rep. Steve Scal­ise, R-La., be­fore an­noun­cing a un­an­im­ous en­dorse­ment of Graves.

But Scal­ise — and House GOP lead­er­ship, ac­cord­ing to many sources fa­mil­i­ar with the situ­ation — had dif­fer­ent ideas. Scal­ise said he pos­sessed a more achiev­able vis­ion for the RSC, and he began cir­cu­lat­ing a pe­ti­tion to force a run­off elec­tion. Lead­er­ship en­cour­aged this chal­lenge, and, after a series of clashes with Jordan dur­ing the 112th Con­gress, it feared that Graves’s ideo­lo­gic­al pur­ity would en­cour­age con­tin­ued con­flict.

When the dust settled, Scal­ise scored a nar­row vic­tory over Graves. Al­lies of the Geor­gia law­maker were in­censed, con­vinced that lead­er­ship had “fixed” the elec­tion to en­sure a less com­bat­ive chair­man would lead the caucus of 170-some Re­pub­lic­ans. Graves, for his part, was stung by the loss. Speak­er John Boehner’s team had draf­ted him to help write the Pledge to Amer­ica just a few years earli­er. Now, Graves felt he was be­ing pun­ished for push­ing them to fol­low through.

“I don’t know their motives,” Graves said, re­flect­ing on lead­er­ship’s role in the RSC race. With a shrug, he ad­ded: “I’m one that pushes pretty hard. So per­haps they didn’t want some­body in that role who pushes so hard.”

For a time, Graves struggled with the de­feat. Then his phone rang. It was out­go­ing Rep. Mike Pence, the former RSC chair­man and newly elec­ted gov­ernor of In­di­ana who had been lob­by­ing on Graves’s be­half.

“Tom, I know you’re feel­ing a sting,” Pence said. “But I want you to know that re­gard­less of what your title is in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., you are still a con­ser­vat­ive voice, and you will still be a con­ser­vat­ive lead­er. Al­ways re­mem­ber that.”

Graves re­boun­ded in a hurry. He called Scal­ise and offered his ser­vices “without get­ting in the way” of the new chair­man. Be­fore long, Graves, a House Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee mem­ber, had carved out an im­port­ant new role in the RSC: un­of­fi­cial li­ais­on between con­ser­vat­ives and lead­er­ship on Ap­pro­pri­ations.

The role was un­glam­or­ous but es­sen­tial. Graves began work­ing closely with Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee Chair­man Hal Ro­gers, R-Ky., an old-school ally of Boehner’s, to iron out ideo­lo­gic­al wrinkles that had of­ten slowed the pro­cess. Graves would brief RSC meet­ings on de­vel­op­ments from the com­mit­tee and bring spe­cif­ic ideas and con­cerns to Ro­gers, al­low­ing the “un­likely duo” to ad­dress po­ten­tial stick­ing points early and keep Re­pub­lic­ans on the same page.

“Tom was a crit­ic­al part of the ap­pro­pri­ations pro­cess,” said one seni­or GOP aide. “Con­ser­vat­ives saw him as their go-to guy.”

Graves’s prox­im­ity to Ap­pro­pri­ations made him in­dis­pens­able to con­ser­vat­ives; it also made him aware that GOP ef­forts to de­fund Obama­care through “reg­u­lar or­der” were fail­ing. The Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee had passed only four of 12 bills as of Ju­ly, and Graves, look­ing at the cal­en­dar, knew that something drastic was needed if Re­pub­lic­ans were to avoid pay­ing for Obama­care in a short-term fund­ing meas­ure. His solu­tion: Delay and de­fund Obama­care for one year, while fund­ing the rest of the gov­ern­ment for that same peri­od of time.

When Cruz called in Ju­ly, then, it was a no-brain­er. Graves re­in­tro­duced his le­gis­la­tion in con­cert with Cruz, and over the next sev­er­al months, thanks to the Tex­an’s grass­roots army, Graves be­came a con­ser­vat­ive cult hero, ree­m­er­ging in­to the spot­light he had sur­rendered after los­ing the RSC race.

When House Re­pub­lic­ans went home in Au­gust, con­stitu­ents pel­ted them with con­cerns about Obama­care, and ques­tions about how to de­feat it. They had no co­ordin­ated an­swer; GOP lead­er­ship had only talked about delay­ing the in­di­vidu­al man­date. Once again, there was a va­cu­um. And once again, Graves at­temp­ted to fill it. As Au­gust wore on, Graves co­ordin­ated with scores of col­leagues via email and con­fer­ence calls, and by month’s end Re­pub­lic­ans were ex­plain­ing the “Graves Plan” to their con­stitu­ents.

House Re­pub­lic­ans didn’t know what lead­er­ship’s strategy would be when they re­turned to Wash­ing­ton. But they knew this much: If it didn’t meet the Graves threshold, they would hold out for something that did.

Ul­ti­mately, con­ser­vat­ives lost the battle to de­fund Obama­care. But the war rages on for Graves, who swears in his South­ern drawl that the fight has just be­gun.

Bey­ond de­fund­ing Obama­care, though, it’s un­clear what comes next for Graves. The law­maker who in the span of one year emerged, re­ceded, then ree­m­erged as a con­ser­vat­ive lead­er is con­spicu­ously coy about what va­cu­um he’ll fill next.

“We’ll just have to wait and see,” Graves said, a slow smile creep­ing across his face. “My plan is just to be avail­able when a cause arises.”

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:
×