The GOP Shouldn’t Run a Fool’s Errand

GOP lawmakers who want to shut down the government or impeach President Obama are just plain dumb.

Federal workers hold a demonstration outside the State Department in Washington Wednesday Jan. 3, 1995 to protest the partial federal government shutdown. House Republican leaders dismissed a Senate plan that would send idled federal workers back to work. President Clinton and Republican leaders have scheduled another White House bargaining session Wednesday in their search for a budget-balancing pact. 
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Charlie Cook
Aug. 28, 2013, 1:17 p.m.

With all of the talk among some Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress about im­peach­ment and shut­ting down the gov­ern­ment to stop Obama­care or force en­ti­tle­ment-spend­ing cuts, you’d think that they were liv­ing in an­oth­er real­ity back in the 1990s. Re­pub­lic­ans were pur­su­ing sim­il­ar mis­sions then, and things didn’t work out so well for the GOP. For those in need of a quick his­tory les­son, all you need to know is that Re­pub­lic­ans man­aged to lose House seats in the midterm elec­tions of 1998. It was the only time since World War II that the party in the White House (Demo­crats) gained seats in a second-term, midterm elec­tion. Talk about seiz­ing de­feat from the jaws of vic­tory!

Ob­vi­ously, the people and policy par­tic­u­lars are dif­fer­ent now, but the sim­il­ar­it­ies are ob­vi­ous. At that time, the loath­ing of Pres­id­ent Clin­ton was so great, the emo­tions were so high, and the be­lief was so firm that their cause was right­eous that Re­pub­lic­ans could not con­ceive their ac­tions were ill-ad­vised. Blind hatred is a dan­ger­ous thing.

Of course, this isn’t to sug­gest that every Re­pub­lic­an in Con­gress today ad­voc­ates scorched-earth strategies and tac­tics. House Speak­er John Boehner and Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell don’t; not sur­pris­ingly, both men were in Con­gress dur­ing the 1990s. (Boehner was elec­ted in 1990, Mc­Con­nell in 1984.) They have ex­per­i­enced firsthand the danger of fol­low­ing the party’s right-wing base and con­gres­sion­al hot­heads over a polit­ic­al cliff. Both lead­ers clearly take a less-than-fa­vor­able view of the more ex­treme GOP rhet­or­ic today, but neither is quite in a po­s­i­tion to make those feel­ings known and to pub­licly de­clare how stu­pid this talk is. Boehner lives on ice that’s not quite thick enough to sup­port such bold­ness. Mc­Con­nell, mean­while, is thread­ing a 2014 reelec­tion needle in Ken­tucky: sat­is­fy­ing con­ser­vat­ives enough to avoid los­ing his primary to a tea-party op­pon­ent, but not veer­ing too far right to jeop­ard­ize win­ning what is shap­ing up to be a tough gen­er­al-elec­tion chal­lenge.

Talk­ing to Re­pub­lic­ans around Cap­it­ol Hill these days is very in­ter­est­ing. Mem­bers of one group seem well aware that their brand is badly dam­aged and des­per­ately needs re­hab­il­it­a­tion. Maybe they no­ticed the Fox News poll in which “Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress” scored ap­prov­al rat­ings of 24 per­cent in March, and 23 per­cent in both June and Au­gust, with dis­ap­prov­al rat­ings of 69 per­cent, 67 per­cent, and 66 per­cent, re­spect­ively. (By com­par­is­on, the same Fox polling showed Demo­crats with bad, but not quite as hor­rible, num­bers: 29 per­cent ap­prov­al, 63 per­cent dis­ap­prov­al in March; and 32 per­cent ap­prov­al, 60 per­cent dis­ap­prov­al in both the June and Au­gust polls.)

Re­pub­lic­ans in the second group, however, seem ob­li­vi­ous to the fact that their party has a prob­lem. The feel­ing among these mem­bers seems to be, “How can the Re­pub­lic­an Party or Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress have prob­lems? I got elec­ted (or reelec­ted) eas­ily.” Many don’t ap­pear to real­ize they rep­res­ent dis­tricts that Demo­crats are un­likely to win un­der any cir­cum­stances. They as­sume that be­cause they got elec­ted to the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives, their dis­tricts must be, more or less, rep­res­ent­at­ive of the coun­try as a whole.

Un­like the second group, the first group gets the joke. These mem­bers fully un­der­stand their party has real prob­lems with swing voters — more pre­cisely, with self-iden­ti­fied mod­er­ates and young, fe­male, and minor­ity voters — and that these groups, taken to­geth­er, rep­res­ent an enorm­ous ma­jor­ity of the elect­or­ate. Na­tion­ally, the GOP is un­der­per­form­ing among all of these groups. However, these head-in-the-sand Re­pub­lic­ans fear that ac­know­ledging the party’s elect­or­al prob­lems would in­cur the wrath of the GOP base, which con­siders such talk heretic­al.

The same tox­ic factors per­vaded Wash­ing­ton in the years after the 1994 Re­pub­lic­an wave elec­tion, cul­min­at­ing in the 1995-96 shut­downs of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, the 1998 House im­peach­ment of Clin­ton, and the ill-fated 1999 Sen­ate im­peach­ment tri­al. Re­pub­lic­ans came out on the los­ing end of all of those cata­strophes. Voters blamed them more than Demo­crats for the gov­ern­ment shut­downs, and while the pub­lic didn’t think much of Clin­ton’s per­son­al be­ha­vi­or, it wasn’t ready to throw him out of of­fice.

That’s why these fisc­al dead­lines com­ing in Oc­to­ber — the start of the fisc­al year on Oct. 1 with no spend­ing bills en­acted in­to law and the need to raise the debt ceil­ing some­time that month — are scary. I have no doubt that if you strapped Boehner and Mc­Con­nell down, in­jec­ted them with So­di­um Pentoth­al, and ad­min­istered a poly­graph test ask­ing wheth­er the hard-line strategies pro­posed by GOP true be­liev­ers make sense, each would say, “Of course not,” and pass with fly­ing col­ors. (For the chem­istry ma­jors out there, I know the ac­tu­al name is so­di­um thi­opent­al.)

But it’s not clear at all wheth­er these lead­ers, par­tic­u­larly Boehner, can per­suade some of their, say, “exot­ic” mem­bers to take a more prag­mat­ic ap­proach and work to­ward get­ting the best deal they can. My hunch is that even­tu­ally we will come to a deal, but the coun­try could weath­er some very in­ter­est­ing and po­ten­tially trau­mat­ic days, par­tic­u­larly in the fin­an­cial mar­kets, in the mean­time. That is not a good thing when we have a fra­gile eco­nomy and a lame-duck chair­man of the Fed­er­al Re­serve Board. Maybe we should all go back on va­ca­tion.

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:
×