President Obama has won the debate over how to deal with the immigration crisis on the southern border. That is, if you accept the White House’s dumbed-down definition of success: Be a little less bad than the Republicans.
You’ve heard the least-lousy spin before. Obama’s job approval ratings are at the lowest point of his presidency, but House Speaker John Boehner’s numbers are much lower.
The Democratic Party is bleeding voters to the independent column, but more voters are bolting the GOP.
The public’s faith in the presidency it at a near-record low, but lice and cockroaches are statistically more popular than Congress.
It’s indisputably true that Obama’s first term fell far short of his promise—Americans lost their audacity to hope for change—but he won a second term! After a brutally negative reelection campaign, Republican Mitt Romney was found to be a few percentage points less acceptable than the incumbent. That was no accident. In The Message, a book by liberal author Richard Wolffe, Obama strategist David Axelrod recalls the joke about two men who chance upon a bear in the woods. One freezes. The other starts running, knowing he doesn’t have to outrun the bear; he just has to outrun his pal. “So the electorate was the bear,” Axelrod says, “but all we had to do was outrun Romney.”
The Democratic Party motto ought to be, “We don’t suck as much!”
That’s the best news out of a Washington Post/ABC News poll on the influx of unaccompanied foreign children along the Texas border. Nearly six out of 10 Americans (58 percent) disapprove of Obama’s management of the crisis, including 54 percent of Hispanics.
But, wait, the GOP numbers are worse! This from a liberal mouthpiece:
Yes, two-thirds of those polled disapprove of how Republicans lawmakers have addressed the issues, including about half of all GOP voters.
That should be little consolation for a president who called immigration reform a top second-term priority, a bow to the Hispanic community that gave him 70 percent of its votes and now disapproves of his handling of the border crisis.
Obama blames the failure of reform on House Speaker John Boehner and other Republican lawmakers who won’t defy their anti-amnesty base, which is a fair assessment of the situation today. But the president refuses to acknowledge that reforms also failed to pass a Democratic-controlled Congress in 2009 and 2010, when certain leaders of his party—if not the president himself—preferred not to fix the problem and lose a cudgel against Republicans.
Facts are nettlesome things, and competency is not a prerequisite for political success if the other side acts worse. Fortunately for the Democratic Party, the GOP often obliges.
The White House is counting on its least-lousy frame to prevail this fall in red states where Democratic senators are clinging to their seats. The strategy is essentially to tell voters, You’re not happy with your Democratic senator or the president, but the Republican challenger is so extreme that don’t have an alternative. A GOP candidate like Tom Cotton in Arkansas may be far enough outside the mainstream for the plan to work, as it did in 2010 and 2012 to disqualify some Republican challengers.
The cynical strategy works for Republicans, too. In 2004, President Bush knew the public was turning against him, so he essentially argued that he wasn’t as bad as Democrat John Kerry. Today, the House GOP deflects criticism by comparing the size of its warts to the Democrats’.
This is no way to run a country. When both parties in a two-party system measure themselves not by promises kept and problems solved but by the Pyrrhic victories awarded to least-lousy combatants, you get what we’ve got in this country: Record-low trust in government, a broken political system, and a deeply disillusioned public. These may be the sad legacies of both Boehner and Obama.
To those on the far right and far left who will accuse me of “false equivalence,” I beg your pardon and say, OK, the other side sucks a bit more. Feel better? The rest of us don’t.
What We're Following See More »
"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”
The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.
President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."
Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.