The Man Behind the Campaign to Defund Obamacare

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 »
THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
57 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
9 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
LATER TO THIS YEAR’S NADER
Jim Webb Rules Out Independent Bid
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

UPDATED: Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) will not be playing the role of Ralph Nader in this year’s election. Speaking in Dallas today, Webb said, “We looked at the possibility of an independent candidacy. Theoretically, it could be done, but it is enormously costly and time sensitive, and I don’t see the fundraising trajectory where we could make a realistic run.”

Source:
×