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 »
HE ‘WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT’
Warren Goes After Trump Yet Again
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

When it comes to name-calling among America's upper echelon of politicians, there may be perhaps no greater spat than the one currently going on between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump. While receiving an award Tuesday night, she continued a months-long feud with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. Calling him a "small, insecure moneygrubber" who probably doesn't know three things about Dodd-Frank, she said he "will NEVER be president of the United States," according to her prepared remarks."We don't know what Trump pays in taxes because he is the first presidential nominee in 40 years to refuse to disclose his tax returns. Maybe he’s just a lousy businessman who doesn’t want you to find out that he’s worth a lot less money than he claims." It follows a long-line of Warren attacks over Twitter, Facebook and in interviews that Trump is a sexist, racist, narcissistic loser. In reply, Trump has called Warren either "goofy" or "the Indian"—referring to her controversial assertion of her Native American heritage. 

FIRST CHANGE IN FOUR DECADES
Congress Passes Chemical Regulations Overhaul
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The House on Tuesday voted 403-12 "to pass an overhaul to the nation’s chemical safety standards for the first time in four decades. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act aims to answer years of complaints that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the necessary authority to oversee and control the thousands of chemicals being produced and sold in the United States. It also significantly clamps down on states’ authorities, in an effort to stop a nationwide patchwork of chemical laws that industry says is difficult to deal with."

Source:
NO MORE INDEPENDENT VOTERS?
GOP Could Double Number of Early Primaries
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over making fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party." Among the possible changes: forbidding independent voters to cast ballots in Republican primaries, and "doubling the number of early states to eight."

Source:
LEVERAGE
Kasich Tells His Delegates to Remain Pledged to Him
12 hours ago
THE LATEST

Citing the unpredictable nature of this primary season and the possible leverage they could bring at the convention, John Kasich is hanging onto his 161 delegates. "Kasich sent personal letters Monday to Republican officials in the 16 states and the District of Columbia where he won delegates, requesting that they stay bound to him in accordance with party rules."

Source:
LOST BY HALF A PERCENTAGE POINT
Sanders Wants a Recount in Kentucky
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

Bernie Sanders "signed a letter Tuesday morning requesting a full and complete check and recanvass of the election results in Kentucky ... where he trails Hillary Clinton by less than one-half of 1 percent of the vote. The Sanders campaign said it has asked the Kentucky secretary of state to have election officials review electronic voting machines and absentee ballots from last week's primary in each of the state's 120 counties.

Source:
×