The news this evening is that John Boehner had to pull the bill Republicans had been scrambling to put together all day.
My general sense is that it's progress. If a GOP CR/debt limit bill passes the House, we're back to where we were, really; both sides have a position, with Democrats insisting that a deal amounts to paying a ransom, and so there's no deal to be had.
However, with House Republicans in disarray, the only game in town is the Reid/McConnell "deal," which is really just a GOP surrender with a minor fig leaf. Or maybe not even; there was talk at one point in the last day or so of it winding up as just a clean bill.
Or, to put it another way. From the very beginning, it's been clear that any bill to pass would need to be acceptable to both Barack Obama and Senate Democrats and also to most House Republicans. House Republicans mostly wouldn't have to vote for it, but they probably would have to accept it. So one way to look at it is that the whole game has been to get mainstream House Republicans to the point where they're willing to accept surrender, even if it means getting blamed for it by the radicals.
I'm no reporter; I only know what I read, and can guess at what seems likely. But I think it's extremely likely that most House Republicans blame the radicals, Ted Cruz, and Jim DeMint a lot more than they blame John Boehner. And I tend to agree with those who think that perhaps today was just about demonstrating to them, one more time, that the radicals who are a problem that they actually have to confront. If only by accepting a mostly-Democrats bill to re-open the government and extend the debt limit.
Maybe not! But whether Boehner actually plotted this all out this way or not, that's my best guess about where we are tonight.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The latest from Cruz (via Sully):
ReplyDelete“It’s time to put the partisan bickering aside and fund the vital services we all support, maintain our credit rating, and continue the debate about the damage Obamacare is doing to the economy. Sen. Cruz has fully supported individual measures to fund essential government services and to take responsible action to reduce our debt. The President and all members of Congress should send an unmistakable signal that the United States will not default on its debt. We should not put our credit ratings in jeopardy over our political disputes,” – Catherine Frazier, press secretary for Senator Ted Cruz.
If I'm a House Tea Partier, what am I supposed to understand this to mean?
If you're a TP'er, I'd guess it means "if we break it, the president owns it". But first, please define what "means" means.
DeleteWould a conservative ally of his like Lee, Paul, Rubio, Crapo, Enzi, etc risk holding up the senate for a while, or are we all in the clear if Cruz signals that he refuses to?
Delete"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
DeleteSerious rabbit-hole territory here.
St. Ted has spoken. But what did he say?
DeleteI've actually seen a commenter say that he would follow whatever his Congo rep said, because the rep has always been true to conservatism. That may be what Cruz gets--blind adherents.
I agree with you -- but I'm hazy on the process rules. Does the lack of a House bill cause a procedural problem in bringing a Senate compromise to the floor in a timely (ie Thursday or before) manner?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how anyone could have thought that what's happening now in the house was predictable. Doesn't Boehner have to resign? It would seem that the only way to get consensus in the house is to elect a new speaker who can use his (or her) election as a mandate for some sort of a proposal to get 218 votes.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of Repubs in the House is very slim, so if a few more than a dozen refuse to support a measure, it may go down to defeat. That doesn't change with a new speaker. The problem is with the divisions in the caucus.
DeleteSo, just to be clear, the point is that this is not all on Boehner. -- He is a mere vessel for the collective private majority desires of his caucus, nothing more; he in no way acts as a leader to shape the desires of his caucus, his fellow party members. -- No, this is on mainstream House GOP members who amount to a majority of their caucus.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, "the Hastert Rule" has never actually been broken. Nothing comes to the floor ever without a majority of the majority's tacit approval.
I wouldn't go quite that far -- on some issues, Members on the majority side may not care very much, so "Hastert" doesn't apply at all. But yes: in cases where the majority of the majority really does care, I think it's very rare for it to be broken in the post-reform House (so since ~1975).
DeleteI very much appreciate the clarification on this, JB. You're indispensable.
DeleteIt's probably my own literalist, ignorant fault, but sometimes the best procedural experts, engaged reporters, and shrewd commentators on this -- like you, Beutler, Yglesias, etc -- can fall into adopting a certain knowingness and sense of equanimity about the incentives and course of things that I know enough to trust, but I don't always understand where the proof comes from and assurance that actors are following the incentives that observers think they are. You all work under terrific time constraints, so it's understandable. But the result is judgments are made, seemingly from the gut, with little of the reasoning behind them shown.
This "Hastert Rule" norm, above, is a really minor example, and I'm not in any way picking on you. The matter simply got me thinking of a more general thought I've had of late as I read good reporting and commentary on US politics.
If this signals that Cruz will not disrupt a Senate bill, the Senate can pass it and send it to the House. The question remains what the Speaker will do. With Rep Issa announcing he'll vote for a clean reopen the gov and raise the debt ceiling bill, there may be enough R votes to pass the Senate bill in the House. But again it's up to B. That's my understanding of the process now. Some other views indicate it's already too late, but I think that's predicated on less than a smooth passage in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteI hope JB is right and this was a good sign because it's getting awfully close to default.
Is it up to Boehner? This is what I'm somewhat unclear on. In a way, I'd be relatively more comforted if it were up to him. But JB seems to be saying that it's actually up to the balance of the GOP caucus -- about 115 members.
DeleteWhat I'm sort of unclear on and curious about is how does Boehner determine if something is acceptable to enough mainstream conservatives to bring it to the floor. Is he explicitly polling them? Is it one of those things that's just obvious when it reaches that point? Or is this an exercise in his political instincts?
DeleteIf it's the last one, then that leaves some room for miscalculation, in either direction, which could create unnecessary problems.
I'm assuming that the Senate deal is not going to be accepted by the Extremes, but it is up to B. to bring the Senate bill to a vote. Just as it has always been up to him to bring clean budget and clean debt ceiling bills to the floor for a majority vote. I don't really care about his future--he's not going to die poor, whether he serves another term as speaker or not. This is about the country and its people.
Delete@ "Is it up to Boehner?" My understanding is that in a technical sense, it is entirely up to Boehner whether a bill comes to the floor. It isn't up to him whether he keeps his job for long after bringing up a bill, or ultimately whether the bill passes.
Delete@ "how does Boehner determine?" Boehner almost surely gets a whip count first. Meanwhile, his staff is probably in almost constant contact with other staffers to have a basic sense of what kinds of bills could pass. I'd presume instincts factor in, since polling all the members before a vote takes time and people can also change votes, wanting to vote "no" on a tactical level in a modified prisoner's dilemma.
What I'm sort of unclear on and curious about is how does Boehner determine if something is acceptable to enough mainstream conservatives to bring it to the floor. Is he explicitly polling them?
DeleteYep.
@The Bitter Fig
DeleteRe: "Is it up to Boehner?" See, this is where I'm unclear. Consider what JB explained yesterday at The Plum Line:
"It’s really not about Boehner. If he was going to act against the wishes of the vast majority of House Republicans, he would be out of a job before anything reached the House floor, not afterwards."
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this contradicts what you say. If a majority of House GOP members thought Boehner was acting against their private desires, they could remove him before he brought a bill to the floor. Thus Boehner isn't the key decider here. He's at the mercy of 115 members, some avowed "moderates," but most mainstream conservatives who so far have shown some foresight earlier this year (Violence Against Women Act, fiscal cliff, etc), but most recently have displayed precisely zero courage.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/14/will-house-republicans-allow-a-retreat/
@ PF
DeleteInteresting. I'm not entirely an expert on House parliamentary procedure. If the no-confidence vote (or whatever it's called in the HoR) could preempt a debt limit vote, that is something. I know that to be elected speaker requires an absolute majority, so it would take more than just half the Republicans to fully replace him. In which case, it may be possible for Democrats and moderate Republicans to prop Boehner up at least temporarily as Speaker. Alternately, the procedural delay alone might be enough to prevent any bill from passing. I don't know.
The other thing is that it's definitely a different political calculation to oust him before a vote such as this than after a vote.
I have a very general and obvious question. Is Boehner going to be the fall guy when a deal is struck?
ReplyDeleteI am well aware that no one wants the job and he is doing what his caucus wants and anyone in his position might have done the same thing, but his future seems imperiled. If they strike a deal, Cruz and Crazy Caucus will be out for blood, needing to blame a squish or a RINO and he will be at the top of the list if he brings to a vote a bill that will pass the Senate. If we default, the country and the President blame his stubborn refusal to govern, which while terrible for his legacy is probably his best bet to maintain his speakership. But at some point, a bill must pass whether we default or not.
It may be impossible not to replace him after a deal is struck for the party. He was the squish who ruined everything, if only they'd held out longer they could have won or he was the hard-liner who ignored the will of many to fruitlessly enact the will of a few. I just don't see how he survives, but I'm sure JB has an answer.
Well, depends on how big the crazy caucus is. If they're small enough, and moderates and ordinary, non-crazy conservatives are ticked off enough at Cruz, blame him for getting them into the mess, more than Boehner for an ugly way out, then Boehner might make it. It's plausible to me.
DeleteConsider: having just gotten beat, with the Crazies having gotten nothing and nearly driven the country to default over not-actually-delaying Obamacare, do you really want to oust your speaker, show the world that you all side with the crazies, who aren't just dangerous nutters but ineffective? Some will, but the worse things get for Republicans, that number changes.
My theory would be that he'd be the scapegoat for all of them.
DeleteIt's not like 200 House Rs were jumping up and down calling for a clean CR. The Fraidy Cat Caucus needs distance from this mess and there's no getting rid of the Crazy Caucus... Hell, they've had a month or so to do that and instead were too afraid to pass anything that might draw a primary, but there is a way to get rid of the Speaker.
I do take your point that they wouldn't want to appear weak, but a few bad homegrown polls and they could be trying to run from this.
"But whether Boehner actually plotted this all out this way or not, . . ."
ReplyDeleteIt's fun to try to conceptualize how that would happen. How do you plan chaos?
Sake of argument, what if the liberal cw is utterly and completely wrong here? In particular, the following:
ReplyDeleteThe madness of default! Especially because the Nazis were the last major political group to do so. Godwin's law notwithstanding, there's one small distinction between the US and 1930s Germany: the Nazis pretty openly repudiated the debts of the Weimar Republic, while even Ted Cruz (at least explicitly) intends to make good on US debts.
The full faith and credit of the US! Putting on my Krugman hat, as long as the empire is still tottering along, the creditworthiness of the US is basically infinite. When people bring up this argument, they often mean faith in almost a spiritual sense; surely no one has had that kind of faith in the US for at least a generation now.
So suppose we indeed do *default* (default!). Suppose that Lew's restatements keep the treasuries afloat for a couple of days, or some other arrangement is made. The Chinese and Japanese will be pissed at us, but what else isn't new? Really - there's a pretty good chance the *default*, which has many liberals positively rabid that the crazy right is finally going to be defeated...well, it might all amount to nothing.
And if that happens, and the fig leaf those crazies extract this weekend is saleable on Fox News, tied to the indignation at these nutty liberals who are always picking on us -
- should that all come to pass, perhaps we will have the chance to say hello to President Cruz in a couple of years.
This is a dishonest argument. Until a couple of weeks ago, no one was denying that a default was a bad thing. The contrary assumption was not only universally held; it was the underlying premise behind using the threat of a default to demand concessions--a default was such a very bad thing that, or so Republicans assumed, Obama would do anything to avoid it.
DeleteOnly when it became clear that Obama and the other Democrats would not give in, and that a default was the inevitable end of the course Republicans were taking, did it become a common theme on the right that this was really no big deal. That is clearly rationalization, not an actual argument.
It's actually a by-the-book abuser's play: You were never really in danger when I had the knife to your throat.
DeleteBelittling the possibility of market turmoil/permanent damage with sarcastic exclamation marks.....
Just replying generally: I don't mean to say that Boehner has absolutely no discretion at all. There are 232 of them...if there are somewhere between 100 and 130 who support something, then he has a lot of ability to influence the outcome. Once it gets to a 150-80 majority (of the party) or more, however, and on something that they really care about...That's getting very difficult for a Speaker to go up against.
ReplyDeleteIt also depends on whether they are willing to go on the record as supporting something, right?
Delete