How to Beat Republicans at their Own Game

4

I was glancing through Joke Line's Time editorial...it's quick and one-sided, but it offers an interesting perspective on some of Obama's policy directions after the SOTU.

First of all, I think it's plain to most everyone that the GOP has one and only one policy at the moment: intransigence. It's also their election strategy. Republicans in Congress have staked their political future on defeating Obama's policies pretty much regardless of what those policies are. Health reform, financial sector reform, federal budget reform & paygo, tax cuts...whatever Obama's for, they're against...even if they were previously for it. And it isn't just because Republican pet projects have been rolled up into omnibus spending bills they couldn't possibly support (though that's happened as well). No, even on stand-alone, no-strings-attached formerly Republican initiatives, the do-nothing delegation is against it as long as Obama's for it.

The budget commission — to take one flagrant example — was blocked by a group of Republican Senators who had supported or sponsored it. These included the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and the formerly virtuous John McCain, a sore loser who has reversed his position on practically everything lately. The Senate Republicans then proceeded to vote unanimously against a provision, attached to a necessary increase in the debt limit, that would force Congress to pay for every new initiative it enacts. This "paygo" provision was the law of the land when Bill Clinton was building budget surpluses (in fairness, he inherited it from the equally responsible George H.W. Bush) — and was abandoned when George W. Bush started building the alpine deficits that plague us today. The hypocrisy of all this was staggering, even for politicians.

Today's GOP has become a party of pure, tactical cynicism, and obstruction is their only policy. Which unfortunately, with a 60-vote Senate, is pretty much the only political strategy with a better-than-even chance of success. We're living through a golden era of do-nothingism.

There's a very good chance this tactic will work, meaning the GOP could well pick up seats in the midterms whereby they'll be able to do nothing far more efficiently. There are a lot of disaffected liberals out there just waking up to the fact that Obama is what he's always claimed to be: a pragmatic centrist who wants government to work for the largest possible number of people, whether that involves the liberal agenda or not. And everyone else is exasperated by all the backbiting, and above all the appalling lack of results. And, once you discount the notion that their jobs require them to do anything useful to the American public in exchange for their paychecks, the GOP are sitting on a policy that almost can't lose.

But here's where Obama's political kung fu kicks in. He sees that the Republicans, by committing themselves lock stock & barrel to ideological trench warfare, have an enormous weakness: they can't vote *for* anything. This makes them highly predictable, and a highly predictable enemy is as good as dead. They've put their own necks in the noose. All Obama has to do is promote the less odious Republican policies: nuclear energy, offshore drilling, middle class tax cuts, budget reform, pay-as-you-go legislation...and now the suckers have to choose between voting for Obama or voting against their own policies & principles. Either way, Obama gets something he wants and they go into the November elections compromised. Ain't politics just a hell of a thing?

This flavor of politics used to be called triangulation, but there's a difference with Obama because he actually *does* want responsible nuclear power, offshore drilling, etc. So long as those initiatives are part of an overall green power investment in clean, safe energy independence that creates American jobs, they dovetail Obama's current policies perfectly. Meanwhile balanced budget fervor is just the thing to begin turning off the spigot of federal largesse once stimulus spending is no longer needed. And who knows, at the end of the day something might actually get accomplished in Washington.

Well played, Mr. President.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

2006 redux

(#205847)

Back then, the Democrats' strategy was "if Bush is for it, we're agin it". I didn't like the Dem strategy then, and I don't like the GOP strategy now, but it worked in 2006. But then, Bush scored several own-goals with his failing Iraq strategy and bad PR from Katrina, so I don't think the Republicans will regain majorities in either house.

BTW, I watched the entire Obama-GOP Q&A that the Angry Little Man wrote about, and I thought Obama came out pretty well. He should do more of those.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

No Comparison

(#205885)

Those aren't actually filibusters, right?

(#205896)

A cloture vote cutting off debate doesn't make that debate a filibuster - a filibuster is an even windier than normal series of speeches that actually stop a bill from being voted on. Least that's what I remember from when I graduated High School last year.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

The word has changed meaning

(#205923)
stinerman's picture

These days a "filibuster" is basically failing to get cloture on a particular bill.

Back in the old days, when a bill came up either the filibuster was broken or it was tabled. Because filibusters were taking up too much of the Senate's time our good friend Sen. Mike Mansfield came up with the "track" system. If a cloture vote failed and the majority didn't think the bill was worth it, they just delayed proceedings on that bill and moved to another one.

Today if there is a hold (a threat to filibuster by a Senator) on a bill, nomination, motion, etc., the whips count votes to see if they can win a cloture vote. If they can't the bill doesn't usually see the floor. So to actually "filibuster" a bill, all one needs to do is claim that they will not vote for cloture.

The problem is that there is absolutely no downside to filibustering legislation. The majority is usually going to back down in order to get other bills moving, and generally, they don't care enough to keep the Senate in session for days on end trying to break a filibuster.

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
-- Antonin Scalia

And this is an improvement!

(#205927)
Desidiosus's picture

Recall the anonymous holds which gutted the judiciary during the Clinton years.

Anyways, there is no possibility that Republican politicians could ever institutionally put ideology ahead of country, so clearly none of this happened.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Our man Shelby has proved that

(#206110)
stinerman's picture

It has been posted elsewhere but here it is again.

Shelby's "blanket hold" on ~70 Obama nominees. This implies, by my calculations, that if Shelby is serious and can get enough support to enlist Republicans to hold the floor with him, getting all of Obama's nominees a floor vote would take around 45 weeks, even if Sen. Reid never adjourned the Senate at all during that period.

According to Wikipedia and the Senate website, a cloture motion must "ripen" for 24 hours before a cloture vote can be taken. Upon a successful vote, a maximum of 30 hours of debate can occur, with each Senator being allowed to speak for no more than one hour. However, Shelby can put a hold on both the motion to proceed and the vote, each of which would require a cloture motion. So that's 108 hours per nomination. Multiplied by 70 nominations and divided by 168 hours per weeks, that's 45 weeks.

All of this because one Senator wants some federal funding for his state. We need to get rid of this cloture nonsense once and for all in the 112th Congress.

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
-- Antonin Scalia

Do It, Start Now...Dems Need to Get Good at Political Theater

(#206112)


...roast Shelby...have him and his foolishness on Television every night, all night and call it for what it is.

A demented, stupid man...Just say that again and again in every interview.

I love it.

Traveller

I did omit something

(#206115)
stinerman's picture

During the ripening period, the Senate can attend to other business. It made the math too difficult and long for a quick post.

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
-- Antonin Scalia

I"m Pissed at Shelby and the Dem's Response...

(#206117)

...which is pretty much nothing, there is no cost for this kind of behavior.

Fry him.

Toast him till he's well done.

Traveller

It is naked obstruction

(#206121)
stinerman's picture

And frankly, no one really cares, which is why the Republicans are doing it. If Reid kept the Senate in session until Shelby and the Republicans broke, people would notice.

When you require a cloture vote for a nominee who gets confirmed 96-0, it's a safe bet that you're requiring cloture just to slow down the process and for no other reason.

This type of obstructionism goes well beyond any sins the Democrats committed when they were in the minority.

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
-- Antonin Scalia

Of course it doesn't.

(#206137)
Desidiosus's picture

IOKIYAR. That's why BD wouldn't use the word.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

What HankP Said

(#205912)

For a variety of reasons*, the Senate doesn't do actual James Stewart filibusters anymore.

----------------
Ezra Klein and the TPM dude run regular features explaining the ins and outs. Perhaps later, if the LA Kings win tonight's hockey game, I'll google and link to them.

Yes they are

(#205900)

LINK whether it's an actual filibuster or a procedural filibuster, that's what cloture means.

I blame it all on the Internet

Nice catch

(#205889)

I also appreciated reading this list of Senators ranked by obstructionism

I blame it all on the Internet

I'd like to see

(#206020)

more information about the time period. Is this information only for the past year, or a sample from a longer period?

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise - B. Franklin

I call BS.

(#205867)
Zelig's picture

I'm thinking back to 2006 and I can't recall the Dems ever employing the strategy you suggest. In fact, I'm of the opinion that this is simply another GOP talking point that is designed to make the Dems look as bad as the GOP and their current strategy of opposing everything Obama is in favor of.

If you would like to prove me wrong, please cite examples from 2006 of Bush proposals that the Dems would normally be for, but are against simply because Bush is in favor of them. I'll be waiting for your reply.

Me: We! -- Ali

I have to agree with Desi

(#205866)

the Dems under Bush weren't a quarter as obstructionist as the current GOP. AUMF, wiretapping, GITMO & enhanced interrogation...there were numerous occasions where Bush sought & obtained Dem support for his policies. Unfortunately, from my POV, but nonetheless the analogy doesn't quite hold.

They were obstructionist enough

(#205874)

Democrats were too afraid of looking soft on national security, so they caved and groused instead. For judicial nominations and other matters, they were pretty obstructionist. I do recall that it was Democrats who were first referred to as the No Party.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Your facts are wrong

(#205887)

. . .

The actual final number was 139. This is not like any other minority has ever acted, don't try the BS "Oh, the Dems did it too" excuse.

I blame it all on the Internet

Eh

(#205945)

What part of "they were obstructionist enough" do you fail to understand?


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

The false equivalence part nt

(#205971)

.

I blame it all on the Internet

I think you've pretty much hit it.

(#205966)
Desidiosus's picture

What does "they were obstructionist enough" mean?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

You'll never convince him

(#205868)

You see, Rs get their agenda through because their policies are better, or more moderate, or appealing to enough Ds.

All Republican legislation exists in a quantum state,

(#205882)
Desidiosus's picture

where it is either passed over the objections of "obstructionist" Dems or is passed only due to the Republican penchant for "bipartisanship."

Legislation resolves into one or the other when it interacts with a "grievance" particle, though only long enough for a single thought or about a third of a conversation. Interestingly, the "grievance" particle only spins right, no matter what perspective it's seen from.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Yes.

(#205869)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

Specifically "Rs get their agenda through because their policies .... appealing to enough Ds." Congress-folk vote based on what they think it does to their chances of re-election, U. If Ds cave, it's because the ones on the margins see some advantage (or mitigation of disadvantage) in doing so.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

You're internalizing the propaganda

(#205892)

Note that often those same Congress-folk will go on to campaign against the R policies they voted for.

Of course Obama came out well,

(#205861)
Desidiosus's picture

and of course no more of those will ever happen because of it.

I'm not sure why you think "if Bush was for it, Dems were against it" is a sane description of 2006. Was Bush against our continued presence in Iraq? And weren't you glad when Rumsfeld resigned? It's all so confusing.

Actually, it's really not.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Interesting.

(#205826)
Desidiosus's picture

So it's your contention that liberals don't want government to work for the largest number of people?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Special interests on both sides by definition do not.

(#205843)

Are liberals a "special interest"?

Heh.

(#205860)
Desidiosus's picture

All this time I've been saying that it's conservatives who want the country to work for them and not for others, and it turns out the statement was controversial not for its general content, but because I wasn't slamming libs.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

I was using shorthand for

(#205865)

"special interests on the left" but thanks for ignoring the point of the diary.

Challenging, ignoring . . .

(#205871)
Desidiosus's picture

what's the difference?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

What do you think about the new policies on nuclear power,

(#205875)

offshore drilling, tax cuts, paygo budgeting, etc.?

What policies? So far they are just a politician's promises.

(#205884)

And those are proven worthless. No lobbyists in the Admin. or the Lincoln bedroom, spending transparency, all bills posted online for at least 72 hours, no new taxes on the middle class, close Gitmo, US out of Iraq, blah blah blah. The zero net spending promise was broken a week after the SOTU speech. I'll believe the newest crop of pledges when I see a nuke plant permit or drilling license issued, not before.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Point, set, match. -nt-

(#205910)
Desidiosus's picture

.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

I don't think any of them are new,

(#205883)
Desidiosus's picture

and only the tax cuts are not classical liberal. Environmental concerns are always controversial in the liberal community, which is to say that there isn't a consensus pro or con. Indeed, the discussion of how PAYGO budgeting is conservative reveals an interesting bias.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is hardly a MC tax cut, now,

(#205886)

is it?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

It's not a tax cut or increase.

(#205909)
Desidiosus's picture

They were sold as temporary measures, and now their time has come and gone. If that's what's going on.

Now, if you're saying that Bush was lying about the numbers to make his budget projections come out . . . well, sure. But is it a "lie" to take the law, as enacted, as its own meaning? I have a hard time with that one.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.