JONATHAN COHN SEPTEMBER 12, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A Politico story on House Republicans, by Marin Cogan and Jake Sherman, is generating a lot of buzz this morning. And the item getting all the attention is a blind quote, from a senior House Republican aide, questioning why Republicans would pass a bill that might improve Obama's chances for re-election. Here it is:
Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win? I just don’t want to co-own the economy by having to tout that we passed a jobs bill that won’t work or at least won’t do enough.
Of course, we've heard this kind of talk from the Republicans before, most famously when Senator Mitch McConnell said that defeating President Obama was "the single most important thing we want to achieve." Hopefully the voters remember this rhetoric next November, when they decide whether to give Obama a second term -- and, implicitly, to reward such single-minded obstructionism.
But since I haven't given up on the possibility of passing meaningful recovery legislation, something else in the Politico story got my attention. It's the comments that conservative Republican lawmakers are making, on the record, about the leadership in their caucus -- and what that suggests about how this debate might play out.
After Obama announced his jobs plan, both Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor went out of their way to strike a conciliatory tone -- Boehner suggesting that Obama's ideas deserve consideration and Cantor noting that Republicans could support at least some of the president's new proposals. The rhetoric was vague and, most likely, just for the sake of appearing constructive. But they provoked grumbling from more conservative House members like Pete Sessions. Via the same Politico story:
“I have great respect for everybody in Republican leadership,” Sessions said. “I found what the president said to be out of balance; … It’s fair to give any [proposal by the] president [a chance] out of respect to him, but also we need to look at the substance.”
We've seen this split between leadership and the right wing before, most recently in the debt ceiling debate, when pressure from extreme elements in the caucus forced Boehner to walk away from a deal with Obama. Maybe the same thing will happen now. But when a caucus is divided in this way, it can struggle to convey an effective message. And maybe, just maybe that will give Obama the leverage necessary to force legislation through the House -- the type of legislation that might, however incrementally, help put people back to work.
11 comments
Well, this seems to be the recent Republican pattern -- let Boehner be 'moderate' and SEEM to be making a deal, then have the Tea-Party in the House rise up and reject whatever agreement Obama has been dragged into making. Then whatever concessions Obama has made becomes the NEW base-line for further concessions. Repeat until Obama finally balks at something, then all deals are off. But I concur with the idea that rewarding Republicans for their intransigence and destruction of the Economy, with ADDITIONAL seats in the House and Senate, simply because Obama can't dig in his heals hard enough against their policies, is a stupid thing to do.
- AllanL5
September 12, 2011 at 11:09am
Incrementally back to work won't do it for the US or BHO. Keeping the unemployment rate at 9% from rising to 10 will NOT be a win for BHO or Keynesian economics which BHO constantly fails to properly apply. If BHO can't be replaced by a Dem in 2012 who understands Keynesian economics and who advocates ansd applies Keynesian policies, it may well be better that BHO is deservedly defeated in 2012-- and leave the economic disaster entirely ascribable to Repubs. And not to Keynes whose policies are sorely needed asap. Asap may now be 2016.
- drofnats1
September 12, 2011 at 11:50am
Obama finally owns he narrative and there's very little they can do about it but carp around the edges. Even they know their shtick is way past tired. Their only hope is that Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, which isn't a bad strategy for them. It's more predictable than trying to go back to their districts yammering about SS being a ponzi scheme, regulations for corporations are bad and demanding more tax cuts for rich people. Maybe, just maybe, America is growing up.
- WandreyCer
September 12, 2011 at 11:51am
my "t" sometimes skips...make that: "Obama owns THE narrative"
- WandreyCer
September 12, 2011 at 11:58am
So many moving parts to this story. It seems to me that, unlike the debt ceiling deal, the Republican leadership's initial conciliatory posture is not completely in bad faith -- the leadership, at least, realizes that they can't blow off all of Obama's proposals the way they had done before and keep pushing the envelope the way they did during the debt ceiling debate, for three reasons: (1) they see polls where the public blames them and their members for the bad economy along with the President; (2) they don't have a hammer (like failure to raise the debt limit) that makes the President accede to maximal demands, since Obama doesn't have an ironclad incentive to cooperate with them but can now blame them for not helping the middle class; and (3) a jobs bill is not an issue where Republicans can effectively make up for their huge failure of passing the Ryan Budget by tying favored Democratic legislation to bipartisan Medicare cuts. On the other hand, Sessions and that staffer are correct that a win on this plan helps Obama win and a rising economy and Obama's political capital would speed him toward re-election. Then again, there are many Republican incumbents in Congress who are in vulnerable districts (unlike Pete Sessions and that staffer's boss, most likely) -- even if Obama is not re-elected, neither will many of them, especially in states like NY, Illinois, PA and Wisconsin that Obama would carry even in a losing re-election effort. This would set up the almost far-fetched scenario of a Republican President with a Republican-led Senate and a Democratic-controlled House. Another factor is how the NY-9 special election would play into this mindset -- a likely win by the Republican would seem to re-affirm the notion that Obama has negative coattails in this election and that Republicans can be safe in obstructing him, as the House incumbents would get re-elected solely on the basis of voters' anger toward Obama. This is a dangerous scenario for Republicans, in my view -- the White House has endured a summer of discontent in a defensive crouch with Republicans setting the legislative agenda, and has only just started the rhetorical push for its own proposals and the President's re-election. It is possible that the NY-9 election shows that voters will not give Obama a second chance and will proceed to vote against Democrats across the board with him at the top of the ticket, regardless of what Republicans say or do in the campaign. However, it is just as likely that Obama will enjoy some measure of a political comeback in the face of Republican obstruction of politically popular proposals and a Republican Presidential campaign that may resolve itself in the very early part of 2012, giving Obama an effective opponent to fight rather than dissipate his energies against faceless enemies. It won't be the first time that Republicans have miscalculated with this President from the warmth of the Tea Party cocoon.
- wildboy
September 12, 2011 at 12:00pm
As far as I can tell, special elections predict almost nothing about the mood of the broader electorate. Too much depends on local politics and the individual candidates--it drowns out any impact of the national narrative. If you went by the special elections leading into 2010, Democrats should have done okay on Election Day, not gotten blown out the way they did. But politicians and the media are always on the lookout for tea leaves to read for the outcome of the next election. So I agree with wildboy that NY-9 has the potential to lead Republicans astray. If Turner wins, Congressional Republicans may think the country approves of them a lot more than it actually does, and act accordingly.
- Dausuul
September 12, 2011 at 12:40pm
Come on - let's pay attention to what they really said. At least when I heard him Cantor said 1) the President should not have made a proposal (the opposite of their complaint during the debt ceiling debacle, when they complained that he would not make a proposal "in writing"); and 2) that there were some aspects of what the President proposed that they could go along with - namely business tax reductions and 3) that the spending side (the only side with any hope of increasing demand in any significant way was more of the "failed" policy. He could not even say a word about the payroll tax cut. How this is any different than any of their tactics since BHO became President, except in an attempt to convince the "middle" that they are being "reasonable" is beyond me. Fool me once ... Fool me 37 times????
- krvogel49
September 12, 2011 at 1:17pm
Republicans don't believe in government spending as a stimulus and they like the payroll tax because it is highly regressive and, hence, they don't wish to cut payroll taxes (income taxes yes, payroll taxes no). Other than those objections, I'm sure they can find room for agreement with Obama's jobs bill.
- rayward
September 12, 2011 at 3:16pm
I think President Obama is on the right track. He needs to convince the general public that his proposals are reasonable and reasonably expected to be effective. But he needs to flood the airwaves. Karl Rove knew this sort of thing was necessary. In January of 2005, this was the headline in the New York Times:
Here is what has to happen. Academicians, scholars, members of Congress and members of the Administration with every outward breath need to get out there and sell the Jobs Bill at least three in favor for every negative Republican.- Nusholtz
September 12, 2011 at 6:18pm
Oh well, soon we'll all be rich and have at least two jobs. Bobby Jindal has endorsed Rick Perry for president. Guess the BP spill didn't impress HIM; not to mention that Ponzi thing - and - without those pesky job-killing EPA restrictions we'll all be rolling in oil! Rejoice!
- Sophia
September 12, 2011 at 7:41pm
...we'll all be rolling in oil! Rejoice! Rolling in oil or boiling in oil? “Jindal made somewhat of a political comeback in 2010 after receiving praise for his handling of the BP oil spill off the Gulf Coast. But he has since repeatedly denied any intention to run for president.” [Article on CNN about Jindal announcing his candidacy for reelection as governor of Louisiana.] I am not quite sure of the best wording here. Something about Jindal putting out Texas fires with Louisiana oil?
- skahn
September 12, 2011 at 10:59pm