House to McConnell: go nuclear!
The House doesn’t have to contend with cloture or the filibuster, so it’s easier for that chamber to pass legislation by a simple majority. Not so the Senate. The news that the Republican House would like the Republican Senate to jettison its own filibuster/cloture rules in order to join the House in trying to block Obama’s Iran deal is evidence that the usual split in the Republican Party between conservatives and moderates extends to a House/Senate split.
Some of you may say it’s all just “failure theater,” designed to make us think that at least some Republicans want to do as much as they can to stop the deal although they really don’t. Whether this is true or not, “as much as they can” isn’t really so much, because Obama can veto anything they pass and they don’t have the votes to override. That’s what happens when the majority party in both houses in Congress differs from that of the president but doesn’t have enough of a majority to override, and the president isn’t reluctant to use the veto if it comes to it.
I happen to think that there are a significant number of Republicans (I don’t know how many, though), particularly in the House, who mean what they say and are clearly frustrated with their leadership, and that this is evidence of it.
Also, I’ve been saying for quite a while that McConnell should end filibuster/cloture. There is little question in my mind that the Democrats will do it as soon as they have the power to do so and they stand to gain something from it. However, McConnell doesn’t appear to want to do it, although some rather surprising Republican senators are speaking out in favor of it (somewhat in favor, anyway):
Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he was “in favor of exploring” a rule change.
McCain hedged his support, however, warning that it “would set a dangerous precedent” and open “charges … of me being a hypocrite.” Yet the seriousness of the Iran deal “argues for us to look at any possible option that we can,” McCain said.
Still, McConnell has no plans to explore the idea.
“He does not support the nuclear option,” spokesman Don Stewart told The Hill in an email.
It’s easy to see why.
As McCain made clear in his radio interview, Republicans excoriated Democrats for changing the rules in 2013, and would open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy if they followed suit. Not to mention the likelihood that someday, Republicans will no longer be in control of the Senate.
“Open themselves up” to charges of hypocrisy? Don’t make me laugh. They are charged with hypocrisy all the time. The Democrats would not hesitate for a moment to open themselves up to such charges, if they had a particular legislative or political goal in mind. As I said, on the day when Republicans are no longer in control of the Senate, Democrats will jettison the rule themselves if they see a need to do so.
That said, I don’t think McConnell’s objection is a fake or theatrical one. This would be a huge, huge, and risky step (it’s not called “nuclear” for nothing), and to what end? To have Obama veto any bill that is passed?
So I don’t pretend that this isn’t a serious dilemma for McConnell. But the stakes in the Iran deal are too high, and the GOP has done too little. Their own supporters are heartily sick of their wishy-washy attitude, and they must do something. It doesn’t have to be this, but it has to be strong.
It would be even better if it were effective. But honestly, with the veto/override problem, I don’t see how that could happen. And by the way, even if the Senate were to vote on the Iran deal as a treaty (a course which I believe is still open to them), that vote could be blocked by the cloture rule and if the rule were done away with and they voted against approving the treaty, Obama would ignore it and the courts would uphold his point of view.
Here’s one of McConnell’s recent statements on the Iran deal vote, in which he proposes an amendment concerning Iran’s recognizing Israel and releasing the four prisoners. It amply demonstrates one of the many many problems with McConnell, his phlegmatic demeanor:
This will be a big issue in the debate. I expect Rubio to play the card.
If the GOP can’t get rid of the 60 vote rule on this Iran deal we might as well put this rule in the constitution.
I still think some Dem Senators could flip, but I doubt the Senate would override an Obama veto. But there is a huge advantage to make Obama veto the bill. There is a value to putting Obama even more on the historical record for this disaster.
“A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.”
The Democratic leaning media is trumpeting the deal as a big political victory for Obama. But consider. Does anyone think that violence in the Middle East is not going to increase over the near term? Anybody? Buellar? The deal is going to be blamed for any and all further escalations, justifiably or not.
Remember that Carter lost big time in no small part because of the hostages. Obama and the Democrats now own the fur ball.
Obama has been compared, unfavorably, to Carter. The deal puts him in Herbert Hoover territory – Hoover who the Democrats campaigned against for 50 years.
If there ever were a time to suspend these rules, the Iran deal is it. Why in the heck wouldn’t you? We are looking at a future nuclear Iran, which will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Just plain STUPID to not do anything possible to stop this.
K-E:
Why in heck would you not? Because it won’t have any real effect—Obama can block the effect with a veto. So one could be against it because it’s throwing away one’s possible future protection, when the GOP is a minority, all for nothing except some theater. It won’t hurt the deal itself at all.
That’s the argument behind not doing it.
The Release US citizens fro jail in Iran that wise and correct call, but why Iran’s recognizing Israel important here and should be included?
Neo, I sympathize with K-E but agree with you. And I think you appreciate how McConnell is always seeing the chess pieces at least 5 moves ahead. While I hate budget shutdowns, I endorse defunding the entire government for the sake of preventing a nuclear Iran. But McConnell probably sees my tactic as ruining the GOP shot for having POTUS and both houses in the next election. With a victory, they can dismantle the Iran deal disaster. This is probably why McConnell is tweaking the deal to force recognition of Israel and release of hostages — he wants the Left to filibuster those principles and thus weaken the Left’s posture in the elections.
Mark30339:” With a victory, they can dismantle the Iran deal disaster.”
?? Like they dismantled Obamacare, took care of the illegal immigration issue and many other issues. Please cite one issue where this blowhard has stood on principle.
Had he been a principled leader, he would have stopped the Iran deal by not pushing the Corker bill. Talk is cheap and that is all what McConnell is all about. 🙁 🙁
Sorry based on past performance McConnell is a pawn in the boy king’s hands. In much the same way that Obummer does, McConnell views the Conservatives as a bigger threat than Iran.
McConnell is a “go along to get along” guy. Don’t look for him to rock the boat.
Hey Mike, your frustration is valid — especially with the Corker bill, but you imply that McConnell has had both houses and the executive in the same party. That only happened from 2002 to 2006 while he was Majority Whip (not leader) and they put through some impressive income tax policy through the reconciliation process — and funded the military despite bad press and wailing on the Left. All his other time has been in the minority or with a Democrat President. You don’t seem to appreciate the monumental obstacles posed by filibuster and veto powers.
America’s party of War and Treason, the DemonCrats, have the guts to go nuclear. Their lackeys and opponents? Not so much.
That only happened from 2002 to 2006 while he was Majority Whip (not leader) and they put through some impressive income tax policy through the reconciliation process – and funded the military despite bad press and wailing on the Left.
That’s because about 500 billion or so went to bribe Democrats in that bill, along with spending for the military, preventing Bush from vetoing it if he wanted the spending too. Bush even mentioned this about line item vetoes.
And you can easily see by the US deficit chart what happened in 2006, which they also blame on Bush II.
Ymarsakar:
You’re missing one very important difference.
When the Democrats went nuclear, they did it because it would mean the difference between success and failure in terms of real-world results, rather than just making a theatrical statement. When the Democrats went nuclear, in other words: they had a Democratic president in the White House. That means that, if they managed to circumvent the need for 60 votes for cloture, and something got to the president’s desk, he would sign it and not veto it.
The situation the Republicans face is profoundly different. If they jettison the 60-vote rule in order to pass something, then it goes to the desk of President Obama, who vetoes it and it dies.
Now, you may think they should still do it. You may think that sort of theatrical gesture is important in some way, important enough to do away with the rule. But don’t say that the two situations are at all equivalent. They are not even close. If the Republicans were in the position the Democrats were in when they did away with the 60-vote rule, I believe they would do away with it, too. But they are not.
Plus, the Democrats only did away with it on one issue: that of confirmation of judicial appointments. They were careful to preserve it for other things in case they need it in the future. The situation was tailor-made for them. The Republicans’ situation is very very different, and they face a much more difficult and risky decision because they would be getting much less from it.
In fact, I think the only thing they’d gain is a moment of grudging approval from the angry base, which would then go on to criticize them bitterly for something else.
MikeII; Mark30339:
What MikeII says does not follow from any sort of logical consideration. He writes:
Talk is indeed cheap. And that’s what your statement is: talk. What you say is not true. Not pushing the Corker bill would have accomplished NOTHING other than one of two possibilities. I’ve explained both before several times on this blog, but I’ll explain again, because obviously people aren’t listening:
(1) The Democrats refuse to let the Republicans vote on the Iran deal as though it were a treaty by failing to give it the 60 votes for cloture. So it never even comes to a vote.
(2) If the Democrats refuse to let the Senate vote, the Republicans change the cloture/filibuster rule and bring it to a vote as a treaty without the 60 to do so. They vote on the Iran deal as though it were a treaty, and they fail to approve it. Obama says it’s not a treaty and their vote is invalid, and goes ahead with the deal anyway. The case is taken to the courts, which either say that Congress has no standing to sue, or if they find it has standing, they say that the enormous weight of court opinion since the days of FDR is that an arms agreement of that nature is NOT a treaty but is an executive agreement, just like Obama says.
And that would be that. Now, you may think the Republicans should have done it that way anyway, just for the theater. But the idea of Corker-Menendez was to give them one additional tool to stop Obama, one that involved blocking him from unilaterally lifting sanctions without them, which they knew he was about to do. So far it hasn’t been successful, but it was always an extreme longshot involving the need for Democratic cooperation. Their error was thinking they might get more of that when our security was at stake. They were wrong. But without it, they hadn’t a chance of success in trying to stop the deal.
Also, dismantling Obamacare faces a similar problem. The House passed many bills doing just that, but the Senate faced two problems. The first was the 60-vote rule. The second was that, if the Senate jettisoned the rule and voted to undo Obamacare, the bill goes to Obama’s desk and he vetoes it. The veto cannot be overridden and the effort dies.
Again, you might think it’s worth it, for the theater and the showing of some sort of gumption. That’s a valid point. But it’s not the same as saying anything could have actually been accomplished in terms of doing something to stop or end Obamacare. It would have been more theater.
But don’t say that the two situations are at all equivalent. They are not even close.
What does Willpower have to do with whether the situations are close or not? Willpower is about the drive that achieves their goals, no matter the cost. It isn’t limited or even concerned with what the “situations are”. The situation bends to the Will of the leader or Tyrant. It’s not the other way around.
Ymarsakar:
That’ s magical thinking, in my book.
Now, as I think I’ve indicated, I understand the point of showing strength and determination to do whatever one can, even if it’s just theater. Theater tells people something about your strength and determination.
In fact, if you read what I’ve written on what McConnell ought to do, I’ve said for quite some time that he SHOULD do more to show that strength and determination, even if it is futile in the sense of overturning the Iran deal or Obamacare.
However, I am aware of the fact that it is McConnell’s judgment that such empty theater is not worth it, because it would give up something and at the same time fail to achieve concrete results. That’s a valid argument. And it’s not a valid argument to say that the deal could be overturned that way, or Obamacare ended. Theater is theater. But it would have an effect on the morale of the right, which could have consequences down the road, ultimately. And failure to show that will has consequences, also.
Theater tells people something about your strength and determination.
Are you saying it was theater for the Republicans to do as they didn’t do under Bush II?
Because if it is theater now due to Hussein being the President, what about back under Bush II?
That’ s magical thinking, in my book.
Willpower is very close to magical thinking, but not on the strategic or logistical level. Only on the tactical level, which is what you’re referring to given Hussein O’s Emperor status.
Ymarsakar:
Somewhere I believe I have a longer discussion of what the Congress did and didn’t do under Bush II. Can’t find it now. But the short version is this:
(1) There have always been some RINOs in Congress willing to compromise with the Democrats, and back then there was a higher percentage of them and fewer strong conservatives than there are now. Olympia Snowe would have been a good example, but there were many others. So the balance was different, and more unfavorable to conservative causes.
(2) Bush was not very conservative except in certain ways. He was not fiscally conservative. He was not a leader in that respect. Plus, he was very focused on the War on Terror. Mostly, though, he simply was not interested in many conservative causes and did not promote them, and some of what he promoted was more in line with Democrats (such as Part D of Medicare).
In addition, the Republican majorities in Congress were rather weak back then, especially in the Senate. They never had the requisite 60 Senate votes, even at the Republicans’ peak in 2005-2007 when they had 55 votes but many of those votes were RINOs, and those years Bush was very focused on the Iraq War, which was a big big issue and not going well. The rest of the time the Senate was about 50/50 split under Bush (and that’s including the RINOs). You can see the figures here.
The story of how Medicare Part D passed under a Repubican Congress is here. It’s a complicated one, but the gist of it is that the Republicans, and Bush, were trying to prove they were compassionate, like the Democrats. In doing so, I believe they lost their base, which has been angry at them ever since for that among other things.
I have long said that if we had more or less the same Congress we have now, plus an actual conservative in the White House, Congress would follow that conservative’s lead. We don’t know, of course. But that was not the situation under Bush, who did not lead as a conservative in a lot of ways.
I bring up Bush II not to rehash the past, but to make the point that the GOP or Congress lacking the Willpower to stomp on the Democrats has been a strategic weakness for decades now. Nothing has changed in the present, regardless of what they do or don’t do about a veto or rules changes. They still lack Willpower.
Which is not only a fatal tactical error at times, but will also be fatal for non obvious reasons later, due to logistics.
Pingback:House to McConnell: go nuclear! | First News Alert