So, we’re headed for a shutdown of the Federal government.
As this Politico article notes, Republicans in the House this afternoon decided to attach a one year delay of the individual mandate in Obamacare in exchange for a Continuing Resolution that keeps the government funded until mid-December.
Let me say that again in different words and with intermittent bold font: Republicans want to delay the largest part of the President’s signature legislation (which, mind you, was already delayed for three years) for a year in exchange for doing the absolute minimal that their jobs require for the next two and half months.
This is just silly. Republicans aren’t bargaining in good faith. (As the article also notes, the C.R. Senate Democrats passed would have only kept the Government operation until the middle of November of this year. I mean, IS THAT THE BEST THEY COULD DO? I hope next time the Democrats plan on passing [and selling] a C.R. with a slightly longer term.) And with an apathetic public and mainstream media outlets (like Politico) largely giving their extremist non-sense a free pass, there’s no real impetus for them to start doing so anytime soon.
With a shutdown imminent, you would think a Pall Of Shame would envelop D.C.
But, nope, business is booming.
Indeed, and much to my chagrin, my email inbox has been flooded with donation requests. Take this one from *Barack Obama* a few days ago on behalf of the DCCC (with my reactions in bold italics).
“William —
This has gone too far.
Well, that’s an understatement. And in more ways than one.
House Republicans are threatening to shut down the government — and potentially default on our bills for the first time in history — because they want to sabotage the Affordable Care Act.
Well let me state this as clearly as I can: I won’t let the Republicans prevent 30 million people from getting health insurance, and I won’t let them inflict economic pain on millions more just so they can make an ideological point.
OK, how? The latter thing, especially. How do you plan to do that? Because you also said you wouldn’t negotiate with them under these circumstances. I totally get that, but I don’t see how you can refuse to negotiate with them and prevent them from inflicting economic pain, too.
But I need you standing with me.
OK.
That’s why I’m asking you to step up before this fundraising deadline and help me defend everything we’ve fought for together:
Click here to give $[dollar amount] or more today and your donation will be triple-matched.
Oh, God. YOU NEED MONEY AGAIN? WHY!?! Why. What is it specifically for? TELL ME. And what is this deadline? THERE’S ALWAYS A DEADLINE. And who-in-the-Hell is this shadowy triple-matcher? And how does that work, exactly?
House Republicans are promising to roll back all the hard-earned economic progress we’ve made.
I need you to show them that you won’t stand for it.
Even the URL is obnoxious! Feel like I’ve done my part, thanks.
Thanks,
Barack Obama”
Bet it’s not even you …
. . . And then three hours later, another email; this one from the DCCC-bot:
“President Obama just wrote you — did you see it, William?
YES, YES, I SAW IT, OK!?! LAY OFF! Btw, I go by Bill.
House Republicans are threatening either to shut down the government or shut down Obamacare. But here’s some good news: Since the President’s note hit your inbox earlier this afternoon, over 5,000 people have responded. That’s incredible!
No, that’s not incredible, actually. There’s, like, 314 million people in the country, so that’s the opposite of incredible.
[EOM]
ARRGHGHGH!!! And what, not even a frickin’ goodbye?
* * *
. . . I’ve detailed my objection to the bare requests for cash on this site before. And while I place the blame for the upcoming shutdown squarely on the Republicans, I must also say that these emails don’t leave me too enthused about donating to Democrats in Congress. It’s simply not good enough to desperately maintain the status quo (or even something less than that). They need to fight back, and they need to tell us specifically how the money will help do that. And now–while the Republicans are away from the negotiating table–might be an especially good time to start full-throatily championing some progressive causes. Like increasing the minimum wage. Like increasing food stamp benefits. Like increasing social security benefits. Like an innovative jobs plan. Like gay marriage. Like common sense gun controls. Like . . .
twitter: @BillTaylor2
kbusch says
First off, I keenly dislike the fake “surveys” that Democratic organizations routinely send out. Take an example. During the Iraq War, the Democratic Party machinery was extremely reluctant to sound a full-throated opposition to the intervention. Survey after survey pretending to “care” about my opinion arrived without asking me whether I thought the party should oppose the war. Another thing that always surprises me: how infrequently climate change appears on these surveys and how free they are of anything controversial among Democrats.
These “surveys” and the accompanying letters are designed to elicit an emotional response, and boy do I not respond to lame attempts to manipulate my emotions.
Second thing I dislike are purely ideological appeals. Yes, yes, I get that I agree with this or that organization, but how do I know the organization doing the fundraising is effective at all. Move On used to handle it beautifully: we want to run these ads; we’ve tested them; data shows they have such and such effect.
surfcaster says
btofthe3rd , you’re so sensitive to these fund-raising appeals — wait til you run for Congress! You can ignore e-mails, even when they’re from organizations you respect, generally. I do agree that the triple match thing sounds fishy — how in the world can that fit within the the rules of campaign finance? Besides, that’s totally a public radio strategy. They stole that idea! To you’re other point, why did Harry Reid not amend the continuing resolution to allow a BUY-IN to Medicare????? Bugs the hell out of me that the ACA lacks that option.
kbusch says
Sure, you can argue that we should care more about electoral outcomes than about the tone or even content of fundraising appeals. Consequently, we should just stop the whining and pony up.
But there’s a different way to look at it. If it’s not effective for our diarist — or for me — then maybe these fundraising appeals could rake in a lot more moulah if they were better crafted.
Bill Taylor says
I am way too sensitive about the fundraising-thing. Maybe it’s a bogus idealism; I don’t know. I just hate that that’s what our politics has principally become. ALL THE TIME … Don’t think Reid has the votes for something so sensible. But I don’t think he has the stomach for it, either.
sabutai says
I guess I get frustrated because it’s clear they have X number of emails slotted for this month, and will write whatever needs to be written to fulfill the requirement. Had the Republicans passed the resolution, I’d be asked to contribute to “thank” the Democrats for standing strong.
Does anyone really think that Ted Cruz is going to say “Wow, so many people contributed to the DCCC off that email that I’m going to roll over”?
JimC says
A friend asked me whether the Democratic caucus would vote to accept a delay to keep the government running.
I don’t know, I said. Maybe,
jconway says
I’ve lost most faith in that “barack obama” guy or the Democratic establishment. I think we lose 2016 since the left stays home. They gotta do a whole lot better than this.
How about ‘send us money to take out X candidates’.
Look at Wendy Davis, she will probably lose, but at least she’s putting up a friggin fight and one that will likely re-energize that state party and enable them to be competitive down the road. Every name, every new voter, every dollar, all of that can be built on for future successes.
Obama has never utilized his giant mailing list, his giant core of support, and his once enthusiastic supporters to help him bully Congress into doing what he wants. His failure to do that may prove to be his greatest political failure. No gun control, national Romneycare (and we may never actually see it get enacted), lame attempts for a ‘grand bargian’ nobody outside the Beltway cares for, no job programs, no good regulations to stop bad bankers, and he could’ve deployed his army of supporters to pressure blue dogs and fight to defend progressives like Perillio and Grayson who fought the good fight in purple districts. Instead he wastes his political capital on a war of choice in Syria.
I just don’t get it anymore, and I say this as someone who witnessed his rise from state senate to senate to the Presidency with keen insight and recollections from people that knew him personally.
sethjp says
How is Obama’s mailing list going to put pressure on Blue Dogs? Let’s take John Barrow in GA-12 as an example. Barrow won reelection in 2012 by 54 to 46, while Pres. Obama lost Georgia by 46 to 53. Now I realize that this isn’t quite apples to apples, as possibly GA-12 is packed with Democrats. But, while I can’t find details on Obama’s 2012 margin in GA-12, his 2008 total in the district as it currently stands (it was redistricted in 2010) was a paltry 40%, which would suggest that Barrow significantly outperformed Obama.
So what is it exactly that Barrow is supposed to do when emails start flooding in from MA and NY and CA? Say, “Oh no, I better start moving to the left so that my next Republican challenger can mop the floor with me or all those out-of-staters will be really mad at me”?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for better, more progressive Dems, but lets not kid ourselves about what is possible or even desirable. I’d argue that we’re better off in the long run with Barrow voting for Pelosi than a Republican voting for Cruz … oops … I mean Boehner. Just remember, while it sounds very noble to say “vote your conscious and don’t worry about reelection,” it does us no good to pass legislation that loses us members of Congress. After all, Republicans have proven themselves more than willing to repeal our leg if they’re only given the opportunity.
Christopher says
They don’t have to be the majority – just the most vocal. JConway is absolutely right about the WH needing to do a better job rallying the troops.
sethjp says
But there are Tea Party Voters in Massachusetts. And, as we have so often seen, they are tremendously vocal. (Remember Barney Frank’s famous “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with my dining room table”?) That doesn’t mean that a MA Congressperson would be smart to listen to them. Not if she wanted to keep her seat. Likewise, a Bluedog would be foolish to listen to a vocal progressive minority if he wanted to stay in Congress. And we want him to stay in Congress so that we aren’t one vote farther away from a return to a Speaker Pelosi.
Christopher says
Since he won outright both the popular and electoral vote tallies it stands to reason he won the most states and districts. Reagan could often get his way with Congressional Dems – why can’t the reverse be true, not to mention his own party?
sethjp says
1. The Democrats of Reagan’s day weren’t crazed obstructionists like today’s GOP.
2. Reagan was HUGELY popular (and Congressional Dems knew this).
Reagan spanked Carter in ’80 with an 8.5 million vote margin (nearly 10% of those voting), winning 90.9% of the Electoral College and then annihilated Mondale in ’84 with a vote margin just shy of 17 million (over 18% of all votes cast), winning a staggering 97.6% of the Electoral College. He won Massachusetts both times, for goodness sake. Massachusetts!
In comparison, Obama beat McCain by about 9.5 million votes (about 7% of votes cast), winning 67.8% of the Electoral College and then beat Romney by less than 5 million votes (less than 4% of votes cast), winning 61.7% of the Electoral College.
While I vastly prefer Obama to Reagan, you just can’t compare the two in terms of the their opportunities to use the bully pulpit. It’s just not apples to apples. It’s not even apples to oranges. It’s more like apples to elephants.
That said, I’m with you in wishing that the President used the bully pulpit more effectively on those issues where Dems have broad public support. But in the era of “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” we have to be realistic about the power of today’s bully pulpit. An outrageously ignorant electorate intentionally fed a steady diet of misleading propaganda is pretty hard to “bully.”
jconway says
I made (as in sure Christopher and OP Sabutai recall) your arguments between 2008-2010. Keeping Barrow happy when we had a majority made a ton of sense. Now it doesn’t really. I’d rather have loyal soldiers in a minority than have to have cornhusker compromises all the time to get Democrats to vote like Democrats.
Even worse-Obama truly believes if he takes the middle position in every debate it has to be the right one. The first problem with this idea is that any proposal a President makes is suddenly mainstream by virtue of the power of the Presidency. The second problem is not all centrist ideas are good ideas. The third and most glaring problem is he has this debate inside his head first, then he publicly proposes what he thinks the centrist idea is, and then since he proposed it its suddenly “socialist” to this insane GOP (Case in point Obamacare-imagine if he had started with single payer where we’d be?). And then since we have an irresponsible media suddenly Obamas position is “left” instead of moderate while the far rights is “merely right”. This is why we are still playing politics on Reagan’s court instead of on a new one or Roosevelt’s.
Also, you can’t negotiate with terrorists you defeat them. The House GOP are terrorists holding our economy hostage-they shouldn’t be bargained with since history has shown it only encourages them to be bolder to get more concessions next time. Every Republican is banking on Obama caving, he has to shut it down so they are taken down a peg.
sethjp says
I think President Obama made a huge mistake by note rallying the Dems to start from a position of single payer (even if they didn’t have the votes to pass it).
I do disagree with your idea about “loyal soldiers in the minority.” The way I see it, Barrow is a vote for Pelosi. Even if he voted against his party in every other vote, it would still be a win. If Pelosi had the gavel for the last four years, there would have been no sequester, no 40+ votes to defund the ACA, no debt ceiling confrontations, etc. Would that mean that we progressives would have gotten everything on our wishlist? No. But the other option puts a Republican in Barrow’s place, who would certainly vote against the Dems AND would vote for Boehner as Speaker. You don’t see it that way? That’s cool. Wish you were with me on this, but we Dems are a big tent party. We can disagree.
What I don’t understand is how you get from my disagreeing with you on Obama’s ability to use his mail list to pressure Blue Dogs to me somehow needing to be schooled on the fact that you can’t negotiate with today’s GOP. On this point, I couldn’t agree with you more. Obama and Reid need to hold the line and, in this latest confrontation, it looks like they’re doing just that.
jconway says
There is some agreement there. Like I said, if Barrow is all that stands between Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Boehner, than by all means I’ll back him. What I don’t understand is why I should shed a tear if he loses his seat in an election when Democrats have no chance to retake the majority. He does far more damage to us by giving bipartisan credence to incredibly conservative and bad ideas, standing as a Democratic critic of the President and Pelosi and in general not being helpful. A Ron Kind I can understand, he is the rare purple district Democrat who is actually to the left of his district in some areas while being to the right of the party (and in lockstep with his district) on other areas. He is fairly pro-gun, but he has also voted for the ACA, a right to choose, gay marriage, and is left of center on union issues. But Barrow does little for us now. Or look at how much cover Gene Taylor gave to Bush, or Zell Miller. Those are Democrats who never gave us a majority AND enabled Republicans with bipartisan cover.
I might add that I respect the fact that the Tea Party ensures that the most conservative candidates represent the most conservative districts, you can hardly say that the most progressives candidates are representing the most progressive districts (see Lynch, Stephen; Lipinski, Dan). I don’t want a leftwing Christine O’Donnell, but I do feel that there are far too many centrists in solid blue districts who help make the overall party seem sort of meek and useless and afraid of it’s own shadow. We need some populist fighters in the Senate and House. I’d take a minority full of Elizabeth Warren’s over a majority full of John Barrow’s. And if we were as committed as conservatives were, every safe district would have a Warren caliber progressive with a voting record to boot.
sethjp says
And that is a very good point.
Still, even if we have no shot at retaking the House this time around (though cross your fingers, the GOP is doing a good job of shooting itself in the foot, at the moment) without Barrow, we’re one seat farther away when we do have a shot.
As for us needing to do a better job of putting true progressives in safe D districts, sign me up. I’m all for more Elizabeth Warrens. (Would it be unethical for us to clone her?) But just to be contrary, I’m not sure I agree that the Tea Party “ensures that the most conservative candidates represent the most conservative districts.” The Tea Party left conservatism behind miles ago. Those folks are full blown radical, reactionay nutjobs. (And proud of it, too.) 😉
JimC says
USA Today