[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog. Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.]
Republican Charlie Baker, the GOP nominee for Governor of Massachusetts in 2010 and a candidate for Governor in 2014, released a statement on the shutdown of the federal government. Here it is in full (hat tip: Joan Vennochi):
The shutdown of the federal government is an enormous failure of leadership in Washington, and occurs at a terrible time as our economy is struggling to get back on its feet and job creation is stagnant. It’s disappointing that our leaders in both parties were unwilling to seek common ground and find a bipartisan path forward that didn’t include a shutdown. Partisan brinksmanship carries with it consequences and is going to hurt real people. It’s not the type of leadership and experience I will bring to Beacon Hill.
Baker lazily places the blame non-specifically on “our leaders in both parties,” creating a demonstrably false equivalency. By Baker’s own stated standard, the blame for the shutdown rests singularly with the one person who has the power to bring the shutdown to an end: Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner, who is operating under the political influence of the furthest right-wing Tea Party elements of his House Republican caucus.
Why does the blame for the shutdown rest singularly with Speaker Boehner? The answer is quite simple. What is needed to end the shutdown is what is called a “continuing resolution” (CR), legislative-speak for a bill that continues funding the federal government. The Republican-led House of Representatives has only been passing CRs that include legislative language to defund or delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare.
Each time the House GOP has sent the U.S. Senate a CR with Obamacare defund/delay measures attached, the Senate has taken up the House bill, amended it to remove the Obamacare defund/delay provisions, and sent it back to the House for a vote on a “clean CR,” a continuing resolution without Obamacare defund/delay riders. Yet, Speaker Boehner refuses to allow a vote on the floor of the House for a clean CR.
Speaker Boehner’s refusal to allow a vote on a clean CR causes him to be singularly responsible for the shutdown specifically because a clean CR would pass a House vote with bipartisan support! At least twenty Republican members of the House of Representatives have now expressed support for a clean CR, which means that a clean CR would pass the House when joined by the support of the Democratic caucus, making for a bipartisan resolution to the shutdown.
Republican Charlie Baker, in his statement, claimed that the goal should be “a bipartisan path forward that didn’t include a shutdown.” Well, this goal is precisely what Speaker Boehner, again driven by the political influence of the furthest right-wing Tea Party elements of his House Republican caucus, is blocking. As such, even by Baker’s own standard, Speaker Boehner is singularly responsible for the ongoing shutdown of the federal government.
This raises a serious red flag regarding Republican Charlie Baker’s candidacy for Governor of Massachusetts. The right-wing extremism of the national Republican Party is routinely problematic for Massachusetts Republicans, as Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi relayed in her column this morning. Bay State Republicans often have to go to great lengths to distance themselves from the national GOP to appear acceptably moderate to Massachusetts voters.
In this scenario regarding the shutdown of the federal government, when – by Republican Charlie Baker’s own standard – national Republicans, specifically Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party, are wholly responsible, Baker refuses to place blame explicitly at the feet of his fellow Republicans.
This raises a fundamental question: if Republican Charlie Baker is unwilling to distance himself from national Republicans in this situation in which national Republicans are squarely to blame, why should Massachusetts voters acknowledge any difference between Republican Charlie Baker and a very unpopular national Republican Party? It is a question that Baker may struggle to answer in light of his statement on the Republicans’ shutdown of our federal government.
Can’t a majority of the House force the Speaker’s hand and bring the clean CR to a floor vote via something similar to a discharge petition? Constitutionally Boehner is the Speaker of the whole House and serves at their pleasure, not a party leader.
WaPo had an interesting post on this very topic.
I was careful to say “similar to” a discharge petition since this is not a case of being stuck in committee and we shouldn’t have to wait for the “right time” on the calendar. As for the author’s point about Republicans not undermining the Speaker that is a political question they need to answer. They can either follow what they really want and believe is right and help bring it to a vote, or they can be just as complicit as the rest of them in this mess – their choice.
Interesting side note: The author was one of my professors at GWU.
is going to be similarly vague. It is simply not in Mr. Baker’s interest to appear disloyal to the national GOP or to enrage its local representatives.
The Massachusetts GOP has an interest in appearing moderate. Whether its members want to be moderate is an entirely different question.
how many Republican voters will he lose by doing so, and how many unaffiliated or Democratic voters might he pick up by demonstrating that he strongly disapproves of the behavior of the national members of his party? State and local Republicans lost any chance of my vote when they started talking and behaving like their national brethren.
Did you see that PPP found last week that although Massachusetts voters opposed a shutdown by a large margin (31/57), Mass. Republicans favored one by over 20 points (53/32)? Among the rank-and-file there’s little difference these days. Seems most erstwhile moderate Yankee Republicans are unenrolled now, and equally wary of the national GOP.
Suppose a group of Muslim extremists demanding that Israel recognize a separate Palestinian state have taken a dozen or so women or children hostage, and threaten to execute them one by one if their demands are not met.
Meanwhile, a different group of Muslims — all moderates — is meeting with a town council in order to obtain permission to build a mosque that has become controversial. A council member asks the leader of the second group about the hostage situation. The leader answers “it’s disappointing that leaders in Israel and Palestine have not been able to find a way forward that avoids situations like this”.
Would you call the response of the Muslim leader “moderate”?
that, in that situation, Dana Bash would ask Netanyahu, “If you can help one child, why won’t you do it?”
and is being forced to mouth platitudes like “find a bipartisan path forward,” which will probably not help him with any political constituency, left or right, Democrat or Republican. If you were to press Baker, he’d probably say he means that President Obama needs to negotiate some concession on ObamaCare or else agree to the House proposals to open up the government piecemeal — one popular program at a time.
I fervently hope Obama does not go along with that, or any other, kind of “bipartisan” negotiation at the point of the Republicans’ gun. If the president were to agree to the piecemeal approach, in particular, it would put the Tea Party House Republicans squarely in charge of the U.S. government. Every government program would have to get their approval in order to function again.
Exactly what we need, a steady hand at the tiller.
I get a kick out of the “terrorist” reference or “gun to the head” depiction of the Republicans in DC. What happened to civility? Or is this a sign the Dems are about to cave?
Good one, Dan.
What happened to civility?
I’m over sixty years old. I don’t recall any Senator or Representative interrupting ANY President’s speech with an outburst like that from Joe Wilson (R-SC), when he yelled “You lie”.
“Civility” was jettisoned by the Tea Party and the GOP long long ago.
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution”.
Thanks Ted!
about someone’s public record is not incivility. I don’t feed too bad for him. Like any modern wingnut, Bork rode his victim status all the way to the bank.
Or is it just on my iPad? I feel right at home, I love it.
about where you stand.
Everyone else, if you see it click on it many, many times.
But I do like people who actually buck the system. You asking me if I relate to Cruz over Schumer, Reid, and Durbin?
I keep having to remind myself.
If Lisa Wong runs, she has my vote. But based on the 3 so far, I’m leaning Charlie Baker just based on executive experience, his leadership skills, his vision, tax policy seems to be more to my liking.
Coakley, Grossman, Kayyem, Berwick. Plus Dan Wolf, if he can work out his Ethics Commission problem.
And possibly Joe Curtatone
Silly me – how could I have forgotten. Curtatone will be a contender if he gets in, but I haven’t heard anything lately, despite Capuano’s decision not to run.
Our own SomervilleTom and some friends in Somerville told me he may have some issues he has to take care of there before he can run. It’s also getting pretty late for him to enter, though he might surprise us with how quickly he can raise cash. He’d be my first choice for sure if he got in.
Until then I will hope Wolf can get his things together, if he doesn’t it’s either Berwick if I can vote my heart or Grossman if I must vote my head. I will not be voting for Baker, it’s unfortunate such a great policy mind is encumbered by a partisan straitjacket of his own making.
Most pols just tell you who they had lunch with today, but Curtatone is pushing big policy issues all the time. Maybe he intends to be a statewide player from his mayor’s seat. Yet he’s ridiculously big picture when it comes to the subjects he tackles.
For sure he’s got the itch. Whether he scratches we’ll have to wait and see.
Given the other choices, and Mike Capuano’s wise decision to stay where he is, I’m ready to support Joe Curtatone. Whatever weaknesses he may have are, for me, pale in comparison to the known weaknesses of the front-runner.
If Joe Curtatone were to put his hat in the ring, I’m behind him.
I think he’d make a fantastic candidate and he’s always been my first choice. And you are right about his Facebook feeds, he is really passionate about smart growth, transit, and jobs and Somerville schools have improved as well. And he has that blue collar touch too. Considering
Both of us would’ve backed Murray he is pretty close to that model with far better media skills.
Wolf is not running, all ethics stuff aside…Doug would not be running away from that paycheck to grab another if his candidate Wolf were staying in the Gov. race. Wolf candidacy is mute now…ask Doug.
The person of interest (not Wolf) follows the big money and has had enough success to cherry pick and dump candidates.
From a certain Governor’s Chief of Staff who ushered in regressive, local-low-roller casinos to the prestigious Suffolk Downs payroll.
While the AG keeps the MA Democrat establishment revolving door free of circumspection. What a world.
Charlie Baker may rightly feel he has some cover on this. Consider the 2012 campaign flyer of Democratic House Speaker Bob DeLeo, for example:
.
(A copy of the flyer is here.)
I’m sure that our Congressional delegation appreciated the comparison.
I mean look at all those creepy GOP congressional candidates he enabled and alibi’d for 2010….And he’ll enable and ailbi for Boehner until the wind decisively shifts against him…period end of story.
Elias N