House Republicans

I have argued for a while that Repubicans need to pick up the mantle of transparency. It is useful tactically and strategically. On the tactical level, the guys in leadership always play "hide the ball with what they are doing". This gives Republicans a morally secure high-ground to attack whatever the Democrats do. Strategically, it gives us an issue that can both rally our base and makes good sense to independents and many Democrats.

On Friday, House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement on transparency. The key passage:

It’s just common sense: Americans should be allowed to read the text of major bills before Congress votes on them.  Previous Congresses, including Republican ones, failed to live up to this standard.  But never before has the failure been as blatant as it has been in the past nine months under Speaker Pelosi.   Things have to change.

There are two key parts to this. First, he grabbed the policy issue and framed it in the adult and serious way "Americans" (not "Members of Congress", which seems like only a populist argument, although some in the media have grabbed the straw man to give the Democrats aircover) should know what Congress is doing so that we can hold them accountable.

The second part is, perhaps, more important. John Boehner has now explicitly rejected the way that he ran the House, said "we have learned", and established a new line in the sand. Furthermore, one of the reforms that he advocates, in this case, a waiting period before legislation can be acted on, actually may impact many of the wasteful spending concerns that actually helped drive him out of office. 

What is so fascinating is the rejection by Senate Democrats and the silence of lefty advocacy groups other than the Sunlight Foundation. In an effort to get a public copy of the healthcare bill before a vote, John Kerry said:

"This is fundamentally a delay tactic," the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate said. "I mean, let's be honest about it. The legislative language, everybody knows, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people don't read the legislative language."

That's right. But people who are interested do. People who are experts or people being impacted do, or they hire people to.

And this gets to the final point. Where is the press? Huffington Post is being sent around by Demcorats, because they are giving cover to Democrats. But they aren't really press. But where is the Fourth Estate demanding that they have the information to tell the American people what the debate is about.

Crickets.

You would think that John Boehner repudiating how Republicans ran the House would be worthy of news.

Crickets.

You would think that John Kerry giving cover to the Senate acting without even having legislation (I'm not talking about reading the bill here ...) would be newsworthy.

Crickets outside of Fox and the Washington Times.

Today's article by Nate Silver reminded me of this little bit of old news.  In his article Silver complains that the Republicans are simply being "uncooperative", most recently with their unanimous opposition to the porkulus bill, but, as he cites, also with their opposition to the DTV transition delay. 

But, in terms of the DTV transition, the House Republicans were more than merely "uncooperative" - they were absolutely right.  The purported rationale for the delay was that the $40 coupon program has run out of money, people are being put on a waiting list, and it will take time for everyone to get their converter boxes.

Here's closer to the real reason: The Obama advisor for telecom policy, R. Gerard Salemme, just also happens to be an Executive Vice-President for Clearwire.  Clearwire has a cooperative agreement with Sprint to build a 4G wireless internet network.  When it comes online, it would be the fastest wireless internet network in the country.  Naturally other wireless companies are working on their own 4G networks too.  Clearwire's major competitor in this capacity is Verizon.  Verizon is also planning a 4G network, and they are planning on using the soon-to-be-vacated analog TV spectrum in which to operate their network.  So, a delay in the DTV transition only helps Sprint/Clearwire and hurts Verizon.

So, is Clearwire, via Salemme, manipulating government to obtain a competitive advantage over Verizon?  No!  It can't be!  Only evil Rethuglicans do that!

This is audacious spin:

• "President Barack Obama rolled into the Capitol with a clear message for Republicans Tuesday afternoon: He’s happy to talk, but he’s not compromising on his tax rebates for lower income households."
• "Obama's aides cast the visit as an outstretched hand — and it got slapped."

Obama went to Republicans saying I'll talk, but I won't compromise.  Republicans went to Obama saying we'll talk, but we won't compromise.  I'm not surprised that Obama's aides tried to paint him as the gracious victim, but I'm a little surprised that the Politico printed it, unchallenged.

However, Ben Smith has an excellent take on what it all means.

Obama has always seemed to distinguish between cooperation and compromise, and his argument on the campaign was that he would find some way to get the former without the latter. That has been, so far, the pattern: Decisions like ending torture and (slowly) closing Guantanamo Bay didn't offer any real bone to people who disagreed with him, other than he'd showed up and listened. 

By this view, "bipartisanship" is as much a brand as any conceivable Washington reality. [...] Obama doesn't need [House Republican] votes. But his visible, cable-television-grabbing bipartisan gestures are aimed at cementing his hold on that brand, and ensuring when Republicans and Democrats go their separate ways, Republicans are seen as the partisan ones.

It seems to me that being an opposition party - as House Republicans were today in their vote against the stimulus bill - is important, but it is ultimately a losing strategy.  The only way to beat the hand Obama is playing is to take the initiative, to change the subject, with new policies and arguments that put Democrats off their game.  And even that will take quite some time.

I don't see much evidence that Republicans are able to do that right now.  There's just no larger, unifying framework for a transformative policy agenda, and no apparent policy innovation being done.  Without the unifying agenda and policy innovation, Obama will continue to set the agenda, and Republicans will lose ground at every step.

Way to go House Republicans!  Every single one voted against the Generational Theft Act of 2009.  And they managed to persuade 11 Blue Dogs to go along too.  The Democrats own this POS.

Mark Tapscott notes my post on ethics and proposes some more ideas that would involve real pain for legislators and their staff:

First, apply the Freedom of Information Act to Congress. Most Americans resent that Congress passes laws it expects the rest of us to abide by but exempts itself. Ending the 42-year-old congressional FOIA exemption would be a major step in the right direction and one that would call the Democrats bluff on the transparency issue.

Second, require Members and their key personal and committee staff members (chiefs of staff, legislative directors, committee staff directors, legal counsels, possibly others) to maintain online daily calendars recording names and titles of all participants in meetings concerning any proposed legislation or expenditure of federal funds.

Third, abolish the absurd categorical values in the annual financial disclosures required of Members. Show us the money, the shares, the property, the consideration, Congressman. Require the same level of disclosure for key staff members included in the second suggestion.

I have also heard the idea of limiting lobbying by spouses or family of members, an issue that is coming up in Barack Obama's transition.

Promoted - a Republican insider frets about leadership.

Today's Examiner editorializes about a proposed ruling from the Bush White House's FCC regarding freedom of the airwaves. It's everything we fear the new Obama administration will do. Except it's coming from a Republican.

George W. Bush has not done much to help the Republican Party. His abysmal approval ratings are a big part of why we suffered so badly in congressional districts last Tuesday. Even in solid Republican districts, his approval ratings are in the 20s or 30s and it's been reported that the the right track/wrong track numbers in these districts are in the teens or even single digits. This administration from the beginning has refused to work with Republicans in congress or at the state level. In short, they've been arrogant bullies to their own people.

Now, let's look at the internal politicking taking place with the Republican leadership race for NRCC Chair. I don't have a dog in this fight. It would seem there certainly are areas where Tom Cole can improve. But will Pete Sessions be a better NRCC Chair? Don't know. Fundraising will be extremely difficult this next cycle (fewer members raising few dollars), as will candidate recruitment (who would want to run for congress when it's going to be tough raising money?) - the two big issues Sessions says he will improve if elected NRCC Chair. Fine. Good luck to whoever ends up in that job next year.

What bothers me most about the Chairman's race is that Boehner and the WHITE HOUSE (i.e., Barry Jackson, the guy who replaced Karl Rove last year) are running the campaign to elect Sessions as NRCC Chair.

Boehner, who refuses to accept any responsibility for losing more than 50 - FIFTY - House seats between 2006 to 2008, wants his own guy at the NRCC. So he's making phone calls to Members and putting the heat on them to vote for Sessions. And his partner in all of this is Jackson, who still has the weight of the White House behind him.

How exactly is this party going to move forward if everyone in leadership is hand-picked by Boehner and the Bush White House? How is that progress?

There won't be one single person in leadership who is independent of Boehner. Aside from the NRCC chairman's race, none of the seats is being contested. Boehner cleared the field and selected his own people.

And what will this yield? What should we expect from a leadership team hand picked by the same people who, as noted in today's Examiner piece, think so little of Republicans and our freedoms that they would allow the FCC to regulate the airwaves with community activists (what's to stop ACORN members will sit on the advisory boards)?

I'm at my wit's end.

You might think the Republicans in the House of Representatives would be itching to appoint a Whip successor who warned the party that it was losing its way, who challenged the party when it made error after discrediting error, someone who wasn’t helping to steer the GOP into the crushing defeats of 2006 and 2008.

But while Mike Pence is a fresh and positive face for the House Republican Conference, the Minority Leader and Whip positions are remaining status quo.  Republicans are right back where they were in 2006, when a Hill headline read, "GOP Keeps Team, Promises Changes".

While many people are questioning the wisdom of Boehner remaining in the Minority leadership, though, there's been less attention given to Eric Cantor's basically unopposed elevation to the Minority Whip position.  But why?

• Cantor has been Chief Deputy Whip since he was re-elected to his second term in 2002, one of the longest serving people in the disastrous House Republican leadership. 
• He initially opposed the pork-laden Highway Bill, but came around to support it, Bridge to Nowhere and all. 
• He boosted for the massive Medicare prescription drug expansion, against the protests of Jeff Flake, Mike Pence and other solid conservatives.  
• Cantor ridiculously blamed the failure of the first compromise bailout bill on Nancy Pelos giving a partisan speech, and voted for the nationalization of the American financial sector.
• Eric Cantor had numerous connections to Abramoff; Abramoff's Signatures restaurant even named a sandwich after Eric Cantor.

There are a few possibilities.

• Cantor was ineffective at stopping the damage that the House GOP was doing to itself.
• Cantor enabled the less savory elements of the House to continue dragging down the party brand.
• Cantor actively leading the House Republicans into their current state.

Many Republicans hold Eric Cantor in high esteem, and he does have some positive qualities.   But in what sense does Cantor represent "change"?

Rep. Cantor may have many fine qualities and he may be good on many (clearly not all) issues important to the Right—at least he opposed the Farm Bill. But despite all of that, he still managed to become a striking symbol of the status quo at a time when the GOP needs serious, thorough reform.

The deck chairs are being shuffled.  At least the Titanic went down after hitting only one iceberg.  Republicans seem determined to hit as many icebergs as possible on the way down.

Roy Blunt announced today that he's stepping down from the number 2 position in Republican leadership, the minority whip. The GOP leadership elections will be later this month. We need to encourage our favorite conservative voices to run for, and ultimately be elected, into top spots in the House. This is a chance for grassroot action, where we can let our representatives know that the voters want conservative, principled behavior from our leaders. My thoughts are for people like Shadegg, Pence, Ryan, or Cantor, but if I'm missing someone, I'm happy to hear other suggestions.

Here's the contact infor for some representatives. Send them emails and call their offices encouraging them to throw their hats into the ring for minority whip and GOP conference chairman, the number 3 position.

- Rep. John Shadegg (AZ-3): (202) 225-3361, click here for an email form.

- Rep. Mike Pence (IN-6): (202) 225-302, click here for an email form.

- Rep. Paul Ryan (WI-1): (202) 225-3031, click here for an email form.

- Rep. Eric Cantor (VA-7): (202) 225-2815, click here for an email form.

Cantor was Deputy Whip in the past few years, and did a great job there.

One of the problems over the past 15 years was that elected GOP officials rarely, if ever, heard from their conservative constituents. When we do get in touch with them, things happen (like killing the amnesty bill.)

Whoever you like, get in touch with them and let them know you want them to play a leadership role in the renaissance of conservative Republicans.

Okay, echoing off davidfarrar's "Next Step For The Next Right", I'd like to start the ball rolling for action to rearrange the House GOP leadership. I don't mind John Boehner, and I think he was strong during the bailout pandemonium, but I want to push for someone a little more charismatic and media savvy, someone who's a thinking conservative with fresh ideas, especially on healthcare. I think we'd all agree that healthcare is going to be a big battle in the next few years.

So, to the sausage-making details:

-- Do we know when/if the House GOP will vote on their next set of leadership?

-- Can we pressure them into reorganizing, and is there a way to a get a representative-by-representative count of their votes in the case of said election?

-- Any ideas for who we could push?

My first vote would be for John Shadegg, my second for Mike Pence.

Democracy Corps, a project of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, notes that House Republican incumbents helped themselves -- at least in terms of keeping their jobs -- with the bailout vote:

Most of these incumbents initially voted against the Wall Street bailout, which was less popular in these incumbent districts than in the open seat races.[3] So it is possible that these incumbents have marginally improved their standing by opposing the bailout.This possibility is supported by the fact that in the incumbent districts Democrats are only even on who would do a better job with the economy and trail by 2 points on who would best handle the financial crisis (whereas they lead by 5 and 4 points on those issues respectively in the open seats).

So if the Republcians in targetted seats who are most likely to win re-election voted against the bailout, it seems likely that one of the "lessons of the 2008 election" could be that the GOP shouldn't abandon its core principles on the bailout. This could have a real impact on the future of the caucus.