Having closely watched congressional developments over the last few weeks, I’ve concluded that one much-discussed Democratic tactic for dealing with Trump 2.0 is probably mistaken, as I explained at New York:
No one is going to rank Mike Johnson among the great arm-twisting Speakers of the House, like Henry Clay, Tom Reed, Sam Rayburn, or even Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, he still resembles Winston Churchill’s description of Clement Atlee as “a modest man with much to be modest about.”
But nonetheless, in the space of two weeks, Johnson has managed to get two huge and highly controversial measures through the closely divided House: a budget resolution that sets the stage for enactment of Donald Trump’s entire legislative agenda in one bill, then an appropriations bill keeping the federal government operating until the end of September while preserving the highly contested power of Trump and his agents to cut and spend wherever they like.
Despite all the talk of divisions between the hard-core fiscal extremists of the House Freedom Caucus and swing-district “moderate” Republicans, Johnson lost just one member — the anti-spending fanatic and lone wolf Thomas Massie of Kentucky — from the ranks of House Republicans on both votes. As a result, he needed not even a whiff of compromise with House Democrats (only one of them, the very Trump-friendly Jared Golden of Maine, voted for one of the measures, the appropriations bill).
Now there are a host of factors that made this impressive achievement possible. The budget-resolution vote was, as Johnson kept pointing out to recalcitrant House Republicans, a blueprint for massive domestic-spending cuts, not the cuts themselves. Its language was general and vague enough to give Republicans plausible deniability. And even more deviously, the appropriations measure was made brief and unspecific in order to give Elon Musk and Russ Vought the maximum leeway to whack spending and personnel to levels far below what the bill provided (J.D. Vance told House Republicans right before the vote that the administration reserved the right to ignore the spending the bill mandated entirely, which pleased the government-hating HFC folk immensely). And most important, on both bills Johnson was able to rely on personal lobbying from key members of the administration, most notably the president himself, who had made it clear any congressional Republican who rebelled might soon be looking down the barrel of a Musk-financed MAGA primary opponent. Without question, much of the credit Johnson is due for pulling off these votes should go to his White House boss, whose wish is his command.
But the lesson Democrats should take from these events is that they cannot just lie in the weeds and expect the congressional GOP to self-destruct owing to its many divisions and rivalries. In a controversial New York Times op-ed last month, Democratic strategist James Carville argued Democrats should “play dead” in order to keep a spotlight on Republican responsibility for the chaos in Washington, D.C., which might soon extend to Congress:
“Let the Republicans push for their tax cuts, their Medicaid cuts, their food stamp cuts. Give them all the rope they need. Then let dysfunction paralyze their House caucus and rupture their tiny majority. Let them reveal themselves as incapable of governing and, at the right moment, start making a coordinated, consistent argument about the need to protect Medicare, Medicaid, worker benefits and middle-class pocketbooks. Let the Republicans crumble, let the American people see it, and wait until they need us to offer our support.”
Now to be clear, Congressional GOP dysfunction could yet break out; House and Senate Republicans have struggled constantly to stay on the same page on budget strategy, the depth of domestic-spending cuts, and the extent of tax cuts. But as the two big votes in the House show, their three superpowers are (1) Trump’s death grip on them all, (2) the willingness of Musk and Vought and Trump himself to take the heat for unpopular policies, and (3) a capacity for lying shamelessly about what they are doing and what it will cost. Yes, ultimately, congressional Republicans will face voters in November 2026. But any fear of these elections is mitigated by the realization that thanks to the landscape of midterm races, probably nothing they can do will save control of the House or forfeit control of the Senate. So Republicans have a lot of incentives to follow Trump in a high-speed smash-and-grab operation that devastates the public sector, awards their billionaire friends with tax cuts, and wherever possible salts the earth to make a revival of good government as difficult as possible. Democrats have few ways to stop this nihilistic locomotive. But they may be fooling themselves if they assume it’s going off the rails without their active involvement.
Teresa Heinz Kerry has said that she considers herself Latina and African.
>>Huh? Where did you get the idea that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is Hispanic? She was raised the daughter of expats in Mozambique and South Africa. As far as I know, she’s as blue blooded as (both) her husbands.
Posted by ColoDem at March 16, 2004 12:04 PM <<
Are you implying that Hispanics can’t be blue-blooded, wealthy, and white? For your information, there are many Hispanics of European heritage who are as white, if not whiter, than Mr. Kerry. The Portuguese are Hispanics, but then again, Ms. Heinz Kerry isn’t even Portuguese, she’s African!
milli, are you a GOP plant? Could you tell us why we’re better off with 4 more years of Bush?
I suspect Bush is really helping himself and the Republicans by suggesting that the Spanish People in Spain are really very very bad people because they voted for “SOCIALISTS’. Of course they nicely leave out the fact that it twas the Spanish Socialists who put it all together in 1976 when Franco died — and built a modern democracy, negotiated the entry to the EU, (EEOC at the time) signed every Human Rights tresty in sight, and accomodated many of the interests that simmered behind the scenes left over from the Civil War. While I realize most Americans of Hispanic background are not from Spain, it does remain something of the cultural center of the Spanish Speaking World — a position somewhat enhanced by recent Spanish History. Do you think they will move into “Freedom Fries” mode? Will we have little Bourgeois Riots at the local Taco Bell’s? Tonight Denny Hastert has lined the House Republicans up with the grand analysis that the Spanish are just a pitiful bunch of appeasers. That is really a great position to take if you want to seem acceptable to Hispanic Voters.
I noticed the Madrid papers took on Bush the other day for showing disrespect for the dead in the train bombing. Apparently one is expected to wear a black tie when extending condolances, and Bush wor a red, white and blue striped one. I thought the White House had a Protocal Officer who sorted things like this out. I must say laying flowers at the Spanish Embassy is more than our dead troops get from this guy.
I’m a Hispanic woman and you have it all wrong. A an independant I am looking for a leader with conviction and a voice for my “people”, I’m an American first and what I need and what this country needs is a leader that stands for all of us and not someone trying to “hispanicize” his ticket. Kerry lost me last week, he LIED about voting for Helms Burton and was just trying to convince Cubans to vote for him – what a joke. He stands for NOTHING – we’d been better off with Edwards – at least he doesn’t have 20 years of WAFFLING on everything. November is a loss – get used to it – 4 more years of Bush – maybe that’s a good thing considering the options!!!
In the case of Bill Richardson, I think the GOP slime squad was doing some preventive maintenance during his time at DOE. Richardson has been a comer in the Democratic Party for some time and the GOP wanted to eliminate or forestall his elevation to VP candidacy because of his obvious demographic advantages. Remember, they did the same thing with Henry Cisneros.
But I doubt they’ll be able to use the same kind of tactics if he actually becomes a candidate. Not without risking pissing off the Hispanic vote.
Finally, I don’t think there is a worse Cabinet-level job than DOE. No one is going to be able to turn around that bureaucratic culture in two years without a lot of help and DOE hasn’t been a top-level priority since the oil shocks of the 70s.
–Dan
Dear Sara,
Thanks for your very thoughtful response. I should not have said you raised charges–you expressed concerns.
I know nothing about energy policy–maybe others can comment on Richardson’s tenure. But certainly the “GOP slime squad”, as you call it, will go after whomever Kerry chooses. If the worst they can say about Gov. Richardson’s integrity and character is that he arranged a job interview for Ms. Lewinsky at the President’s request, I don’t think that’s the kind of thing that should cause us to turn away from a candidate who may be uniquely positioned to help Democrats win Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and perhaps Florida.
Curtis, some people say Kerry should pick Evan Bayh (former Indiana governor, now a senator) as VP because of Indiana. I think it’s an awful idea. He’s too DLC, too boring.
In raising questions about someone on the VP list, as I have suggested above regarding Richardson, I have not, as Ron Thompson suggested — made charges. I have simply pointed to areas that need to be examined as you mull your choice.
Yea — I understand Richardson was very much of a blindsided bit player in the Monica story. My concern is less with the truth of the matter — more with the potential target quality offered to the GOP slime squad by the choice. I am not in favor of a selection for VP that makes the slime squad’s job easy.
Now as to the Dept of Energy. Look, there is something called the IF Stone rules of investigative Journalism — and one of these is pretty obvious if you think about it. If you want to understand how a principle political actor administers policy — uses the bureaucry to solve problems, and more programs ahead — you drop down about three levels from the subject person, find the people who are really experts in the actual content of programs, and see what kind of tale they tell. You don’t ask them to “judge” someone — you ask for the story, and look for key things that help you assess whether a leader made a program more ahead in a reasonable way, or whether he failed.
So — I’ve looked at various Department of Energy programs over the years that interest me. I am interested in clean-up of the Nuclear waste issues at places such as Hanford, Savannah, Oak Ridge and a number of other sites. (See W.Post series on the N. Kentucky mess for instance) — And I know people who are legislators, members of congress, who have served on regulatory commissions, and I know some scientificly credentialed folk who are sometimes consultants on these matters. And yea, I have asked about departmental leadership, and how that impacts program progress. What I find is that during Richard’s 2 and a half years, the problems with moving programs forward were not solfed.
Was this Richardson’s fault? — well he had the top job, and I expect someone in that position to show some leadership. If people or policy are in the way — the idea of leadership is to move over and/or around them. Gain greater understanding of the problems so as to create a base of support for problem solving and all.
Cleaning up the waste from the Nuclear Industry in the Cold War era is a HUGE issue. From the beginning and up to the mid 70’s, the problem was hidden and ignored and wrapped in official secrecy. Then, mid 70’s onward — we’ve begun to comprehend and calculate the cost of clean up. Done right — it will cost Trillions, and there is absolutely no political advantage in talking about spending zillions for the necessary projects. Anyone who has followed this since the 70’s knows this — and looks at leadership of DOE in these terms. Hazel O’Leary tried to go at the problem sideways — by dealing with the victims of human experimentation and industrial exposure. The idea was — in focusing on the human interest and compensation aspects of it all — to move from those specifics to the much broader matters. (Broader matter being what happens when the Hanford storage dumps break, and the Columbia River is polluted, and we have to say bye bye to Portland Oregon, and all?) So — look at DOE during Richardson’s years in leadership — and find your own people who are mostly technical experts and who know the problems — and ask them if much progress was made in the last couple of years of Clinton’s term. Or — take any other DOE subject area that interests you, and where you’ve done a bit of educating yourself, and apply the IFStone rule of Investigative Journalism — the technical guy a couple levels down can tell you if the programs are moving along at a reasonable pace — or whether monkey wrenches are getting thrown into the gears.
What I believe happened to Richardson at DOE is that the Republican Congress did everything possible to distract attention from real problems. The Win Ho Lee case — bad security at DOE labs and all, and the notion that the Chinese had stolen the latest in bomb designs — that whole long saga was really about distracting from all the enviornmental clean-up missions of DOE. I simply am making the case that Leadership would have been about finding a way to make the Republican strategy and tactics clear — and that didn’t happen.
I hope I have suggested enough history to review.
Remember, these are the same bozos who think American Jews have no political opinions beyond Israel policy and that the women’s vote depends on which candidate is hotter-looking.
Please support a candidate in a swing NM District….
*** MILES NELSON, M.D. for CONGRESS ***
http://www.nelsonfornewmexico.com/
Contribute today. Every dollar counts.
http://www.nelsonfornewmexico.com/
Hey Curtis – I hear Jeb Bush can deliver Florida – but I suppose he’s not on the list, huh.
🙂
I’m not entirely sold on Edwards – if only becuase of the rarity of primary “losers” being selected (Bush I is, I believe the only example – there are a couple farther back)
However – I agree with Dan – or maybe even got a step further – in this Election cycle – an “attack dog” may not be the best thing – one of the things that shot Edwards to the front of the pack in the early primaries was the idea of his positive approach – given how negative this race is going to be – that might be such a change that it would be better than an attack – plenty of other ways to raise issues with this administration than an “attack dog”. Besides – mostanything that breaks up the normal political mode and confuses the rightwing dominated press for a minute is good by me.
What about someone who could deliver a midwestern state or two? Ohio, Indiana?
I would say pick anyone who could deliver Florida, but it appears that such a person doesn’t exist.
Rove wants to get 40% of the Hispanic vote this year. He knows that is all they need to win. And it looks like they are on their way to getting that.
I agree with you all that John Edwards is the best choice. He will really appeal to Latinos because he is from a working family and has worked hard for all he has achieved. In addition, he will appeal to voters across the country, not just in a particular state. He will make it impossible for the Republicans to label Democrats as liberal elitists. Most important, Edwards will appeal to swing voters because he is not perceived as having an ideological agenda or being beholden to special interests. He is inspiring, charming, and likeable-all of which we badly need on the ticket!!!
The conventional wisdom for picking a VP is to find someone who can carry a large swing state or energize an important group. In this vein, Joe Lieberman was critical in pulling CT into the Dem column and swaying Democrats who were tired of 8 years of Clinton.
So I guess that rules out Lieberman, who was the worst attack dog in history.
But I question the idea that Edwards can’t play the “attack dog” role. He brings a recognizable passion to his speeches that would team up with Kerry’s experience. Who cares if he doesn’t go negative if he can reliably draw distinctions with the Republicans. His trial experience provides an ability to seize on opponents weaknesses.
Frankly, the VP candidate is going to give a lot of speeches and interviews and then he’ll have one shot at Cheney. Of all the VP possibilities, and I count myself as a Richardson advocate from way back, I would want Edwards going up against Cheney.
–Dan
Sara,
If you have charges to make about Richardson, could you please be a little more specific than saying that “a couple” of people told you that his brief tenure as Secretary of Energy “was much of a mess”? He didn’t get the job until 1998.
And, yes, he arranged a job interview for Monica Lewinsky at the President’s request. Is the implication that he knew about her relationship to the President? If not, and his boss asked him for a favor, why shouldn’t he do it?
Richardson brings with him several problems. There were lots of issues with regard to how he handled the Dept of Energy — a couple of a-political science types tell me it was much of a mess — and then there is the Monica Connection which could be brought up and discussed 24/7. (He interviewed her for a UN job,) Baggage we don’t need right now.
If Bush disses the Spanish Election — the one that looked pretty “fair” and “well attended” and where they voted on paper, and counted all the ballots — and his best buddy got defeated, I suspect that could boomerang on him in the US with Hispanic voters. And if he will take it, recent events offer Kerry a chance to show respect. I tend to think various modes of showing respect and listening is somewhat more valuable in getting these votes than a VP slot.
It looks like the Dem’s in Colorado will have a Hispanic Senate Candidate. Campaigning with him in that marginal state might show more respect than a spot on the ballot for VP.
I think it’s a vast overstatement to say as Ruy does, that “the GOP Hispanic strategy is in shambles.” Bush got 34% of Hispanic voters in 2000; he’s getting 34% in this poll, with 9% undecided. His strategy has neutralized his losses among a group which might otherwise have been expected to turn more solidly against him, for economic reasons.
It is still very necessary to increase Hispanic support for Democrats: for Kerry in 2004, and for the party in the future. And the best way to do that is to put Bill Richardson on the ticket.
This is very good to know. I was commenting on this a couple of days ago at this site. I hadn’t read the January analysis in the archives.
I hope that these side issues that Bush is using to peel off Hispanic voters continue to fail.
It would be great if the Hispanic vote in Florida can be even more turned towards Kerry. More divergence there would give Kerry an even greater chance to win Florida.
Huh? Where did you get the idea that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is Hispanic? She was raised the daughter of expats in Mozambique and South Africa. As far as I know, she’s as blue blooded as (both) her husbands.
I wonder if Latina Teresa can help Kerry more with hispanics. I hope the campaign is exploiting have a real hispanic very nearly on the ticket.
Support a truly grassroots Senatorial candidate! Georgia Senator Mary Squires is running for Zell Miller’s U.S. Senate seat that he is vacating. We must win this seat for our progressive candidate. She CAN and WILL win this seat but needs your support. Democratic supporters in Georgia and around the nation have begun organizing for Senator Squires because we understand the importance of taking back our U.S. Senate. The Republicans want this seat and have already raised several million dollars to help them get it. Please consider a small contribution today to help win the Senate for REAL democrats. Contribute here: http://www.marysquires.us/contribute.html
Bill R. would be a good veep because he is a good person, not just because he is hispanic. He has impeccable foreign policy credentials and now has executive experience as a governor as well. It is a bonus that he is hispanic, but i would like him even if he spoke spanish like W.
For the record, I think Bill Richardson would make a great choice as VP. I agree with ABB; it could energize turnout among Hispanics. As Democrats, we cannot simply take minority groups for granted. Sure, Hispanics trend strongly towards Democrats, but we can solidify that support in November by aggressively targeting their needs. So far, the Republicans have been far more aggressive about targeting Hispanics. I agree with DR that this strategy hasn’t worked, but don’t forget that Bush only got 35% of the Hispanic vote last time. If he can increase this to around 40%, Rove would be ecstatic.
Btw, as for Richardson not wanting the post, I’d imagine that the whole Democratic Party imploring him to run with Kerry could change his mind.
something’s missing from the analysis, though. the Hispanic strategy, while clearly about Hispanics, is also about the White People Party’s ability to convince its adherents that it’s not, in fact, the white people’s party. whenever a challenge is levied against the GOP’s commitment to Hispanic causes, White People can assuage their guilt and believe, contrary to reason and experience, that something is being done about an issue they pay lip service to.
IOW, I’d be curious to see how the Hispanic strategy played out among white people too.
Not Graham. He’s a bad campaigner, and polls in Florida with him as Kerry’s veep are no different than Kerry alone—ie he gives Kerry nothing. Plus, I think the whole “well, then you win state X because so-and-so is from state X” is out the window after Gore lost Tennesee in 2000.
I’d actually like Richardson, not because he gives you any specific state, but having a Latino on the ticket might energize Latino turnout in general, which has always been the larger Democratic problem with minority groups—they support the Dems, they just don’t go to the polls at the same rates that other groups do.
The problem with this is that Richardson has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t want the veep slot, he’s only been governor 1 year, etc. So he’s out.
I think Edwards would be a good pick. My only concern with him is if he’d be sufficiently attack-dog. As VP, you can’t be Mr. Sunshine all the time.
Kerry probably will not need him, and might do better w/ Graham or Edwards. Arizona is the most radical change from 2000 to 2004. Arizona (based on recent polls) looks to be pretty safe territory for the dems in ’04.
Would it help Kerry to have Bill Richardson as his VP–to build on and solidify the Hispanic vote in AZ, NM, CO, etc.–or is that issue not very important given how solidly Dem the Hispanic appears to be?