March 14: Democrats Really Were in Disarray Over Spending Bill
Having spent much of the week watching the runup to a crucial Senate vote on appropriations, I had to express at New York some serious misgivings about Chuck Schumer’s strategy and what it did to his party’s messaging:
For the record, I’m usually disinclined to promote the hoary “Democrats in Disarray” narrative whereby the Democratic Party is to blame for whatever nightmarish actions Republicans generally, or Donald Trump specifically, choose to pursue. That’s particularly true right now when Democrats have so little actual power and Republicans have so little interest in following laws and the Constitution, much less precedents for fair play and bipartisanship. So it really makes no sense to accuse the powerless minority party of “allowing” the assault on the federal government and the separation of powers being undertaken by the president, his OMB director Russ Vought, and his tech-bro sidekick Elon Musk. If congressional Republicans had even a shred of integrity or courage, Senate Democrats would not have been placed in the position this week of deciding whether it’s better to let the government shut down than to let it be gutted by Trump, Vought, and Musk.
Having said all that, Senate Democrats did have a strategic choice to make this week, and based on Chuck Schumer’s op-ed in the New York Times explaining his decision to get out of the way and let the House-passed spending bill come to the floor, he made it some time ago. Nothing in his series of rationalizations was new. If, indeed, “a shutdown would be the best distraction Donald Trump could ask for from his awful agenda,” while enabling the administration to exert even more unbridled power over federal programs and personnel, that was true a week ago or a month ago as well. So Schumer’s big mistake was leading Senate Democrats right up to the brink of a collision with the administration and the GOP, and then surrendering after drawing enormous attention to his party’s fecklessness.
This doesn’t just look bad and feel bad for Democrats demanding that their leaders do something to stop the Trump locomotive: It also gives the supreme bully in the White House incentive to keep bullying them, as Josh Marshall points out in his postmortem on the debacle:
“[P]eople who get hit and abused and take it tend to get hit and abused again and again. That’s all the more true with Donald Trump, a man who can only see the world through the prism of the dominating and the dominated. It is a great folly to imagine that such an abject acquiescence won’t drive him to up the ante.”
The reality is that this spending measure was the only leverage point congressional Democrats had this year (unless Republicans are stupid enough not to wrap the debt-limit increase the government must soon have in a budget reconciliation bill that cannot be filibustered). Everyone has known that since the new administration and the new Congress took office in January. If a government shutdown was intolerable, then Democrats should have taken it off the table long before the House voted on a CR. Punchbowl News got it right:
“Let’s be blunt here: Democrats picked a fight they couldn’t win and caved without getting anything in return. …
“Here’s the lesson from this episode: When you have no cards, fold them early.”
Instead, Democrats have taken a defeat and turned it into a debacle. House and Senate Democrats are divided from each other, and a majority of Senate Democrats are all but shaking their fists at their own leader, who did in fact lead them down a blind alley. While perhaps the federal courts will rein in the reign of terror presently underway in Washington (or perhaps they won’t), congressional Democrats must now become resigned to laying the groundwork for a midterm election that seems a long time away and hoping something is left of the edifice of a beneficent federal government built by their predecessors from the New Deal to the Great Society to Obamacare. There’s a good chance a decisive majority of the general public will eventually recoil from the misrule of the Trump administration and its supine allies in Congress and across the country. But at this point, elected Democrats are going to have to prove they should be trusted to lead the opposition.
Why can’t we get some better trolls? Bring back S Robinson!
Bush didn’t win the debates. He won the spin war afterwards.
After the first debate, the consensus from pundits and undecideds was that Gore had won.
But it wasn’t long before the RNC served up its talking points and the media started parroting them and suddenly things were back onto script (Gore is a big fat liar).
Dave,
I don’t underestimate Bush as a debater. He has a great advantage of having the bar always set low. Fortunately for Kerry, the same seems to be happening. I remember the last time Ted Kennedy debated during his re-elction. It seemed everyone was expecting a bumbling drunk to be on the stage. He went on to destroy his opponent, the now governor Mitt Romney I believe, by having a firm grasp of all of the issues. I don’t think either has an advantage on the “low bar” issue. Thinking about it, I guess it’s pretty sad when you don’t expect a lot from the leader of the free world!!
Re: The debates
The recent issue (jul/aug) Atlantic Monthly had a good article on the upcoming debates. They were calling it assymetrical warfare.
Basic points: Do not underestimate Bush. He has ‘beat’ a number of qualified opponents in debates – including Ann Richards and Al Gore – by staying on point, on message. Kerry wins debates by out-thinking his opponents and staying in control and command of everything going on.
A very worthwhile read.
Mara,
I’m sure that Bush’s people going to try and minimize the height issue by wanting them to sit, etc. But, one of the debate formats is going to be a town meeting style. That will mean, no podiums, or anything else for Bush to hide behind. Even in the other formats, they will meet at center stage both before and after the debate to shake hands. But, I’m sure that the Bushies are probably going to try and stop that too.
The good thing is, Kerry will overshadow him on the issues , as well.
Keith,
I remember reading about Kerry agreeing to something that would equalize the height gap – sitting down or allowing Bush to stand on a soap box, something. Wish I could remember where I read it. Anyone else hear about this? I am serious.
I have no worries about Kerry’s speech. Being originally from Massachusetts, I have seen him speak on a number of occasions. If they are purposely setting the bar low, it will look like he hits a home run. Where he’ll really take it to Bush will be in the debates. I remember the one when he was in a tough race for the Senate against, the then popular governor, Bill Weld. He is great in a debate format. Plus, he’ll tower over Bush physically. Never a bad thing when you’re trying to look “pesidential.”
Political pundits are like sports reporters — today’s game is always the most crucial..at least until tomorrow’s rolls around. It’s obviously helpful if a candidate gives a solid speech at the convention (and most, even such dullards as Gerry Ford and Mike Dukakis, have been proclaimed to have done so). But the effects are ephemeral, and the election in the end comes down to basics: how is the incumbent doing, and is the challenger minimally acceptable as alternative? By the standards of today’s thinking, Reagan was a spectacular flop at convention 1980, since he couldn’t establish a convincing lead against an incumbent with 40% approval. In that case, pundit conventional wisdom is that Reagan “made the sale” at the late debate with Carter (so I guess there’s more than one “last chance”), but even there, post-debate polls didn’t show an instant jump: the race was considered too close to call right up until the returns started flowing in. So maybe Reagan was always going to get the anti-Carter majority, and none of the rest mattered.
For Kerry’s future, there are far more important things than his speech — specifically, continuing news from Iraq, and the upcoming economics/jobs reports.
Agree that Kerry’s speech is of limited importance. Remember, Gore gave a fine speech at the 2K convention, but it didn’t seem to have much impact on election day. The October-November ad blitz and the debates will be more important.
Bob–if you feel confident that your political beliefs are correct, I recommend that you test them by reading “We’re Right, They’re Wrong” by James Carville. If you’re sure that your way of political thinking is really what it should be, then what’s stopping you? I read “See, I Told You So” by Rush Limbaugh, and I was not convinced. If it gets too tough, just read this exerpt:
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/james-right.html
There’s always “Had Enough?” but that’s a pretty long one–it’s James Carville writing a book about the Bush presidency.
Hey everybody, we’ll make him look stupid instead of struggling with difficult questions!!
Hey, I never said that I didn’t go to Public (government) school! 🙂
“will” should be “with”
See, the effects are showing already!
Thanks for bumping my IQ down a couple of notches will your post, Bob.
You know, it must be nice for Democratic Despots to have a bunch of mindless followers for ‘Crats to vote for them. Some of the crap that I heard slithering out of Clinton (x2) just amazed me. How do you people believe that stuff?
Don’t worry, I am not a Bush supporter either…he is waaaay too liberal. Yes, Bush is a liberal. Kind of harsh, but a liberal in sheeps clothing.
Does anybody realize that Kerry has no plan, except that he has a plan? Hows he gonna reduce debe? hows he going to provide socialized health care, without turning this nation into a socialist one? does anybody read the great philosopher historians??
But alas, seems that the only thing we learn from history, is that we don’t learn from history. And liberalism is just what the mindless clinton coolaid masses need.
Ruy, I would be interested in your coments on the latest ABC/Washington Post Poll showing Bush in the lead?
Good article. I agree. It’s too late for Kerry to attempt to reinvent himself. Besides, that would only play into the Republican’s referring to the convention as the “extreme makeover.”
I’m also tired of hearing all the pundits talk about how Clinton or Edwards might overshadow Kerry. I don’t think that’s the case at all. Everyone knows who the nominee is. They’re all building up Kerry. Quit making controversey where there is none.
If the ability to give a rousing speech was so important to the public in choosing a president, then Bush would be a political dead man.