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.
Why does Bush say the country would be better off if he is re-elected. Maybe he didn’t remember that 9-11 happened on his watch.?????
Jeff, yes. The future is now.
So what John?
I see VoteHillary.org which pushed a 2004 Hillary Rodham Clinton Draft presidency is now pushing her for president in 2008. The site is http://www.votehillary.org I have heard it will be launched as early as next week.
…Continued from above
Case in point:
No matter how the question is asked:
Do you believe it is time for a change?
Does Bush Deserve to be reelected?
Is America on the Right or Wrong track?
etc.
Consistently, 52 to 54% vote that it is time to change the leadership of the country.
That is why Bush never exceeds 44 to 46%. Because the remainder of people disagree with him.
If you look at it historically, this number is very important in the final outcome of the election.
The approval rating (Bush typically in the mid-40s) vs those who think it is time for a change (typically in the low 50s).
This poll doesn’t do anything to undermine that argument.
So no worries. We’re still doing okay.
Kerry has to do a better job defining this election. I told you all it was a mistake to focus so much on foreign affairs and his Vietnam record. Because those who vote on that subject will vote for Bush regardless of what is happening in Iraq or his own record in the military.
Kerry’s statement to the effect that he wouldn’t have changed his vote for the IWR was just stupid.
It isn’t too late. But Kerry definitely has to define this election about the economy – the haves vs the have nots.
That’s how he will win.
He needs a consistent confident message that people understand and resonates.
This poll, and other recent polls, is about Kerry – not Bush.
This CBS poll has gotten a lot of attention these past couple of days but here is why I am less concerned about it than others.
Asides from the veterans, which the polls shows is going for Bush by about 15% (incidently, Bush won the veterans vote in 2000 by about 35% – which means that in overall total number this is still a 20% gain for the Dems – considering that veterans make up about 10% of population, that means this is a total pick up of about 2% total for Dems and a loss of 2% overall for Bush).
Anyway, you’ll notice that Bush’s numbers still hover at the 44 to 45% mark, which is essentially where he is always at.
Bush will not win anything with 45% of the vote.
Thus, the dynamics are unchanged. If you think that Nader will get 2% of the vote. Bush 44% to 46%, that means that Kerry will win 52% to 54% of the vote.
So despite the bruhaha, this poll still shows Bush in trouble.
I suppose with the lead up to the Republican convention, the media has to talk about something.
But I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
When polls come out (not counting Gallup which always over-counts republicans by about 8%) that show Bush consistently getting 48% to 50% and Kerry getting about the same, then I will start to worry.
But when the polls demonstrate a close race at 44% or 45%, then this is just as bad as Bush getting 44% to 45% and Kerry getting 52 to 54%.
Because the undecideds always go to the challenger.
Remember 1980. The race was always “close” between Reagan and Carter – about 42% or so. This went on all the way to election day. Then Carter stayed at 42% and Reagan got the rest.