The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: majority
The Boehner-McConnell Relationship: Mutual Respect, Low Drama

The Boehner-McConnell Relationship: Mutual Respect, Low Drama

By Matt Fuller, CQ Roll Call (MCT)

WASHINGTON — John A. Boehner and Mitch McConnell have never been best friends.

But they aren’t enemies, either. Far from it, say staffers and sources who know both lawmakers. The speaker and the Senate’s presumptive new majority leader have built, over the years, a solid professional relationship based on a sturdy sense of mutual respect.

That relationship is in the spotlight now more than ever, with Republicans emboldened in the wake of Tuesday’s wave election that saw the GOP pick up at least eight seats in the Senate and more than a dozen in the House.

Sources told CQ Roll Call that Boehner and McConnell don’t have to be close personally to get things done.

“While they’ve never played horseshoes on the speaker’s lawn, they spend a lot of time together, speak regularly and have demonstrated an unprecedented working relationship between the leaders of the House and Senate,” Don Stewart, a McConnell spokesman, told CQ Roll Call.

Their staffs also report that Boehner and McConnell meet almost every week the House and Senate are in session, unofficially alternating whose office they meet in. (Aides note their relationship isn’t so rigid that they have to ensure office meeting parity.)

Aides also acknowledge that while they have slightly different styles, they’re on the same page when it comes to substance. A former senior GOP aide familiar with both McConnell and Boehner said they are “two adults in a room that is usually lacking in adults.”

Both are establishment Republicans with pro-business, anti-drama leanings.

Their Capitol offices are separated by a short stroll across the Rotunda, just as their states are separated by the Ohio River. Boehner’s Cincinnati-suburbs district is about 20 miles north of Kentucky — a fact President Barack Obama has occasionally tried to use as leverage against the GOP leaders, dinging them for their opposition to a jobs bill in 2011 that could have provided money to improve the Brent Spence Bridge.

But even though there’s history to the Boehner-McConnell relationship, Tuesday’s elections inevitably alter the dynamic — and raise the stakes enormously for both men.

McConnell has spent much of the past four years bailing Boehner and his Republican Conference out of jams. (Remember the fiscal cliff?) But now, McConnell may need Boehner to return the favor.

While Republican gains in the Senate were greater than many expected, McConnell’s majority is still thin — too thin to beat a Democratic filibuster — and the 2016 elections already loom over McConnell’s delicate majority.

Boehner, on the other hand, has the largest GOP House majority since March of 1929. Finally, he will have the legislative room to ignore some of the untamed conservatives in his own conference without having to beg Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for votes.

Of course, what the House sends the Senate will have to take into account the fragile– and possibly fleeting– Republican majority in the upper chamber. With 24 Republican senators (and only 10 Democrats) facing voters again in two years, Boehner and the House have to be conscious of the votes they force on the vulnerable GOP majority.

That’s where the relationship will be tested. That’s where communication will be key.

But those who know Boehner and McConnell well don’t anticipate problems.

One of Boehner’s most frequent dinner companions, Sen. Richard M. Burr, (R-NC), told CQ Roll Call this week that Boehner and McConnell have worked together “religiously” for years.

And while it may seem like Burr would be a natural intermediary for Boehner and McConnell, he doesn’t think that’ll be necessary.

“I don’t think they need a go-between,” Burr said.

Of those potential, but perhaps unnecessary, go-betweens, House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers of Kentucky would also seem like a natural fit.

But in a recent interview with CQ Roll Call, Rogers said that while he was “very hopeful and anxious that Mitch take over the majority leader’s slot,” he wants to see a renewed focus on passing and conferencing appropriations bills “the old-fashioned way.”

He’s more interested in restoring the appropriations process than in serving as an intercessor between the speaker and McConnell.

As Burr said of the legislative relationship between the leaders, “Nobody needs to be involved in that other than the two leaders and their staffs.”

Burr looked at the Republican majorities in both chambers as opportunities for Boehner and McConnell to govern. And while he agreed the House would have to be mindful of what it sends to the Senate, he thought it was more important that Republicans produce legislative results — specifically mentioning a tax overhaul, a repeal of the medical devices tax and legislation forcing the implementation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

“We have two years for Republicans in Congress to prove to Americans that they can govern,” he said.

The day after the election, Boehner and McConnell were already trying to present a united front, co-authoring a Wall Street Journal op-ed that laid out the contours of a preliminary agenda in the 114th.

“The skeptics say nothing will be accomplished in the next two years. As elected servants of the people, we will make it our job to prove the skeptics wrong,” they wrote.

Of course, Obama still occupies the White House. And anything passed by the House and Senate will still need the president’s signature.

While that prevents Congress from achieving conservative fantasies such as repealing Obamacare, it leaves plenty of smaller items on the margins that Republicans can pressure Democrats and the president with — all the while drawing stark contrasts in advance of the perpetual next election.

Photo: Peter Stevens via Flickr

Midterm Outcome: Mandate On Obama Or Big Money At Play?

Midterm Outcome: Mandate On Obama Or Big Money At Play?

Look at it this way: at least the 2014 midterm elections are over.

Maybe the most clueless pronouncement ever made by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice was Anthony Kennedy’s comment in the 2010 Citizens United case arguing that unlimited “independent [campaign] expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Not even secret donations by free-range tycoons hiding behind fake “charitable” groups with names like Citizens for Cute Kitten Videos. Because when Scrooge McDuck dumps a truckload of bullion into a political campaign, it’s not because he wants anything in return. It’s all about the public good.

Also, the justices ruled, because money is a form of speech. Scrooge needn’t even disclose spending $50 million on TV ads claiming that a candidate seeking to prevent McDuck Industries from dumping liquid cyanide into backyard swimming pools has a hidden history of torturing kittens.

That would be a violation of Scrooge’s First Amendment right to free speech: exactly like a law forbidding you, dear reader, from posting a comment calling me a mangy dog. How could anybody think otherwise?

If only the Supremes had ruled that speech was a form of money. That’s one I could have endorsed.

Metaphysical absurdities aside, the clearest effect of Citizens United has been to make people more contemptuous of politics. “This fall,” writes New York Times columnist Tim Egan, “voters are more disgusted, more bored and more cynical about the midterm elections than at any time in at least two decades….just 29 percent of the electorate said they were ‘enthusiastic’ about voting this year.”

And those, I fear, are mainly the crackpots. Where I live (Arkansas) the easiest way to avoid toxic political arguments during this election season is to pronounce anathema on the lot. Nobody argues with you (except my sainted wife, who tends be dreadfully earnest about these things).

Particularly resented is the ceaseless barrage of TV commercials that has made watching local news broadcasts hazardous to mental health. Ordinary citizens simply don’t know who, if anybody, to believe. The easy option is to believe nobody, and to quietly yearn for the return of the shouting auto dealers and discount furniture pitchmen.

Alas, that reaction’s exactly what McDuck Industries wants. To fix the problem will apparently take a constitutional amendment stipulating what should have been obvious to a powerhouse intellect like Justice Kennedy: that money’s definitely not speech, it’s power.

And that apportioning and delimiting power is what the U.S. Constitution is all about.

Another unfortunate aspect of the 2014 campaign has been the temptation to portray it as a national referendum on President Obama. The news media’s Cult of the Presidency sustains the ongoing melodrama and affirms their own self-importance.

Historically speaking, almost every president’s party loses power in sixth-year midterm elections—perhaps as it begins to dawn upon starry-eyed supporters that the country’s in as big a mess as ever. Thus what the Washington Post calls “Obama’s journey from triumphant, validated Democratic hero to a political millstone weighing on his party’s chances.”

It happened to Ronald Reagan in 1986 and to George W. Bush in 2006, and it would probably have happened to Bill Clinton in 1998—booming economy notwithstanding—if the fools hadn’t impeached him.

It’s particularly likely when a large number of Senate seats are being contested in states that the president lost two years earlier—definitely helping McDuck Industries identify which races to target.

Consider Arkansas, where Sen. Mark Pryor drew no GOP opponent in 2008, but finds himself confronted with McDuck-financed Rep. Tom Cotton, whose entire campaign consists of repeating “Obama, Obama, Obama” like a cockatoo.

It’s apt to work, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist John Brummett writes “because of an irrational aversion to President Barack Obama and Obamacare, the local application of which is saving hospitals, insuring hundreds of thousands of poor people, holding down premiums and saving the state vital money in its Medicaid matching.”

Arkansas, however, ain’t America, only a provincial one percent of it. What’s more, the “irrational aversion,” sad to say, has ancient roots.

Otherwise, two thoughts:

First, Obama is not as unpopular nationally as frontrunning news media pretend. As Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert points out, despite misleading headlines about “plummeting” approval rates, the president’s actual numbers have consistently held in the low- to mid-40s—not good, but nothing close to the mid-20s achieved by George W. Bush.

Secondly, along with Obamacare, improving the health and security of millions, he’s greatly improved the economy, controlled budget deficits, and added 5.5 million jobs, reducing unemployment to 5.9 percent.

In foreign policy, sure the Middle East remains a godawful mess. But when wasn’t it?

Maybe Paul Krugman laid it on a bit thick in Rolling Stone, calling Barack Obama “one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history.”

Nevertheless, barring unforeseen disasters, the president’s claims are substantial.

Photo: Brendan Hoffman via Flickr

Immigration, Taxes, Health Law On The Line In Tuesday’s Battle For Senate

Immigration, Taxes, Health Law On The Line In Tuesday’s Battle For Senate

By Todd J. Gillman, The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON — For six years, the Obama White House could count on having allies in control of at least one side of Congress. That could change Tuesday, and if it does, the impact will be swift and dramatic.

Immigration, taxes, energy, nominations, health care, the president’s legacy, the next elections — it’s all on the line.

Control of the Senate hinges on 10 tight, hard-fought and costly races from Alaska to New Hampshire. Republicans have a strong chance of picking up the six seats needed to wrest control of a chamber that has eluded them throughout Barack Obama’s term.

For the president, a Congress fully controlled by adversaries would force drastic retrenchment. For Republicans, the leverage to impose their agenda would be liberating. It also would entail plenty of complications.

“We’ve been in the minority for a while. Often, saying no is exactly the right answer,” said Sen. John Cornyn, the Texan poised to become the Senate’s second-most-powerful member if his party takes control. “When you’re responsible for governing, it requires a different approach.”

Whether the GOP’s tea party faction accepts a measured approach remains to be seen.

Many conservatives would view victory in the Senate, even by a narrow margin, as a broad mandate, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He predicts they’ll be emboldened to “oppose this president at every turn.”

If the White House thought House Republicans have been pesky, with inquiries over Benghazi and the IRS, it should brace for a fresh onslaught of Senate subpoenas and oversight hearings. Until now, it’s been shielded from those, courtesy of Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

“Probably the worst job in the next two years will be White House counsel,” Ornstein said.

And impeachment demands will only escalate.

“You’re going to see a drumbeat from the grass roots that is already out there,” Ornstein said at a recent forum. “It is going to be a challenge for Republican leaders not to move in that direction. They all know that it would be incredibly stupid and catastrophic.”

Interest groups recognize the stakes Tuesday. Outside spending on key Senate races has reached levels unimaginable a few years ago.

The 2012 contest in Virginia set a record with $52.4 million in spending by outside groups. At least three matchups this fall have passed or will pass that mark. Colorado’s Senate contest has attracted $68 million. Iowa’s has drawn $61 million.

The pacesetter is North Carolina. More than $80 million has poured into the state from sources reflecting the myriad issues that hang in the balance.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce alone has pumped $5.3 million into Republican challenger Thom Tillis’ cause. Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-founded group, has put in $4.9 million. The National Rifle Association has chipped in $6.7 million.

On the Democratic side, teachers unions and abortion rights groups have invested millions to prop up Sen. Kay Hagan. The League of Conservation Voters has injected $4.9 million into defending Hagan and, more broadly, the Democratic firewall.

A GOP takeover would mean a majority leader from coal country, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, assuming he’s re-elected.

“In terms of legislative action, we’re stuck,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president for government affairs. “They’re going to promote a pro-polluter, anti-public-health agenda.”
Across the ideological divide, Republicans see full control of Congress as a way to block Obama.

“We stop his agenda. We stop him from stacking the courts with liberal progressives that could never get a bipartisan vote, from stacking regulatory agencies,” Rep. Paul Ryan — a potential 2016 contender and the GOP nominee for vice president in 2012 — told Fox host Sean Hannity last week.

Controlling the Senate would let Republicans unleash a wish list endorsed by the House GOP — nearly 400 bills that have died in the Democratic Senate. The new Congress could quickly send bills to the White House to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline or to cut corporate tax rates.

These could provoke Democratic filibusters and vetoes from Obama. Or, Republicans hope, they’ll spur a willingness to bargain.

“We don’t know what Democrats’ attitude will be — whether they’ll try to shut things down and embarrass the other side, or whether this election will serve as a wake-up call,” Cornyn said. “It’s going to require a reassessment by (Obama) about what he wants his last two years in office to be like.”

Patrick Griffin was chief lobbyist for the White House during the “triangulation” phase of the Clinton administration — when the president, facing a hostile Congress, cut deals with adversaries over the objection of Democratic allies. He agreed that Obama will be forced to adapt to an unpleasant new reality.

“He has to shift, radically,” said Griffin, now academic director of American University’s Public Affairs & Advocacy Institute. “Lean in — and be prepared to accept less than he might want.”

With Republicans in charge, confirmations will come to a screeching halt, especially for lifetime judicial posts.

Foreign trade deals become more likely, though. The president might find common cause with Republicans. And Republicans could use the issue to drive a wedge between him and other Democrats.

GOP leaders promise confrontation on many fronts, even as they try to hold down expectations among their base voters.

In the weekly GOP address, McConnell promised that a majority “would mean we’d be able to bring the current legislative gridlock to a merciful end.”

Efforts to repeal Obamacare, or at least to hobble it, would be a top priority. But McConnell reminded Fox viewers last week that Obama will spend his final two years defending the health care overhaul.

“People need to understand that that constrains our ability to … get rid of it,” he said.

The dynamic would shift instantly on immigration, though.

Last year, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws. It died in the House.

There is no chance a GOP-held Congress would clear a path to citizenship for the 11 million people in the country illegally, a key sticking point.

Regardless of what the new Senate looks like, “it’s the same House that’s being held hostage by a very small right wing of the GOP,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. But, she added, “if the Republicans are serious about finding their way back to the White House in 2016, they absolutely must deal with immigration.”

Three close races are in states that Obama lost in 2012 by wide margins — Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana — though Democratic incumbents are fighting to the end. Republicans also hope to topple senators in Colorado, North Carolina and New Hampshire.

Open seats in Iowa and Georgia are up for grabs.

“We are on a razor’s edge in terms of who’s going to control the majority,” Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democrats’ Senate campaign arm, said Thursday at a forum sponsored by Politico.

Republicans will have a lopsided share of Senate seats on the line in 2016, as Democrats did this year.

They’ll want to chalk up some accomplishments, not just vetoes. But the GOP senators up for re-election next time will be loath to anger tea partiers back home by looking too conciliatory. And the presidential contenders — Texan Ted Cruz, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Marco Rubio of Florida — probably will agitate for confrontation as they jockey for attention in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“Whenever there’s an attempt to do something constructive, McConnell’s going to have a problem, maybe worse than he ever had,” Griffin said.

Cornyn, though, foresees less internal friction.

“We all are going to be eager for action. It boils down to tactics,” he said. “We have a common incentive: If we demonstrate we’re incapable of governing, then our chances of winning the presidency are not much better than zero.”

AFP Photo/Win Mcnamee

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Who Will Win The Senate?

Who Will Win The Senate?

[formidable id=128 title=true description=true]