SHOWN THE WHAT?
Posted on 09/28/2015 7:04:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week, House Speaker John Boehner decided to retire rather than chance being ousted by his own colleagues. Despite this lucky break, the congressional GOP has little chance of winning back disenchanted Republican voters unless it also shows Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the door. Continued Republican control of the Senate is on the line.
A brand-new poll reveals that 72 percent of Republican primary voters are dissatisfied with McConnell and Boehner. Only 2 percent of those polled were “very satisfied” with the party’s two congressional leaders, who the majority believe have accomplished essentially nothing.
The situation is actually worse than the poll would indicate: Republican rank-and-file members across the country aren’t just disappointed, they’re incensed. This malaise will only deepen if — as is likely — congressional Republicans lose the debate with Obama over government funding for Planned Parenthood.
The fight should have been an easy one to win. While slightly more Americans typically self-identify as “pro-choice” than as “pro-life,” Planned Parenthood’s recently revealed conduct is beyond the pale for most. Some 64 percent of Americans favor banning abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy, and 80 percent support a ban after the second trimester. Allegedly, not only have Planned Parenthood clinics performed illegal late-term abortions, but they have been paid for fetus parts. Simply insisting that government funds should not be given to an organization engaged in this activity was a ready-made issue for Republicans to win with broad support.
Yet McConnell and Boehner lost the battle before it even began. By entering the argument over whether or not to “shut down the government,” they were accepting a misleading narrative that favors their opponents. Republican leaders should have emphasized that Congress was inevitably going to fund the 99.9 percent of government that didn’t involve giving taxpayer funds to an organization involved in a repugnant practice, and that it would be President Obama who would “shut down the government” were he to veto the appropriations bill. This alternative narrative could be politically persuasive and has the added benefit of being true. It would put the onus on Democrats to defend a veto that disrupted the government to fund something unpopular.
However, getting this point across would require two steps at which McConnell and Boehner have repeatedly failed: wielding communications deftly and getting bills to Obama’s desk to force vetoes — or, better yet, acquiescence.
Democrats themselves set the standard for this approach. When the political lineup in Washington was reversed from 1989 to 1992, and Democrats controlled Congress under a Republican president, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell sent bill after bill to President George H. W. Bush to force vetoes that cast Republicans in an unflattering light. Obama has had to veto only four bills over two terms; the elder Bush was forced to veto 44 bills during his single term, including popular legislation on maternity leave, the minimum wage, civil rights, and curbs on trade with China.
George Mitchell achieved this without ever having a filibuster-proof majority. Republicans probably knew then that if they tried to filibuster everything, majority Democrats would have curbed their power. However, minority Senate Democrats today face no such threat. They are repeatedly assured that McConnell’s support for the filibuster is absolute. His aides say this reflects McConnell’s support for the institution of the Senate, but this is disingenuous. From 1920 to 1970 there was an average of just one filibuster per year; the practice’s subsequent explosion has hurt the institution, including in the eyes of voters. Furthermore, if the Framers had wanted the Senate to require a supermajority to do anything at all, they would have said so in the Constitution. They didn’t.
These developments aren’t just inside baseball. Rank-and-file Republicans and plenty of independents think that the GOP-led Congress has accomplished nothing. A likely defeat over Planned Parenthood funding and rumored McConnell machinations to revive the Export-Import Bank will pour salt on the wound.
#share#The result of this disenchantment will be a lack of enthusiasm for the GOP’s congressional races at the worst possible time. In 2016, Republicans must defend 24 Senate seats to the Democrats’ 10. It will be nearly the reverse of 2014, when Republicans had a numeric advantage from the outset. While the GOP can hope that a likely takeover of the White House will save some Republican senators, presidential coattails are largely a thing of the past: Bill Clinton and both Bushes won the White House for their parties while losing Senate seats. Obama fared better, but the 2008 election took place under circumstances unlikely to recur in 2016.
Put simply, the base needs a reason to get excited about helping Republicans win congressional seats, and this will be impossible if McConnell remains at the helm. The problem isn’t that McConnell is insufficiently conservative by tea-party standards. The problem is that he is unwilling or unable to fight effectively.
The next Republican president undoubtedly will want a Senate that possesses a GOP majority and is capable of passing legislation. Unless Republicans dump Mitch McConnell soon, neither seems likely.
— Christian Whiton was a State Department senior adviser during the George W. Bush administration. He is the author of Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War.
Boner and McCan’tle pre-emptively cave on issues now. Hell, they beat the democrats to the mic to announce they will not shut down the government. And oh, by the way, they don’t WANT to fund planned parenthood.
IF we’re winning the White House it’s unlikely the rats will be taking back the Senate, and who the leader happens to be has very little relevance to 30 some individual races, sorry. Most voters don’t know who the son of the B even is.
If you wanna browbeat McConnell into resigning, fine by me, but not till after the Republican wins the Governorship of Kentucky, should the democrat win obviously McConnell must remain in the Senate.
Kind of curious that since Boehner has fallen, some in the media and upper levels of the GOP are starting to pile on McConnell.
Of course, like Boehner, McConnell has brought it on himself. He promised that, if the electorate gave the Republicans a majority, he could lead.
He has failed miserably. Not only has he failed, but he has done little that he promised he would do during his reelection last fall.
McConnell (and Boehner) have tried to convince the electorate that leadership means compromising and giving Obama everything he wants. No wonder there is an increasing movement to force McConnell to step down.
I am sick of what I think of as “apologetic republicans.” The mealy-mouth types that you know darn well, when the cameras are off, meekly say, “I’m a republican, but please don’t hate me for it.”
Mitch (rhymes with...) is king of the appologetic republicans. A ball-less wuss.
Time for Cruz and Trump to call for his ouster.
This is n.r.?
Rediscovering their roots are they?
SHOWN THE WHAT?
How may we funnel this energy to remove Mitch McConnell, and who best to replace him?
If you take aim at the king, no matter how faulty that king may be otherwise, you had better not miss. Kings have vastly disproportionate powers, and no matter how incompetent they may appear to be, self-preservation is a very pervasive trait among almost all living creatures, even Post Turtles.
Trent Lott should have been an enduring lesson of how NOT to choose a Senate Majority Leader. Bipartisanship, compromise and “reaching across the aisle” perhaps were not invented by Senator Lott, but he raised them to an art form.
I am getting REAL TIRED of hearing “...to protect the institution.” Really? They have conceeded almost all of their “institutional power” per the constitution to the POTUS. How the hell has Boehner and McConnel “protected” the institution? And why doesn’t someone ask that? What do they think they mean anyway?
McConnell (and Boehner) have tried to convince the electorate that leadership means compromising and giving Obama everything he wants.
********************
All these two losers did was rationalize defeat. They produced zero results for the people who put them there.
Republican Senators, we gave you all the chance to shut down Obama....with Mitch Mcconnell as your chosen leader...you have failed miserably...because McConnell is in Obama’s pocket....fire McConnell today..or we, the people will fire you all!! Broom McConnell today!!!
BUMP!
Shimkus says Boehner's resignation "act of sacrificial love"
ST. LOUIS - Saturday morning, senior Republican among Illinois congressional delegation Rep. John Shimkus had high praise for House Speaker John Boehner, who announced Friday his resignation at the the end of October. Shimkus told the St. Louis Post Dispatch:
“I’m just shocked. People, I think, have conflicting emotions, even those who were the alligators,” said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, a long-time Boehner ally, and for whom Boehner first campaigned nearly a quarter century ago.
“You put it in the context of the Christian faith, and you know we can’t match that, but this was an act of sacrificial love,” Shimkus said. “I can’t explain it any other way: that he is leaving a position of power, second in line to the president, for the good of the institution, for the good of the nation, and for the good of the Republican conference (in the House).
“I just shake my head,” Shimkus added. “You don’t see this from politicians very much, right?”
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/09/shimkus-says-boehners-resignation-act-of-sacrificial-love-.html
John and I were elected last year to work with the other party to get things done in Washington. We have to show the moderate voter that we can govern responsibly not engage in partisan antics with the other party. We have tried to rein in the irresponsible bomb throwers and tried to preserve the institutional traditions of both Houses. Our donors aren’t interested in the so called “Tea Party” antics. John resigned to take the focus off of him so we get back to the business of governing. John has made a great personal sacrifice in order to preserve the process of governing that all responsible patriotic Americans revere. I will continue to do the work that John has done in the House here in the Senate. To those people who are opposed to responsible government I say this I’m not going anywhere and the House is going to have responsible leadership. Responsible government isn’t going anywhere!
Democrats themselves set the standard for this approach. When the political lineup in Washington was reversed from 1989 to 1992, and Democrats controlled Congress under a Republican president, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell sent bill after bill to President George H. W. Bush to force vetoes that cast Republicans in an unflattering light. Obama has had to veto only four bills over two terms; the elder Bush was forced to veto 44 bills during his single term, including popular legislation on maternity leave, the minimum wage, civil rights, and curbs on trade with China. George Mitchell achieved this without ever having a filibuster-proof majority. Republicans probably knew then that if they tried to filibuster everything, majority Democrats would have curbed their power. However, minority Senate Democrats today face no such threat. They are repeatedly assured that McConnell's support for the filibuster is absolute. His aides say this reflects McConnell's support for the institution of the Senate, but this is disingenuous. From 1920 to 1970 there was an average of just one filibuster per year; the practice's subsequent explosion has hurt the institution, including in the eyes of voters. Furthermore, if the Framers had wanted the Senate to require a supermajority to do anything at all, they would have said so in the Constitution. They didn't.
let’s get real. Boehner left for reasons of personal gain. We won’t know the details for some time, but that bastard didn’t leave because of the movement nor public opinion... he was never there for the conservative cause, ever. I doubt anyone can convince me otherwise. McConnell is no different, like a bad case of herpes, I don’t think it’s gonna go away. He will only walk away if someone gives him a sweet deal that benefits HIM somewhere else.
How would it be any different that what we have now if Breasher put in an out of the closet democrat? I don’t even bother to contact his office anymore because I know he will support the democrat positions openly or behind closed doors. He says one thing but watch his actions, they are liberal.
Why?
This sad sack of **** can't take a hint.
A gigantic boot to where his brain is, is the minimum he can understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.