Break out the popcorn. Here's an overview of the Republican mess by AP's
Erica Werner:
A month into their newfound control of both chambers of Congress, it wasn't supposed to be like this for Republicans. Instead of advancing a conservative agenda and showing voters they can govern, they are confronting the very real possibility of a shutdown of the Homeland Security Department later this month. That's because they can't overcome Senate Democrats' stalling tactics in a dispute over immigration.
"I suppose elections have consequences except in the United States Senate," complained GOP Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, summing up the frustration for many House Republicans. "Tell me how it would be different if Harry Reid were still running the place," he added, naming the Senate Democratic leader who was booted into the minority in November's midterm elections. [...]
The predicament is so frustrating to House Republicans that some conservatives have begun advocating changing Senate rules to limit the use of the filibuster, an idea several Senate Republicans have already dismissed. For many, the fear is that their deadlock over the Homeland Security bill is merely a taste of things to come for the next two years.
Ed Rogers at The Washington Post:
It is only a month into the 114th Congress and it is no surprise there is already trouble within the GOP ranks over how to handle immigration. As the Wall Street Journal rightly pointed out, “the only winners of GOP dysfunction will be Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.” Listening to some of the rhetoric, you could almost believe that some within the GOP caucus think anything short of capital punishment or complete expulsion of all illegal immigrants is “amnesty.” So what is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to do?
To state the obvious, McConnell needs to convince Senate Republicans that they are not going to get everything they want in a bill. President Obama’s executive actions are a reason to pass immigration reform, not a reason not to. And the last thing we need is for all funding for the Department of Homeland Security to be cut off because Congress can’t reach a compromise. Allowing DHS funding to expire would have the equivalent effect of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) shutting down the government over Obamacare in 2013. And, as my friend, the former governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour says, “You don’t learn much from the second kick of a mule.” If DHS funding expires, it will hurt Republicans and help the Democrats. Period.
Much more on this story below the fold.
Russell Berman at The Atlantic on how Republicans boxed themselves in on DHS funding:
What is most fascinating about the GOP's current quandary is that this is a scenario Boehner and McConnell orchestrated themselves shortly after the November elections. Rather than fight Obama's immigration move immediately, they chose to approve only short-term funding for the department that would implement them, on the grounds that the bicameral GOP congressional majority would have more leverage. Yet in the face of a unified Democratic Party, that leverage hasn't materialized. A funding lapse for DHS probably wouldn't be catastrophic, as most of its employees are considered essential; airports wouldn't suddenly close, border crossings would still be staffed, and the Secret Service wouldn't abandon the White House. But all of these employees would have to wait until Congress acted to receive their paychecks, and nobody believes that having tens of thousands of unpaid security agents is a good way to protect the nation from terrorism. [...]
Until Thursday, Republican leaders insisted the department's funding wouldn't expire, and with good reason. Ever since the government shutdown of 2013, it has been an article of faith within the GOP establishment—if not the conservative wing—that a party viewed as hostile to government would never win the PR battle when federal funding is allowed to expire. "If funding for the Department of Homeland Security lapses, Washington Democrats will bear the responsibility," Boehner warned Thursday, in the first real indication that Congress might actually miss the deadline. It happens to be the same message Boehner offered just before the federal government closed its doors for two weeks in September 2013. After it was all over, of course, the speaker admitted to Jay Leno that Republicans were to blame.
There's reason to believe the politics of a partial DHS shutdown would be just as bad for Republicans.
Danny Vinik at The New Republic:
In all likelihood, this will end the same way every funding fight ends these days: Republican leadership will eventually bring up a clean bill and it will pass with mostly Democratic votes. That’s long been the GOP game plan. It’s also possible that Republican leadership will see this fight, with its relatively small stakes, as a good opportunity to build credibility with the Tea Party by standing up to Obama and refusing to pass a clean bill.
Neither of those outcomes are good for the GOP. But this is what happens when one ideological group has outsized control over a party and wants to pick funding fights that they are certain to lose.
Elise Foley at The Huffington Post looks at the backlash the GOP is sure to face among Latinos over the DHS fight:
As La Opinión, a prominent Spanish-language newspaper put it earlier this month, "the case for eliminating executive action using the constitutional argument that the Executive branch committed abuse of power is not sincere. The real intention is to deport as many people as possible."
That may not be fair, but it still could be bad news for Republicans.
"Right now, the impression the Latino electorate is getting from Republicans is not a good one, because they are doing everything they can to do away with executive actions but not proposing anything at the same time," said Alfonso Aguilar, an official during the George W. Bush administration and executive director of the American Principles Project's Latino Partnership.
Don't miss this writeup of the bitterness of the in-fighting from
Cristina Marcos at The Hill:
A leading House conservative on Thursday said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has "no credibility," when it comes to the fight over funding the Department of Homeland Security and revoking President Obama's executive actions on immigration.[...]
The slam against Kirk points to the growing tensions between House and Senate Republicans over the DHS fight.
And, on a final note, Robert Jones at The Atlantic reminds us that Republican voters actually agree with the president's immigration actions in principal -- but not when they're tied to the president, of course:
At first glance, the battle over immigration reform seems like nothing new—just one more example of partisan gridlock. But new research from Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) shows that President Obama’s actions on immigration are broadly popular, particularly when they are not identified with him. The survey also shows why GOP strategists would do well to advise against a partisan showdown on this terrain. By catering to their most conservative voters, congressional Republicans risk not only opposing policies supported by the mainstream of their own party but also undermining efforts to reach out to the growing number of Hispanic voters who will be key to successes in 2016 and beyond [...]
When there is no mention of Obama, two-thirds (67 percent) of Republicans favor allowing illegal immigrants who are parents of those with legal status to avoid deportation if they meet certain requirements. But when Obama is linked to the policy, support among Republicans drops 16 points to 51 percent. Support among independents also falls 13 points when Obama is linked to the policy, from 77 percent to 64 percent. Among Democrats, there is no statistically significant effect in support.