Skip to main content

Yes and no check box marked
It's not every day that GOP defends itself by claiming to be two-faced
So far in 2013, House Speaker John Boehner has relied on Democratic votes to overcome overwhelming Republican opposition on back-to-back pieces of legislation: the Hurricane Sandy relief aid package on Tuesday night and the tax cliff deal from two weeks earlier. But if you think this proves that most Republicans have marginalized themselves and that Democrats are now an essential part of making the House function, House Majority Deputy Whip Tom Cole of Oklahoma says you're wrong. Why? Because, he says, secretly about half of Republicans who voted no actually wanted the legislation to pass:
Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, part of the Republican whip team responsible for marshaling support for legislation, said the current makeup of House Republicans could be divided roughly into a third who voted in favor of the bill because they wanted it to pass, a third who voted against the bill because they wanted it to fail, and a third who voted against the bill but had their fingers crossed that it would pass and avert a fiscal and political calamity.

One lawmaker, Mr. Cole said, told him that while he did not want to vote in favor of the bill, he also did not want to amend it and send it back to the Senate where it might die and leave House Republicans blamed for tax increases. “So I said, ‘What you’re really telling me is that you want it to pass, but you don’t want to vote for it,'” recalled Mr. Cole, who voted yes.

And why would a Republican vote no while secretly hoping for yes?
Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and once the top spokesman for the former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert, a Republican, described the phenomenon thusly: “These are people who are political realists, they’re political pragmatists who want to see progress made in Washington, but are politically constrained from making compromises because they will be challenged in the primary.”
In other words, about half of Republicans who vote with the hardline reactionary fringe aren't actually devoted wingnut true believers—they are actually just cowards, afraid of standing up to their political base. Whatever you think of the ethics of that, it's an invaluable insight for Democrats to remember as we move forward on issues like the debt limit. Take, for example, what the aforementioned Tom Cole said yesterday about the debt limit:
Congressman Cole is adamant that he will not accede to President Obama's unequivocal demand to raise it without any spending cuts tied to it.

“I couldn’t do that. I wouldn’t do that," Cole told me in a phone interview.

"We didn’t downgrade our credit [in 2011] because of the debt ceiling fight. We downgraded in my view because when we had the fight we didn’t cut enough," Cole said. "Just raising the debt ceiling with no compromise sends the wrong message—that we think we can willy-nilly go on forever."

"If there are not serious cuts, the Republican votes are not going to be there," Cole continued.

Tough talk, except this is the guy who just said half of Republicans who voted no on the tax cliff deal actually supported it. And given that Cole voted for the tax cliff deal and the  Hurricane Sandy package, it's not a shock that he might vote no on a clean debt deal, passing the responsibility to another one of his colleagues. But when you listen to a third interview with Cole, also from yesterday, it seems clear that he knows Republicans need to let the debt limit go up, no matter how he votes.
Even as Republican officials maintain the GOP majority is safe, several lawmakers and longtime activists warn of far-reaching political ramifications if voters perceive Republicans as botching consequential talks on the debt ceiling, sequestration and a possible government shutdown.

“Majorities are elected to do things, and if they become dysfunctional, the American people will change what the majority is,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a House deputy majority whip and a former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, told The Hill.

So basically we're looking at a House Republican Conference in which members want to (a) develop a voting record that protects them from primary challenges while (b) not actually having that voting record influence the final outcome, because if it does, then they worry they will lose the majority in the general election. And if that's not a golden opportunity for Democrats to put House Republicans on defense throughout the 113th Congress, then nothing is.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 08:21 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site