Obama’s Charm Offensive

Posted by BooMan | Dec 17, 2008 | 10 |

Even though Republicans show few signs that they are humbled by their recent electoral losses and almost no ability to change, they will change because people adapt to their environment, and the power structure in Washington has changed dramatically. I see a lot of comments on blogs that predict that the Republicans will continue to be unified and effective as obstructionists in the next Congress. I don’t think they will. I base this not on any evidence of change, but on an observation about basic human dynamics.

One thing that will make it easier for Republicans to adopt a more accommodating strategy is the agressive outreach President-elect Obama is doing to high ranking members of their caucus.

President-elect Obama is waging a charm offensive on congressional Republicans. In recent days he has personally called at least a dozen ranking GOP members of committees he will need to work with next year…

…Some of these Republicans, who are poised to represent their party on issues ranging from the economy to healthcare to homeland security, say it is the most aggressive outreach from an incoming president that they can remember…

One Republican called it the biggest effort to engage Congress since former President Ronald Reagan.

“I think this seems to be a significant level of reaching out compared to other administrations, both Republican and Democratic,” said Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), who is slated to take over the highest GOP post on the Ways and Means panel.

The comparison to Ronald Reagan is apt. Reagan worked assiduously to maintain a friendly relationship with Speaker Tip O’Neill and other powerful Democrats. Obama will have more freedom to maneuver because the opposition party is in the minority of both houses of Congress. But maintaining a respectful relationship with top Republicans can’t help but improve Obama’s ability to move legislation.

It won’t be long before Republicans learn that the old strategies of using FOX News and talk radio to bully their way to victory just isn’t going to work in a town that simply doesn’t believe that the president is the devil incarnate. It’s been sixteen years since we had a president that was seen as acceptable by the opposing party. We’ve built up some pretty high levels of toxicity over that time. But things are going to be different. Our problems are big enough now to demand that things are different.

About The Author

BooMan

Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.

10 Comments

Zandar1 on December 17, 2008 at 7:59 am

The same Republicans that united together and killed the auto bailout? C’mon BooMan. Yes, I know the numbers will be different come January, but the song will be the same.

The Village Idiots are saying they have to get tougher on Obama. The GOP is insisting Obama put up or shut up on that charm offensive, they want Republicans in his cabinet. And while Newt may be taking on his party over Obama/Blago, his party has no problems attacking Obama daily on “corrupt political dynasties“.

Obstruct, obfuscate, object. The GOP plan won’t change at all. Blame everything on Obama and block his attempts to fix the problem at every turn. It doesn’t matter if a majority of Americans want to see legislation passed. When it gets blocked and the economy continues to crumble because of it, Obama takes the blame.
- BooMan on December 17, 2008 at 10:20 am
  
  well, they will definitely resist where they can and score political points when the opportunity arises. But they are no longer a majority party or even a minority party at near-parity.
  
  So, no, you’re wrong. They won’t act as they have before, they will be united on very few things, and they will have to choose their filibuster weapon very carefully because they won’t succeed with it on most things.
  
  The only people that will accomplish anything are the people that can say “I co-sponsored the bill to…” Remember that.
  - Brendan Skwire on December 17, 2008 at 11:20 am
    
    “they will have to choose their filibuster weapon very carefully because they won’t succeed with it on most things.”
    
    that depends on harry reid actually making them filibuster for real. For the past two years, and even in the auto bailout, he allowed the threat of a filibuster to take the place of a real one. Harry does this all the time, except for one stunt he didn’t repeat: until he stops allowing the GOp to get away with silent filibusters, I cannot support this statement.
    - BooMan on December 17, 2008 at 11:23 am
      
      Email from Ari Rabin Havt:
      
      Ok so under Senate rules bills come to the floor under a motion to proceed. They can be brought to the floor off of various calendars controlled by the clerks office. Bill get on the calendars by either passing in committee or being placed their by an individual member under Rule XIV.
      
      In the House, the Rules Committee, at the director of the speaker (Typically structured so the majority party out numbers the minority by 2X plus 1 — right now I believe the ratio is 9-4, though someone with more knowledge can correct me.) controls the floor in most cases. (The be exceptions being certain privileged motions, discharge petitions, and motions to recommit.)
      
      In the Senate the floor is governed by comity. Because basically any member can motion to proceed to any bill with the same weight as the majority leader under the rules, the minority leader basically seeds that power to the majority leader. (Some of you remember back in 2005 during the Nuclear option fight, Reid said that if Republicans moved forward with the Nuclear option, he would end the practice and start making motions to proceed to anything he wanted and for good measure put a number of bills under Rule 14 on the calendar to do just that. This would have throw the Senate into total chaos, and nothing would have moved anywhere.)
      
      Because of this structure, there are two ways bills come to the floor:
      
      Most bills come to the floor under and unanimous consent agreement, that lays out time limits on debate, which amendments will come up for votes etc. As the name implies the agreement needs to be unanimous, so any Senator can kill these deals.
      The Majority leader will make a motion to proceed to a bill on the Senate Calendar. This motion is subject to a cloture vote. The the bill comes to the floor, then the bill and any amendment to the bill are also subject to cloture votes.
      
      Here is how cloture works:
      
      1. 16 Senators sign a cloture petition
      2. Its presented on the floor
      3. You wait 1 full day. (If you file for cloture on Monday the vote is typically Wednesday — if you file on Friday the vote would be Tuesday, assuming no Saturday or Sunday session.
      4. You vote, if you get 60 it passes, if you don’t it fails
      
      Once cloture passes basically, Senators are limited to speaking for an hour, amendments must be germane to the bill, you can’t add new amendments etc. Basically the bill will get an up or down vote.
      
      Historically the cloture rule did not exist until WWI, when the rule was added to enable the Senate to pass bills over the objections of isolationists. I believe it was put in place in 1917 but don’t quote me. (The first bill where cloture was invoked 1919, during debate over the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles.) Before then once a Senator started talking their was no way to stop them, hence the real filibuster. Originally you needed 67 votes for cloture, but in the 1970’s the number was dropped to 60 votes.
      
      Ok so that is the Historic and rules background (sorry for the length but it is kind of needed) Now to answer your specific question.
      
      Under the 1917 rules change the very nature of the filibuster changed. Whereas before any Senator could block any bill by simply talking, this was no longer true. A cloture motion could stop a Senator from talking. At the same time the edition of this procedure added the ability of the minority to block bills without filibustering merely by voting against cloture.
      
      Since the 1950’s true filibusters (i.e. Standing on the floor and talking for ever), have been used, more often then not to delay the inevitable, or to block last minute action that the minority party does not like.
      
      For example the when Strom Thurmond filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours 18 minutes, the bill was eventually passed.
      
      The last modern filibuster occurred in 2003 over some Judicial nominations. Harry Reid held the floor for nine hours where he read Searchlight (his first book) and I am not kidding, discussed the relative virtues of wooden matches.
      
      Very technically if a single Senator wanted to employ every delay tactic possible, he could stall a single piece of legislation for a week and hold the Senate hostage, not allowing them to conduct any other business. This is basically the threat of the hold. Then the Senate needs to determine first will the Senator carry out the threat, can they be bought off, or is the bill worth a week of the Senates times. Hence a lot of important but minor bills get killed this way.
      
      The byproduct of the cloture rule changes in 1917 and 1974 is you need to invoke cloture to proceed to a bill. Senators don’t have to speak to vote against cloture. If you can’t get 60, you can’t move it to the floor. On the motion to proceed, if a Republican chose to get up they can speak about any topic they want, or they can sit down and begin an endless series of quorum calls. Or they can begin motions to proceed on their own set of bills.
      
      Basically there is no way to force a Senator to speak or vote on any particular bill and if you can’t get 60 you can’t proceed to final passage.
Andrew Longman on December 17, 2008 at 8:13 am

I hope you are right Boo. I think it shows some of the same unifying and defusing tactics he used to with the nomination.

Imagine a President interested first in actually governing competently and second in leading his party.
Heart of the Rockies on December 17, 2008 at 9:28 am

Right now I am decidely uncharmed. But I don’t matter, now that he’s elected.
The Voice In The Wilderness on December 17, 2008 at 9:58 am

It worked so well for Nancy and Harry.
donnah on December 17, 2008 at 10:44 am

I’m all for Obama starting off with a friendly gesture. It’s way classier and much more promising than that asshat Bush’s attitude when he stole the election and declared a mandate. He alienated the Dems from Day One. He never even pretended to “reach across the aisle”, unless it was to smack some Dems upside their heads.

So go for it, Obama.
MikeInOhio on December 17, 2008 at 10:58 am

It won’t be long before Republicans learn that the old strategies of using FOX News and talk radio to bully their way to victory just isn’t going to work in a town that simply doesn’t believe that the president is the devil incarnate.

Damn, I really wish I shared your optimism. They are going to do everything within their power to turn the clock back 10 years and the media are frothing at the mouth to help them get there as quickly as they can.

How about we revisit this in a year and see how everything looks? I still don’t have any reason to believe that the Democratic Party in Congress has any interest in using the power they have been given to fight, and I mean REALLY FIGHT, for Democratic principles. I can’t even say that I am optimistic about Congress exercising their authority. It seems to be organic in their nature to capitulate and to allow even the severely weakened GOP to push them around well beyond what their minority status should allow them. In my mind they still haven’t proven they know how to fight. If they do that, then I might develop the first flickers of hope that change is indeed possible.
MNPundit on December 17, 2008 at 1:20 pm

“I see a lot of comments on blogs that predict that the Republicans will continue to be unified and effective as obstructionists in the next Congress. I don’t think they will. I base this not on any evidence of change, but on an observation about basic human dynamics.”

Okay, so what do we get from you if you are wrong?
How long do we wait for this change, a year?

Obama’s Charm Offensive

About The Author

BooMan

10 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments