I think Noam Scheiber’s analysis is very interesting. As he sees it, the only way that John Boehner can emerge from this fiasco with his speakership intact is if he intentionally causes a government shutdown, allows his party to be flayed alive for it, and then convinces them that their only option is to back down on making demands on the debt ceiling. For Mr. Scheiber, the post-shutdown public outcry is a prerequisite to any degree of reasonableness from Boehner’s caucus. And, in any case, since Boehner will have to pass his CR with primarily Democratic votes, he can only hope to be forgiven for it if his caucus comes to see, in a very vivid way, just how politically isolated they have become.
Maybe Mr. Scheiber has correctly sussed out Boehner’s thinking. But he hasn’t exhausted all of Boehner’s options, nor has he anticipated all the ways that the Democrats can make mischief.
Let’s walk through this. First, let’s assume that the Democrats are telling the truth and that they will never negotiate on the debt ceiling, nor will they make any concessions on ObamaCare in order to avoid a government shutdown.
Whether a shutdown happens next Tuesday or is pushed off for a week, Boehner will eventually have to pass a CR that relies mainly on Democratic votes. There is no reason that the Democrats have to accept the clean CR that the Senate is offering. If Boehner needs their votes, the Democrats can attach conditions. Steny Hoyer, who is hardly a liberal firebrand, has already said, “I am not going to vote to continue the sequester. I believe it is inimical to the interests of the United States of America — to our government, to our economy and to our national security.”
If the House Democrats refused to support the Senate bill, they would have to take partial responsibility for a government shutdown, but the government will have to open some day. And Boehner would have no other option than to meet the Democrats’ demands. Of course, meeting their demands would ensure that Boehner would face a challenge from his right, but the Democrats could offer to join with Boehner’s loyalists and vote for him in any fight for the speakership.
At that point, Boehner would face three alternatives. He could resign in frustration. He could be ousted as Speaker by his own caucus. Or he could retain his position as the head, not of the Republican Party, but of an ad hoc coalition of mainly Democrats.
The Democrats have every interest in pursuing this strategy because, first, they want to end the sequester and, second, they want to break the grip the Tea Party has on the House.
Getting back to Mr. Scheiber’s analysis, I think he overstates Boehner’s chances of leveraging outraged public opinion into getting his own caucus to back down and refrain from ousting him. It may be Boehner’s most obvious play, but that doesn’t make it very likely to succeed. The Crazy is very strong with his caucus, and they almost ousted him at the beginning of the year. They seem very insulated against public opinion, and they tend to operate in their own media bubble.
I continue to believe that the Dems can take de facto control of the House if they simply demand an end to sequestration in return for their support on a CR.
Ezra:
Glad Ezra is finally waking up. After all, he used to blow kisses to the Zombie-eyed Granny-starver long after anyone with a brain knew Paul Ryan was a know-nothing fraud.
Just glancing at that ridiculous list gives away Boehner’s plan. There is absolutely no way he could hold the entire caucus to voting for default in support of that ludicrous plan once business and especially the banks start squealing. His plan is apparently to get a bland CR through by offering this laughable hostage demand. He’s even free to work as hard as he possibly can to push the deal through (to improve his cred with the Tea Party) because he can be absolutely sure the caucus will buckle when JP Morgan and Citibank start calling.
Boehner’s plan is much better for Boehner’s purposes because he can get his goals without a shutdown (which reduces the chance the Republicans will even have the speaker position next Congress) and he will end up dealing with Pelosi on the debt limit, where she can’t demand riders, as opposed to the CR, where she could.
You are assuming that the House will pass a clean CR. The Dems don’t have to go along with that, and even if they are willing to do it, that doesn’t assure that Boehner could survive it.
Assuming the administration isn’t pushing for them to support the clean CR.
Yeah, I think the administration wants to fight sequestration in November instead of now. I’m not sure why.
The point of the offer is that most of the Tea Partiers can and probably will vote for a clean CR with this on the table. They’re delusional enough that they won’t realize how spectacularly it will fail. Also the extremity of the demands means Boehner can whip the Tea Partiers mercilessly if needed. The sane conservatives will support it because they know it will fail later (some no doubt have already decided to yield themselves). So Boehner can probably pass this with only Republican votes.
The Democrats have every interest in pursuing this strategy because, first, they want to end the sequester and, second, they want to break the grip the Tea Party has on the House.
Objection. Assumes facts no in evidence. The only way they’re going to break the grip of the Teahadists is to continually kick their ass at the ballot box. And they aren’t going to do that running blank slates like they are in PA-08. Besides, it’s apparent that Cantor doesn’t want to be Speaker right now. The Tan Man’s support in the House is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Cantor wouldn’t win, anyway. I’d bet on Jeb Hensarling.
But, anyway, there is a majority to pass a clean CR and a majority to pass a CR with more funding than the sequester. There is just no Speaker willing to introduce the bill. So, all we have to do is to let Boehner know that he can keep his job if he introduces the bill.
Then he can choose whether he likes his job or would rather golf.
Jim Nabors, Obama’s congressional liason, reportedly told Dems that perhaps 40 – 50 would be needed to pass the CR. That can probably be done at sequester levels if Boehner convinces his rubes that the debt ceiling is where the action is. Already some Senate R’s (Corker, Alexander, Burr) are getting on board with that. Obama has been very resolute about not negotiating. Hopefully Dems follow his lead. The R position is untenable. Default? Really?
Only one problem. You have douche-nozzles like Manchin already saying publicly they’ll vote for a one-year delay of ObamaCare to pass the CR(or is it debt ceiling?). Either way, someone needs to gag Manchin and stuff him in a closet till they need his vote.
Yea, I saw that and felt my ulcer stirring. WTF does he think he’s accomplishing? WV citizens are gonna be big beneficiaries of the ACA. How many other weasels are there?
This seems like the rational thing for Dems to do, so I’m assuming it won’t happen, but how many Republicans in the House do you think would go along?
We would need about 16. Boehner has more loyalists than that, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Thanks. I never suspected Boehner had loyalists!
Its no wonder he has lost control who wants to follow a drunken idiot.
Just for the sake of multi tasking here, Obama is on fire this morning in front of college students giving a hard push to the ACA. These next few days and maybe weeks will likely be the biggest push we’ve ever seen on a policy/Bill.
And interestingly, this push coming from all corners, whilst the Rep are playing Cruz games is going to blindside them. My little valley here is being stormed by the HealthCare proponents and I’ll bet this weekend more rural holdouts as well as urban areas will see the beacon of light.
The roar of this gigantic effort is just starting to build and it will have an impact on the game.
Kind of defeatist to announce more delays on it right after the speech though.
I like that final paragraph very much.
That is true for both parties. The difference is between the political culture of the money interests funding the members of Congress. The ones buying GOP members intentionally bought the crazy to paralyze the government for reasons of their own private benefit. The ones buying the Democratic members seek to gain benefits from government actions and contracts.
Neither side thinks of the public at all. And it gets worse each succeeding year.
First, let’s assume that the Democrats are telling the truth and that they will never negotiate on the debt ceiling, nor will they make any concessions on ObamaCare in order to avoid a government shutdown.
Yes, let’s. This has been the most encouraging sign I’ve seen from the Democrats for years. Looks like they are in fact learning.
Their position is exactly correct, of course. Furthermore, if the shutdown does occur the GOP will be blamed by everyone except the right wing.
I like your interpretation, Boo.
Just one question. I wonder if you have left out an additional factor.
As you say, “The Democrats have every interest in pursuing this strategy because, first, they want to end the sequester and, second, they want to break the grip the Tea Party has on the House.”
But I would think that the Republican establishment (by which I mean the wing that includes McCain, McConnell, Karl Rove, and such) also has every interest in pursuing it. Well maybe not EVERY interest, since they love the sequester. But they do really need to get control of the Tea Party, and this would be a way to do it.
The Dems would have the same leverage with the GOP establishment as they have with Boner (who is really one of the Establishment anyway). So this would not prevent them from ending the sequester in the way you suggest.
Actually I have another question. How would the House caucus get rid of Boner on their own if the Dems want to vote for him?