In the immediate aftermath of last year’s debt default crisis, Jia Lynn Yang and Tom Hamburger wrote an article for the Washington Post about how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was sticking with their man, John Boehner.
Despite presiding over a chamber that nearly drove the country to a debt default, John A. Boehner still has the enduring support of a group that would have been most harmed by that event: the business community.
Rather than revisit their strategy of supporting Republicans after this week’s near-disaster, influential organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are standing behind Boehner. More important, Boehner’s friends in the business community are getting ready to take sides in a few Republican primary races against tea party candidates in Michigan, Idaho and Alabama who could cause the House speaker more trouble.
Boehner, who was once president of a small plastics company in Ohio, has spent much of his career burnishing the GOP’s identity as the party of business, building deep relationships since the 1990s with groups like the U.S. Chamber by providing legislative favors and easy access through countless receptions and rounds of golf.
The Chamber didn’t see the Speaker as the problem, and they were willing to give a wink and a nod to his indulgence of his more intransigent members.
In return, business groups have helped Boehner and his counterparts in the Senate raise millions of dollars to put Republicans in office, including the 2010 election of tea party lawmakers who have now roiled the GOP.
It’s this decades-long relationship that helps explain why even as one wing of the Republican Party threatened to drive the economy off a cliff, the business community has largely stuck by its party — and its man, Boehner. These lobbyists say they are worried that Boehner has a shaky hold over his caucus.
“I don’t think [lobbyists] are going to push John to commit suicide as a political leader,” said John Motley, a longtime lobbyist and former vice president of legislative affairs at the National Federation of Independent Business. “It’s more important to have him there than to not have him there.”
But Boehner is not delivering. He hasn’t allowed a vote on immigration reform, he hasn’t delivered money for the Highway Trust Fund, and he’s now feigning neutrality on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank:
This past week the divide played out in the debate over whether to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, a government agency that makes and guarantees loans to help U.S. exporters sell their products. It’s a priority for the business community, but conservatives have seized on it as the latest example of corporate welfare, with conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation urging lawmakers to stand opposed.
It’s certainly a minor matter to most voters, and some more establishment-aligned Republicans marveled that it’s become an issue at all.
“I never thought in my wildest dreams that the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank could become a defining issue for Republicans,” said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa.
Yet the conservative opposition has been such that the newly elected House majority leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., reversed himself and announced his opposition to the bank, and Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, a supporter in the past and a leading business ally, elected to remain neutral in this go-round.
Think about that. The Chamber of Commerce has spent all this money trying to defeat Tea Party candidates only to have the Speaker adopt a position of official neutrality on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
They’ve been defeated, and their best ally has abandoned them.
But Boehner is not delivering. He hasn’t allowed a vote on immigration reform, he hasn’t delivered money for the Highway Trust Fund, and he’s now feigning neutrality on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank:
If Boehner can’t deliver on any of these things before the 115th Congress convenes, Obama is going to face impeachment before the next President is sworn in. You heard it right here, folks.
I do not understand the connection between your first sentence and your second.
Boehner doesn’t deliver so Obama will be impeached?
I believe that the primary factor preventing Obama from being impeached is that the establishment knows that it’ll hurt the Republican Party and make getting what they want in the future harder. The ultra-conservative furniture chewers in the Republican Party really really want their impeachment, long-term prospects be damned, so what’s holding them back is the establishment’s power.
Unfortunately, the establishment’s power has been shown to be weakening. The Teahadists have Cantor’s scalp and it’s not out of the question for McConnell to go down in flames. Granted, it’ll be because of the Democratic Party instead of the Tea People, but still. If the establishment is too weak to pass legislation that they really really want to have happen (immigration reform and reauthorization of the EI Bank) there’s a good chance that it’s too weak to stop the impeachment of Obama.
Thank you for the clarification!
Imagine, for a moment, that left organizations had taken over the Democratic Party. That labor and environmental groups had scared the crap out of every Democratic politician, and as a result would never vote for a trade deal and would always vote for global warming action.
Because the equivalent has happened in the Republican Party. As long as the base of the Republican Party is able to control that party and the base of the Democratic Party is unable to control the Democratic Party, politics in America will lean right.
There’s no mystery or conspiracy here. Even considering proportionality, liberals and liberal-sympathetic demographics vote less in primary elections than moderates who vote less than conservatives. It’s simple as that.
Liberals had better learn to start voting in Democratic Party primaries rather than sit at home to preserve their purity and avoid voting for the lesser of two evils if they want to stop this decline.
Liberals had better learn to start voting in Democratic Party primaries rather than sit at home to preserve their purity and avoid voting for the lesser of two evils if they want to stop this decline.
You’re so cute with this. I love how people repeat this garbage like it’s gospel. Do we really know why Democratic leaning groups don’t turn out in the midterms? Why should Illinois Democrats turn out after what Rahmbo and Pat Quinn did/are doing to them? Maybe stuff like that is why Democratic-leaning groups don’t turn out in the mid-terms. Because Democratic politicians crap all over them.
Do we really know why Democratic leaning groups don’t turn out in the midterms? Why should Illinois Democrats turn out after what Rahmbo and Pat Quinn did/are doing to them?
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2461
Exigology (noun): A statement whose converse is its own explanation.
If Teahadist pencil-sharpener fuckers are smart enough to know how to break the cycle through the classic example of ‘foot in the door technique’, then why aren’t liberals? Does this mean that we’re even bigger morons than the people who demand that government get its filthy mitts off of Medicare?
I don’t know what the first half of your reply is supposed to mean.
If Teahadist pencil-sharpener fuckers are smart enough to know how to break the cycle through the classic example of ‘foot in the door technique’, then why aren’t liberals? Does this mean that we’re even bigger morons than the people who demand that government get its filthy mitts off of Medicare?
You do know that Teahadists are usually older and richer, right? They aren’t people holding down two and three jobs, often at ones where they can’t get time off for being sick or what not. Maybe they can’t get time off during a non-Presidential election. Or maybe it’s students that have moved. I’m asking for specific research as to why voting drops off by almost half during mid-terms. Not cartoons that don’t prove anything.
You didn’t ask for specific research, you offered an explanation: Democrats don’t vote in primaries because Democratic politicians suck. I may be misreading your previous comment, but that was my understanding of what you were saying.
I was trying to give examples of why Democratic-leaning constituencies don’t vote in off-years. And are you telling me that Illinois Democrats don’t suck? Trying to crush public education and stealing your pensions. That’s the kind of stuff the GOP is known for. So why are Democrats doing it?
I don’t know what the first half of your reply is supposed to mean.
What part of ‘if you don’t vote for someone they’re not obligated to support your agenda if they win’ is hard to figure out?
Liberals seem to have this fantasy that after the Democratic Party doesn’t get enough of their votes and loses enough elections then they’ll come crawling back with new positions and promises. The problem with this strategy is that the Democratic Party doesn’t have to come crawling back ever. Clinton and Obama show that it’s quite possible for a socially moderate, economically conservative party to wield power against the objections of liberals. If they can win without the votes of liberals, then why in a realpolitick sense shouldn’t they defer to the groups that enabled them victory?
And you know what’s weird? Teahadists have shown us a way out of this Morton’s Fork. And that is: to muscle in every primary election possible, even in areas where it’s a squish versus a bigger squish. Even if they don’t get their preferred candidate, they still can extract promises from the moderate and scare the rest of the party in line. If you do this enough cycles the party will start moving to the right. Yes, this does mean that sometimes the squish or centrist weasel evades the snares and starts selling the base out. But there will be future elections. And the weasels that do get snared serve as a warning to other squishes.
So why in the name of Koresh can’t liberals employ this strategy? The liberal primary turnout rate is abysmal. You gave kinda-sorta a reason below, that liberals just don’t have the time, but that’s fucking pathetic. If that is really the reason rather than just some lame excuse for inactivity, then we deserve the corporate bootheel.
The Democratic Party has a plan to win long-term without the assent of liberals. Ego-stroking boondoggles like 3rd Party gambits and sitting out primary elections is not only not going to to threaten the party but it also strengthens the hands of the Blue Dogs. Moderates vote in primary elections more than liberals, so why shouldn’t the Democratic Party chase after more loyal and reliable voters?
You seem to have this fantasy that if liberals keep quiet and vote like robots for neoliberals like Rahm, that the party, flushed with success, will suddenly turn course and reward those who vote like sheep.
Have you ever met someone who like that? Much less a powerful person who acts like that?
Take it from one born in Chicago, politicians want power and loot, they will pay voters for those, but they will pay the minimum possible. Chicago voters usually ask for at least new garbage cans and/or some potholes fixed before voting their alderman a license to steal.
That’s not what he said. At all. He said to flush out the Rahm’s during the primary. If you fail, then you support them in the GE, and try and flush them out again. Maybe they’ll get the message a few cycles around, and then the need to flush that particular member goes away.
Of course, as it’s Chicago, progressives have no need to support Rahm. Opposing him is the option in this specific instance; he’s not going to lose to a Republican, so there’s zero risk.
Why should Illinois Democrats turn out after what Rahmbo and Pat Quinn did/are doing to them?
Why? Because the republican would be much, much worse. You think we would have Healthy Kids, same sex marriage, medical marijuana, and no attacks on abortion rights if we had an uber-rich republican governor? Think again.
Quinn might not be what we want, I am personally beyond disappointed in him, but it is not believable that there would be no difference. And if you want to spite-vote against someone, please do it in a state that I and my family and friends and a lot of other good people don’t have to live in.
How much worse can it get? But I’m not giving my personal opinion. I’m asking why voters don’t turn out. And maybe that is one reason they don’t turn out. I wish I knew what the reasons for. But I have to believe Rahmbo and Quinn acting like GOPers don’t help.
Not my call, but knowing what I know from 3 years living in Chicago, I’d vote Quinn and ditch Rahm for another and then ditch them at the next term for someone with a populist base–if that is still possible in Chicago politics.
Just from a strategy point of view. Use your own conscience to make this decision. You folks are closer to the scene and have much more info.
Also, it seems that the Democrats in the Illinois legislature are a huge problem as well. If you are in a district that can strengthen better Dems, do it.
Takeover of how much?
A Republican CEO nominated to head the Veterans Administration? Privatization of one of the best performing health care providers, here we come. Or an empty chair because recess appointments are gone.
The only bright spot is that when the Tea Party goes, it might take the US Chamber of Commerce down with it.
How long do we have to wait?
How much more damage will be done in the meantime?
I read your first line and a big wave of discouragement washed all over me. I thought, wow, I’ve been up for an hour and I’ve already read something truly depressing.
And now, just a few minutes later, my RSS feed come up with a Balloon Juice thread titled “Hobby Lobby Decided”. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m expecting that ruling to be like a body blow.
It’s only 10am and I’m afraid I will be rocking in the corner by noon. (not literally)
Maybe we could have an opposite day where most of the political news is good instead of it being the other way around.
What I thought was that the VA situation is going to get worse and Obama should have stood behind Shinseki and stood up to Congress. The only good thing that could come out of this is McConnell blocking the nomination and wanting a show investigation of VA malfeasance.
I’ve been waiting for an opposite day since November 22, 1963 but things keep unwinding. Judgement on arrogance?