‘Twas the Weekend After the Debacle
by Paul Szep (used with permission)
WASHINGTON – ‘Twas the weekend after the debacle, when all through the town; everyone was thrilled to be rid of these clowns.
The Congress deserved hanging by the monuments for their idiocy, but instead they were sipping Scotch after the deal they’d just botched.
The middle class had no security and no clue about next year, with visions of unemployment and an election providing no cheer.
With Gingrich and Perry kicked off Virginia’s ballot, Mitt Romney sat snugly and dreamed of a wrap.
I’ll stop there, so as not to torture the “Night Before Christmas” any further.
But the two-month payroll tax extension deal is nothing to hail.
It’s not great leadership from anyone of either party.
That Speaker John Boehner got sacked by his own House members should come as no surprise to anyone having watched what’s happened the last year, especially during the debt ceiling debacle.
The Tea Party caucus has been a disaster for Republicans, but especially for Speaker Boehner.
This is exactly what the Progressive Caucus in the House didn’t do under former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They didn’t revolt, dig in and embarrass her. Imagine if the so-called “Pro-choice Progressive Caucus” would have mutinied over Stupak. They could have handed Pelosi and Obama quite an embarrassing moment, however they didn’t. They are there to serve the leaders of the Party.
The Tea Party caucus is of the Republican Party, but they intend to change it even if they have to bring it down to do it. They don’t want any part of the ridiculous two-month payroll tax extension passed by the Senate.
Just to be clear, neither did Sen. Bernie Sanders, with whom I agree on this one.
Rachel Maddow tried to make the case that someone’s going to challenge Speaker Boehner, with the Roll Call reporter on with her disagreeing. The same analysis of Boehner’s position is suggested by Steve Benen. Neither of them prove their case.
Who in the world would want his job with the crew he’s wrangling?
Brian Beutler also used the word “cave” for what happened yesterday. That’s fine, but it’s a description of something far more complex at a time when the Republican Party hierarchy is under siege.
Major Garrett of the National Journal was no better, using the word “crumpled” to describe Republicans move to agree to the Senate deal.
Again, that’s fine, but the internal Republican Party combustion is far more interesting than this sophomoric reporting.
We’re watching catastrophic internal pressures force traditional outcomes out of Speaker Boehner’s control, something with which Mitch McConnell nor Harry Reid have to contend, because the people under their leadership wanted to go home for Christmas, even if they hadn’t finished their work, which they hadn’t by a long shot.
It’s understandable that Republicans are taking the hit, especially when you read and hear the media describe it. It’s easier to do the play by play than the foundational earthquake that began in 2010 and continues to play out, including in the primary season where the base is rejecting Romney.
It’s also as if we the people are supposed to be happy about the two-month extension, as our Congress flees from Washington for holiday.
Speaker Boehner is nowhere near my political bent. I think what he advocates for this country is horrendous, which goes double for the Tea Party caucus. But so far no one has sufficiently included the dynamics that the right-wing fire-breathers would have none of the deal even Boehner was ready to accept until they were made to see that the entire Republican Party was taking the hit and it was agree to the extension or take everyone down.
What the American people got from Congress as 2011 ends is a lot of posturing and puffing on a two-month extension that doesn’t solve anything and simply proves once again that the current political class isn’t up to the job, regardless of party.
It happened because Speaker Boehner is navigating through a political realignment that started in 2010 on the Republican side and it’s not going away because of some stupid two-month extension, which solved absolutely nothing.
It’s anything but a Merry Christmas for Congress that disgraced themselves yet again, regardless that Democrats are declaring victory over a politically manufactured win.
Taylor Marsh is the author of the new e-book, The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss, the view from a recovering partisan, chosen by Barnes and Noble as 1 of 4 books in the launch of “NOOK First” Featured Authors Selection, which is now available in print on Amazon. Marsh is a veteran political analyst and commentator. She has reported from the White House, been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her new media blog.
4 Responses to “‘Twas the Weekend After the Debacle”
“This is exactly what the Progressive Caucus in the House didn’t do under former Speaker Nancy Pelosi”.
One can suggest that this did not happen under Pelosi as Pelosi almost “was” the progressive caucus of her party, thus bringing only bills to the floor that provided 100% of the wants and needs of the progressives, making the moderates in the house the forgotten few.
Boehner does not have this support. Boehner is old guard, more centrist than the tea party members and one that tries to build concensus amoung members that has failed on a number of major endeavors.
The Tea Party members could care less about concensus. They are “full steam ahead” regardless of the difficulty of the mission ahead. They will not work behind the scenes to get 75% of what they want, they will allow the mission to fail if they do not get 100%.
But given the districting in many states being what it is, the polarization of the house will only continue to get much worse. Whoever may be the speaker will have a very difficult time if they are not from the far left/right of their party.
@RP
…unless…we elect moderates and tell them to find the moderates on the other side of the aisle. Whichever party wins, the other side can still influence who becomes the speaker; they just have to find someone that the majority side will go with, whom they also like. Although it does not happen often in most places, it has occurred in some states (i.e. that the person chosen as the party favorite was so disliked by the non-extremists that the moderates chose their own speaker–supported by reps from both parties).
If such a speaker were to emerge, even a president who was extreme would have to move to center. The Senate would negotiate with such a House leader with confidence (and vice versa). That is what I hope for. That is the only solution that I see to the currently gridlock (at least with any practical reality of accomplishing).
@Rcoutme…This is true concerning election of moderates. But when the individuals who are selected to run on either side are hand picked by the party leadership in those districts, they are usually ones that represent the positions held by the leadership and not the voters. The voters have to pick between a far left/far right candidate and if you lean Republican, you vote for the far right and if you are lean democrat, you vote for the far laft candidate in most cases. And with districts that have majorities on both sides depending on the lines drawn, you normally see republican districts stay right and democrat districts stay left.
And seeing what is happening in my state with redrawn lines for the upcoming election, there are multiple democrats representatives that are being moved into republican districts, with new districts that lean Republicans having no representation from current office holders.
This has created new Republican districts, a Republican incumbant running, and most likely defeating an incumbant Democrat who is moved into that district just for the elimination of a Democrat. And the Democrat districts left are far more left leaning than what is currently drawn at this time.
We need laws that required some requirement that districts do not meander for miles to capture specific voters. Look at the district in NC that goes from Charlotte to Raleigh. In some places it is nothing more than interstate 85 wide so the blacks voters along that route can be placed into one district. At one time it was meant to give the black voters representation, but it is now being used to support other ways of combining voters, one being elimination of the opposition.
Interesting comments, thanks so much for weighing in. I always appreciate the comments a TMV.
Merry Christmas to you all. I value the privilege of posting here very much.