Posted on 10/18/2013 1:51:18 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
All of the congressional Republicans with viable 2016 presidential ambitions voted against the bill enacted overnight to reopen the government and increase federal borrowing. So did two members of the Senate GOP leadership and three members of the party’s House leadership. The opponents also included a majority of the Republicans who are chairmen of House committees and most of the members of the House GOP caucus who aspire to election to the Senate next year.
While the Democrats were unified in their support for the legislation, a review of Wednesday night’s back-to-back roll calls in Congress reveals just how divided the titular and putative leaders of the GOP remained after their crusade to undermine Obamacare by shutting down the government and threatening default came up essentially empty-handed — but nonetheless spawned a serious erosion of public support for the party’s current course.
In the House, only 38 percent of Republicans supported the legislation, despite efforts during the evening to assemble the sort of narrow “majority of the majority” that would have given Speaker John A. Boehner some degree of face-saving comfort
In the Senate, by contrast, only 39 percent of the Republicans opposed a deal that was assembled by their floor leader Mitch McConnell, along with Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The four member of Congress who are considered serious contenders for the Republican presidential nomination all opposed the stopgap bill: Ted Cruz of Texas, who almost singlehandedly propelled the party’s confrontational strategy farther than many GOP leaders planned to take it; his Senate colleagues Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky; and House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the party’s 2008 candidate for vice president, who this morning helped to open the formal negotiations called for under the deal toward some sort of deficit reduction — or at least sequester modification — agreement in the next two months.
The top Senate GOP budget negotiator, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, was among the 18 “no” votes in that chamber, as was the party’s ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama. The other most powerful dissenters in that caucus were Minority Whip John Cornyn, who in the run-up to his re-election campaign in Texas next year is under significant pressure to echo Cruz’s fiscal views, and the chief deputy whip, Michael D. Crapo of Idaho.
The members of the GOP leadership who broke with Boehner were Republican Policy Committee Chairman James Lankford of Oklahoma, Conference Secretary Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and, perhaps most notably, Greg Walden of Oregon, who as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee is in charge of recruiting and underwriting the party’s House candidates in the 2014 midterms.
A dozen of the 21 committee chairmen also spurned the bill. In addition to Ryan, the most notable among them is Jeb Hensarling of Texas, who holds the gavel at Financial Services but was the House GOP chairman of the 2011 supercommittee that failed in its search for a budget deal that would have prevented the across-the-board spending cuts that took hold in March.
The others were Mike Conaway of Texas (Ethics), Sam Graves of Missouri (Small Business), Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia (Judiciary), Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma (Agriculture), Michael McCaul of Texas (Homeland Security), Jeff Miller of Florida (Veterans Affairs), Candice S. Miller of Michigan (House Administration) , Ed Royce of California (Foreign Affairs), Pete Sessions of Texas (Rules) and Lamar Smith of Texas (Science).
The four members running for the Senate who voted “no” were Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy, who is expected to mount a serious challenge to Democrat Mary L. Landrieu’s bid for a fourth term, and all three Georgians vying for the GOP nomination for that state’s open seat: Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston.
The two Senate aspirants who voted “yes” were Shelly Moore Capito, the front-runner for West Virginia’s open seat, and freshman Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who decided not to differentiate himself on this matter from incumbent Mark Pryor, his opponent in what’s likely to be one of 2014’s hottest contests.
Since every Democratic vote was a “yes,” that means the deal got support from both the party’s House members who are seeking open Senate seats, Gary Peters of Michigan and Bruce Braley of Iowa. It also goes for all of the two-dozen or so Democrats who look at least somewhat vulnerable to losing their House seats next year.
But the bill also won the support of 18 of the 22 House Republicans who, at this still relatively early stage, look most vulnerable to defeat in next year’s general election — a reflection of the political reality that the independents who decide close elections have no use at all for the gridlock that has resulted from the pursuit of ideological purity. The dissenters were all members of the class of tea party conservatives who helped the GOP take back the House in 2010: Tom Reed of New York, Steve Southerland II of Florida, Jeff Denham of California and Bill Johnson of Ohio.
The shutdown strain forced the RINOs to surface. This is something to be thankful for. Now, we need to organize and vote out the RINOs.
Great article. Clearly there is a huge divide between the “base” and the gov. class. On one side there is the Tea Party/base/normal folks. Then there is the “ruling class” made up of DC cocktail partiers/consultants/unnamed staffers.
The ruling class believes they will always get the vote from the base...simply because they arent “Democrats”. They come home every election cycle, hit the rubber chicken diner circuit, make speeches while the staffers/consultants watch from the corner of the room.
For years the good folks attending these events mistakenly took the speeches to heart and gave support..only to be stabbed in the back again and again.
IT’S OVER! And the ruling class knows it but they will do everything possible to delay/defund the base!
From our perspective, exposing these clowns at every opportunity is vital...and it is succeeding.
We are winning and winning BIG time.
Here’s a link to a great companion piece.
When a Democrat is elected he gives his spine to Nancy Pelosi and votes with the Borg.
There is no freedom in the Democrat party at all. It’s vote their way or hit the highway. Surely in all those Democrats who voted Obama’s way there must be one who has smarts enough to see this mess for what it is, but if there is he doesn’t have the balls to vote any other way but with the Borg.
“In the House, only 38 percent of Republicans supported the legislation”
And Boehner is still Speaker.
So at least 12% of those votes against are bullshit.
(See my tag. Starting a meme. Everyone, please change yours to it.)
BINGO! Principles should be non-negotiable. Too often we see people trying to justify the lesser of two evils which only enables the McCains and other RINOs of the world.
There were many vote situations throughout the procedural dance that just took place. The litmus test is the one Cruz identified in the Senate, which was on cloture to cut off debate. Most of the others were just CYA votes. In other words, allowing the stage to be set and then voting against it after you know you are going to lose doesn’t mean anything.
Any chance of getting some conservatives to run against these two in the primary?
Like loser linda Graham. Voting FOR Cloture and then AGAINST the bill and then sending out a blitz email blasting her horn about how she voted against that horrible, horrible bill.
With all the Dems voting for it, many Republicans could be excused from voting for it. So the votes recorded are basically meaningless.
Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants... bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society. Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors. [but he’s not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.