“The Kicking Mules Vs The Lying Turtle”: The GOP Civil War Is Now Basically Between Mitch McConnell And The Tea Party
There will not be another government shutdown, says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
“It was a strategy that I said both publicly and privately could not work, and did not work,” McConnell told The Wall Street Journal‘s Peggy Noonan.
“All it succeeded in doing was taking attention off of Obamacare for 16 days,” he added. “And scaring the public and tanking our brand—our party brand. One of my favorite old Kentucky sayings is that there’s no education in the second kick of a mule. It ain’t gonna happen again.”
This sounds as if he’s vowing to compromise when the resolution funding the government and the debt ceiling issue come up again early in 2014.
And to the Tea Party, that only means one thing: Treason!
The leader knows what the Tea Party thinks of him and he’s ready to take them on, along with his Tea Party challenger, Matt Bevin.
“They’ve been told the reason we can’t get to better outcomes than we’ve gotten is not because the Democrats control the Senate and the White House but because Republicans have been insufficiently feisty,” he told Noonan. “Well, that’s just not true, and I think that the folks that I have difficulty with are the leaders of some of these groups who basically mislead them for profit. . . . They raise money . . . take their cut and spend it.”
And in case that wasn’t clear enough, he called out the Senate Conservatives Fund, one of the key supporters behind Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and the plot to defund Obamacare that forced the shutdown.
“That’s the one I’m prepared to be specific about,” he said, adding that the group “has elected more Democrats than the Democratic Senatorial Committee over the last three cycles.”
Tea Party hero Erick Erickson responded to McConnell’s comments on Friday with “Question for Mitch McConnell: Will Any Reporter Ask It?”
The Red State editor-in-chief states that “the Senate Conservatives Fund has only helped nominate two Tea Party candidates, who went on to lose the general election.” In contrast, he points out, “On the other hand, Mitch McConnell supported Rick Berg, Denny Rehberg, Carly Fiorina, Linda McMahon, George Allen, and Tommy Thompson. All lost to Democrats.”
This leads to Erickson’s question: “So some enterprising reporter should ask Mitch McConnell this question: Given that the Senate Conservatives Fund has a better record than Mitch McConnell of getting Republicans elected to the Senate, shouldn’t he be supporting Matt Bevin?”
McConnell has successfully been able to persuade Ted Cruz to stay out of primaries. But the Tea Party, Erickson and the Senate Conservatives Fund are going all in. We’ll see who gets shut down this time.
By: Jason Sattler, The National Memo, November 8, 2013
“Voting For Governor Is One Thing, For President, Another”: The Wrong Election Takeaways From Christie’s Win, Virginia, and More
The conventional wisdom on New Jersey: Huge Chris Christie win sets him up to steamroll his way to the Republican nomination in 2016, proving that a more mainstream conservative can win in a blue state. The conventional wisdom on Virginia: Ken Cuccinelli’s stinging loss in a purple state in an off-off-year election against Terry McAuliffe, a flawed Democratic candidate, shows not only that he was too extreme but also that Virginia is inching its way into the Democratic column. As the Times put it in its headline, “McAuliffe Win Points to Virginia Changes.”
Well, God invented conventional wisdom so people like me could beat it down. In New Jersey, Christie doesn’t emerge from his victory nearly as strong as he appears to. And the Virginia outcome isn’t really very strong for Democrats, especially down the ballot. No, I’m not buying into the right-wing spin that Cuccinelli’s narrow margin of defeat really represents some kind of loss for Obamacare. It does not. What I’m saying is something different. But let’s start with Joisey.
Barbara Buono, Christie’s Democratic opponent, volunteered for a suicide mission when she agreed to run against him. Surfing on an ocean of media hagiography, Christie seemed unbeatable just when it was time for Democrats to declare themselves. Buono couldn’t raise money, couldn’t attract much media, couldn’t get anyone to believe she could make it close, let alone win.
In such a circumstance, a lot of voters just mentally write that person off. Most people don’t care passionately about politics. Most people care…some. When they look at a race and see someone who looks as if she’s going to get clobbered, they just decide they’re not voting for her, in the same way they might decide they’re not going to let themselves get too invested in the idea of Rutgers knocking off Florida State in a fantasy matchup.
So Christie got a lot of those votes. He got high percentages from Latinos (around half) and blacks (21 percent). Does it mean he’d get them running for president? No way. Indeed, the exit poll result that showed Hillary Clinton beating him 48-44 demonstrated Christie’s national weakness, at least against her. Think about it. On the night of his greatest triumph, a smashing 22-point win, exit poll respondents walked right out of the booth and said, “For president? Are you kidding me? Hillary all the way!”
About 2 million votes were cast Tuesday. We should perhaps be careful about reading too much into exit polls, but the results suggest that running for president against Clinton, Christie, who corralled nearly 1.25 million votes Tuesday, would give back about 370,000, or roughly 30 percent of them. That sounds about right to me.
People make different calculations voting statewide and nationally. Massachusetts voters, for example, have often elected Republican governors in recent times, but they would never let a Republican get within 20 points of winning the state in a presidential election. New York had a Republican governor in George Pataki not all that long ago; Connecticut had one just recently; Pennsylvania has one right now, and Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Maine, and New Mexico. Likewise, a few red states where Democrats haven’t been winning many presidential votes lately (Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Montana) have Democratic governors. News flash: People can distinguish between voting for a governor and voting for a president.
The Clinton exit-poll number, the 61 percent of Jersey voters who backed a minimum-wage hike that Christie had vetoed, and his basically nonexistent coattails suggest to me that he will have a hard time winning his own state in 2016, especially if he does a little pandering to the right between now and then, as he’ll surely have to. I don’t deny that he is a skillful politician. What I do deny is that a blowout gubernatorial win under these circumstances means much of anything about the presidency three years hence.
As for Virginia, I mostly come away from that race shocked that someone as divisive and reactionary as Cuccinelli could get 45.5 percent of the vote. His tally, combined with the Libertarian guy’s 6.6 percent, suggests that Virginia is still fairly red. I was also staggered that Cuccinelli beat McAuliffe among white women by 16 points. Surveys before the voting indicated that McAuliffe was much closer than that among white women.
Of course, a presidential-year electorate will be different. It will be younger, more black and brown, and so forth. I would think Clinton, if she were the nominee, could beat Christie there with a large enough “on-year” turnout. But if 46 percent of Virginia is willing to vote for that little reptile Cuccinelli, a die-hard caucus in that state is going to put up a fight. I don’t see McAuliffe’s win as the “bluing” of Virginia. That’s going to take one more presidential election, and it may well be that only Clinton can do it.
Finally, it’s lots of fun to watch the sparring between Republicans about why Cuccinelli lost. The establishment types say the party should have nominated someone more mainstream, while the Tea Partiers blame the establishment for abandoning Cuccinelli too soon. The truly enjoyable thing about this fight is that both arguments have enough of a grain of truth in them to keep the quarrel going on into next year. So let the Tea people keep launching their cannonade, and let the establishment overrate Christie. That’s about as good an ending as this election could have had.
By: Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, November 7, 2013
“Wanted, A Brain, A Heart And A Little Courage”: Do Republican Moderates Have The Guts To Take Back The GOP?
Establishment Republicans feel pretty good about their wins yesterday in New Jersey and Alabama. (Many are also quietly saying “I told you so” about Ken Cuccinelli’s loss in the Virginia governor’s race.) For those in the traditional Chamber of Commerce wing of the party, the next year will be about regaining control from the Tea Partiers who have been driving the party’s policies since 2010.
But where have they been for the last three years, as the degradation of the Republican trademark became increasingly obvious?
A new Republican group called “Main Street Advocacy” is about to begin running ads against the hard-liners who have done so much to embarrass the party. One of the ads puts losing candidates like Todd Akin and Sharron Angle in a “Hall of Shame,” and ends with the word “defund” — a reminder of the failed attempt to end health care reform, which led to a widely reviled government shutdown.
“We want our party back,” the group’s leader, former Representative Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio, told Eric Lipton of The Times. “And we are going to do what it takes to accomplish that.”
The vast majority of Republicans in the House, however, allowed that shutdown to happen. Most establishment lawmakers have sat by quietly for years as the party was pushed to the extremes, too afraid of a primary to speak up. Many benefited from secret super-PAC spending provided by the likes of the Koch brothers, or took Tea Party stands without ever really believing in them, all because they liked being back in power and didn’t particularly care what kind of bargain would keep them there.
At any point prior to the shutdown, for example, Republicans could have rejected Speaker John Boehner’s meek compliance with the right wing and told him they could no longer go along with the futile campaign to “defund Obamacare.” They could have signed a discharge petition to reopen government long before it finally happened — after 16 days of damage to the economy.
Even now, real moderates could tell the speaker that they will back a discharge petition to bring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to a vote, which Mr. Boehner has refused to allow. Standing in the way of basic protections for gays and lesbians is only going to hurt their party in the long run. They could also force a vote on the Senate’s immigration bill, which has languished in the House for months, or end the highly unpopular sequester.
But that hasn’t happened. Standing up to the speaker and taking a public position on divisive issues would require actual courage, which is rarely on display in the Republican Party. Instead, the moderates would rather raise corporate money and hide behind the anonymity of a TV ad, making fun of easy targets like Christine O’Donnell, notorious for declaring that she was “not a witch.”
There’s only one way for the party to regain the public’s trust. Taking action is much more effective than running ads.
By: David Firestone, The New York Times, November 6, 2013
“Political Apartheid”: Keeping Black Voters In Their Place
The Republicans who now control the legislatures and governorships in the deep South are using the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 to create a system of political apartheid.
No state demonstrates this better than Alabama, where in 2010 Republicans took over the State Senate and House for the first time since Reconstruction. This is a signal example of the decline of black power in the South.
Mike Hubbard, a Republican from Auburn, who is speaker of the Alabama House, engineered the 2010 takeover of the legislature. He was forthright in his 2012 book — “Storming the Statehouse: The Campaign that Liberated Alabama from 136 years of Democrat Rule” — about his techniques for displacing white Democratic incumbents:
“We needed to find our targets and the candidates to take them on, so I commissioned an in-depth study of voting patterns in various districts represented by white Democratic legislators across the state.”
Before the 2010 election, there were 60 Democrats in the Alabama State House, 34 of them white, 26 black. Now, there are 36 Democrats, 26 of them black, 10 of them white. In the State Senate, the number of Democrats fell from 20 – 13 white, 7 black – to 11 Democrats, 4 white, 7 black.
Once Alabama Republicans gained control of the levers of power, they wasted no time using the results of the 2010 Census to reinforce their position of dominance. Newly drawn lines further corralled black voters into legislative districts with large African-American majorities, a tactic political professionals call “packing and stacking.” Redrawn district lines minimize the potential of coalitions between a minority of white voters and a solid core of black voters. Under these circumstances, white Republican voting blocs remain dominant.
At the core of this strategy is an unexpected twist: Republicans in Alabama and in many other states have gone out of their way to protect black legislative districts and black legislators from Republican or white Democratic challenges.
Have Republican legislators in the South become civil and voting rights champions? No. They are promoting the interests of African-American voters in order to enhance the ability of Republican officials whose real targets, white Democrats, are struggling to cope with the steady decline of loyal “Yellow Dog” supporters.
To achieve this goal, Republican state legislators purposely keep the influence of Democratic-leaning minorities to a minimum in districts with white majorities. Alabama is a state where 80 percent of whites voted Republican in the 2004 presidential elections; 90 percent did so in 2012.
“The most important part of the plan was to preserve minority districts,” said Jim McClendon, the Republican state representative from Springville who co-chaired the Alabama redistricting committee. In a phone interview, McClendon rejected suggestions that the Republican goal was to make it harder for white Democrats to win re-election to state legislative office: “No, not at all. The voters are making it tougher on white Democrats.”
Out of a total of 105 State House districts, 27 have black majorities, one of which is represented by a white Democrat. In those districts, the average percentage of black voters is 66.4 percent, far above the percentage election experts now consider critical if the goal is to insure that minorities have the ability “to elect their preferred candidates of choice,” as the Voting Rights Act puts it.
In a federal court challenge to the state’s Republican-drawn redistricting plan brought by the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, Theodore S. Arrington, a professor emeritus of political science from the University of North Carolina and an expert in election law, testified on Aug. 12 that 50 percent plus one vote would be enough in Alabama.
In redrawing the State Senate and House lines after the 2010 Census, the number of black “influence” districts – majority white districts with enough blacks so that minorities and a relatively small percentage of whites could together elect a Democrat – were kept to a minimum, and in some cases eliminated altogether.
Before redistricting, for example, there were five majority-white State Senate districts in which there were potentially enough blacks, Hispanics and other minorities to form an alliance with white Democrats to win in November. According to documents provided by James Blacksher, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the federal court case brought by the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, these State Senate districts had an average percentage of minority voters of 35.9 before redistricting; after redistricting, the average percentage of minority voters in the five most integrated majority-white districts fell to 29.5. In other words, there was a significant decline in the number of majority-white state legislative districts in which minorities might have enough votes to form an alliance with still-Democratic whites.
McClendon, the Republican state representative from Springville, now plans to run in 2014 for State Senate in District 11. Before redistricting, the voting age population of that district was 65.5 percent white; after redistricting, it is 81.9 percent white, virtually guaranteeing a Republican victory.
In the State House districts with majority white populations, only two had minority populations exceeding 30 percent, 32.0 and 34.5 percent.
None of the 78 majority white State House districts falls into the racial “middle ground” with minority percentages in the 36 to 49 percent range. These are the kind of state districts most likely to produce biracial coalitions, and most likely to elect white Democrats, not only in the South but nationwide.
Arrington testified that the intent of Republican redistricting was to prevent blacks “from forming effective cross-race coalitions” both in elections and in the state legislature. “If you’re restricted to just 25 to 30 percent of the districts in the Legislature, and you have no ability to form coalitions with whites, then your ability to participate politically is restricted. It’s not participating equally in the political process,” he said.
Blacksher, the lawyer representing the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus in its suit, said in a phone interview that the Republicans’ goal is “to make all Democratic seats black, all Republican seats white.”
According to the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus,
“Republican lawmakers packed black voters into 27 House districts and eight Senate districts. The redistricting plans ‘purposely perpetuate and attempt to restore Alabama’s historical policy of segregating African Americans in party politics.’ ”
McClendon flatly denied such intent: “that wasn’t part of the plan,” he told me.
The Republican redistricting plan has had some unexpected consequences, with significant racial ramifications, one of which grows out of the state’s unusually strong restrictions on the powers of city and county officials. Alabama does not have home rule and requires instead that the state legislature approve virtually all local laws, including laws governing Jefferson County, which encompasses Birmingham.
The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus contends in a jurisdictional statement asking the Supreme Court to take up the case that
“The legislature enacted plans that place Jefferson County in 18 House districts, only 8 of them majority-black. All of the majority black districts lie entirely inside Jefferson County, but 6 of the 10 majority-white districts cross into 6 other counties. The 2012 Senate plan puts Jefferson County in 8 districts, 3 majority-black and 5 majority-white. All 3 of the majority-black Senate districts lie entirely inside Jefferson County, but all 5 of the majority-white districts cross the Jefferson County boundary to include parts of 11 other counties. Altogether, 155,279 non-residents vote for members of Jefferson County’s House delegation, and 428,101 people residing in other counties vote for members of the Jefferson County Senate delegation.”
The consequences are substantial, according to the statement:
“White legislators will continue being able to block local revenue bills, whose defeat has helped drive Jefferson County into bankruptcy and has closed Cooper Green Mercy Hospital for the poor.”
One solution would be for Congress to amend the Voting Rights Act to more explicitly address the political reality that African-Americans in the South are now mobilized and turn out in far higher percentages than was the case when the Act was written in 1965.
Arrington testified before the Middle Alabama Federal District Court that because of increased turnout, blacks in Alabama are, in fact, able to elect politicians of their own choosing in districts that are 50 percent or less minority – that the 60-70 percent levels that civil rights leaders called for decades ago are no longer required.
Changes in African-American political mobilization actually offer much stronger potential for integrated politics than in the past, when black political representation required supermajorities of minority voters. The elections of Barack Obama to the presidency, of Cory Booker to the Senate in New Jersey and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts clearly show that such biracial alliances are now achievable.
Republicans, however, will do what they can to prevent pro-Democratic trends from emerging in regions they dominate. After successfully winning control of the South, Republicans will not let go of the reins. In that famously vicious political blood sport, redistricting, they will exploit their ability to deploy the cloak of civil rights to maintain and strengthen a politically advantageous segregation of the races.
By: Thomas B. Edsall, Op-Ed Contributor, The New York Times, November 6, 2013
“Obstructing Obamacare Navigators”: The Republican Suppression Syndrome Continues
On August 15th, Jodi Ray, a project director at Florida Covering Kids and Families, a University of South Florida program that works to get uninsured children access to health care, won a federal grant to hire ninety people as health-care “navigators”: workers who will help applicants apply for insurance through the exchanges set up as part of the Affordable Care Act. In states that declined to set up their own exchanges, like Florida, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded funding worth sixty-seven million dollars for outreach efforts to help the uninsured enroll through the federal marketplace. Nearly four million people in Florida are uninsured—the third highest figure in the country—and Ray had six weeks to recruit staff from community-service groups in sixty-four counties across the state, and guide new hires through twenty hours of online federal training attached to her grant.
“But our navigators don’t only have to comply with federal requirements for the training,” Ray said. “We have state requirements that we have to comply with, too.” Last spring, the Florida legislature, apparently concerned that swindlers would land jobs as health-care experts with access to Social Security numbers and tax information, decided that the navigators should undergo fingerprinting and criminal background checks, and barred them from visiting state-run health clinics. Ray preferred not to comment on what the advocacy group Healthcare For America Now calls “navigator-suppression measures.” She only said, “I’m keeping my head down, the noise out, and focusing on what we are supposed to be doing.”
After the government shutdown ended, attention shifted to the blips and seizures bedevilling the federal marketplace’s Web site, healthcare.gov. Thirty-four states, all but seven of them Republican-controlled, chose not to set up their own exchanges, leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in outreach funding on the table, and forcing their residents onto the federally-operated Web site at the center of the current uproar. Twenty-one of those states are also expected to refuse nearly three hundred billion dollars in federal funding to expand Medicaid coverage over the next decade, which would have extended care to more than six million people; a majority of those excluded will likely be African-Americans and single mothers. To compound the effects of their recalcitrance, conservative governors, state legislators, and members of Congress have also passed navigator-suppression measures in thirteen states—Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin—home to seventeen million people without insurance who are eligible for coverage under the A.C.A.
Two weeks after Ray received her grant, she was notified by the House Energy and Commerce Committee that she would have to participate in a phone interview with the committee’s staff in September; she was also asked to give written answers to half a dozen questions from the committee and provide “all documentation and communication related to your Navigator grant.” Similar notifications were sent to navigator offices in eleven of the most underinsured states in which residents will need to use the federal health-care exhange—including Texas, Florida, and Georgia, home to about a quarter of the nation’s uninsured. Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, protested, in an open letter to the committee’s chairman, Michigan Republican Fred Upton, that the requests appeared “to have been sent solely to divert the resources of small, local community groups, just as they are needed to help with the new health care law.”
On September 18th, Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released a report that singled out Florida as the site of “numerous reports of scam artists posing as navigators and Assisters to take advantage of people’s confusion about ObamaCare.” On October 2nd, Fox News aired footage of volunteers for Get Covered America, a non-profit advocacy campaign, going door-to-door in a Miami suburb to distribute flyers about the new insurance marketplace—but wrongly identified them as federally-funded navigators, giving the impression that these “navigators” were hawking plans like pushy insurance salesmen. Upton linked to the report on his Web site. Ray, who still spends much of her time getting new navigators licensed while the federal government fixes the Web site’s glitches, was reticent about discussing the maelstrom of controversy. “It’s been busy,” she said.
As these tactics jam up early efforts in many states, they also amplify the contrast with successful rollouts in states that have wholeheartedly embraced the new law, like Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Kentucky, and Washington.
Elisabeth Benjamin, who leads New York’s largest team of navigators at the Community Service Society, spent much her early career improving health-care capacity in developing countries like India, Tunisia, and postwar Iraq—where, she said, people often told her, “I don’t understand why you’re in our country. You have a lot of problems with health care and poor people in your country.” Back home, she started a health-law unit at the Legal Aid Society to assist low-income New Yorkers with unforgiving medical bills. In 2008, she unveiled an insurance ombudsman program at C.S.S. to help people at every income level understand their options for medical coverage. “If you need a loaf of bread, it’s a buck,” she said, explaining health care’s central distinction from other forms of assistance. “If you need a transplant, it’s five hundred thousand dollars.”
Around the same time Benjamin was starting her program, Eliot Spitzer, then the governor of New York, proposed statewide health-care reform similar to the law Massachusetts had passed four years earlier. Vermont’s legislature had expanded coverage, and Arnold Schwarzenegger had made national news by calling for a similar program in California. Benjamin joined an affordable-health-care advocacy campaign, Healthcare for All New York, and testified before the New York State Legislature. “We just assumed there would be a state-by-state movement to extend coverage,” Benjamin said. But two years later, the Obama Administration, with the help of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, passed the Affordable Care Act. New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, along with the state legislature in Albany, accepted the expansion of Medicaid, and the state established its own online exchange. After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare, in June, 2012, Cuomo released a statement that said, “We look forward to continuing to work together with the Obama administration to ensure accessible, quality care for all New Yorkers.”
That spirit of coöperation has been integral to New York’s early success. Elisabeth Benjamin, in New York, and Jodi Ray, in Florida, offer exactly the same services to people who were previously unable to obtain medical coverage: they help determine voucher amounts, parse available options, and submit applications online, over the phone, or through the mail. But because New York set up its own exchange, the state received twenty-seven million dollars to fund its navigators, while Florida has just eight million dollars for outreach. Benjamin, who is herself a trained navigator, conceded that there were glitches on New York’s Web site the first week, but said that most of them have been resolved. In the second week, she helped enroll a woman who had worked as a home-health-care aid for twenty years, earning around twenty-four thousand dollars annually. Home health care “has to be the hardest job in America—so physically taxing and emotionally draining,” Benjamin said. “And we don’t give them health coverage. Are you kidding me? They’re part of the health-care system.” Benjamin helped find a plan for the woman that costs seventy-two dollars a month. “I was crying,” Benjamin said. “That’s what it’s all about.”
For the A.C.A. to succeed in its goal of providing coverage for all citizens at an overall reduction in cost, a critical mass of people—old and young, sick and healthy—will need to participate in the insurance exchanges. As of October 23rd, New York had enrolled thirty-seven thousand people, more than twice the goal set by H.H.S. for the entire month of October. Florida won’t know how many people have enrolled until H.H.S. releases its figures sometime in November. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a total of seven million people nationwide could enroll in the first year. But Dr. Kavita Patel, a health-care-reform expert at the Brookings Institution, and a former policy advisor in the Obama Administration, told me, “If by the end of 2014 there are three million people enrolled, that would be a success.” The politicians who are currently bemoaning the looming failure of Obamacare might consider doing more to help navigators like Jodi Ray make it work.
By: Rob Fischer, The New Yorker, November 1, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 