Another day, another no vote.
After near-unanimous Republican congressional opposition to President Barack Obama’s stimulus package and a week dominated by headlines of GOP governors poised to reject stimulus funding, House Republicans followed up with another resounding “no” on the $410 billion omnibus spending package Wednesday.
This time, though, 16 members broke from the party line on a vote Minority Whip Eric Cantor had urged his colleagues to reject. And the cracks in the facade appear to be the first public signal of Republican rank-and-file squeamishness with a remarkably high-risk strategy that promises an uncertain return.
For Republicans, a central question looms: Is saying no to Obama’s agenda the way to get voters to say yes to an already beleaguered GOP brand?
Despite two consecutive election thrashings, and despite Obama’s high approval ratings and their own low standing, Republicans have wagered that the return to the majority is paved by unwavering opposition to further spending, an audacious bet that won’t pay out for another 21 months.
If Republicans are right, the economy will remain in tatters and voters will recognize in 2010 that the recovery was delayed by profligate Democrats and their president.
If the GOP is wrong, however, and the economy begins to show signs of life, the resistance will be easily framed as reflexive obstructionism, the last gasp of an intellectually bankrupt party.
The timing only heightens the stakes. Midterm elections are traditionally hostile to the party in power, which means Republicans will have a wind at their back for the first time in six years. But 2010 is also the election cycle that, across the nation, will begin laying the groundwork for the decennial congressional and state legislative redistricting, raising the prospect that, if Republicans are wrong, they could find themselves consigned to minority status for close to a generation.
“They just seem to be sitting back and waiting for the Democrats to come up with the plan so they can look for something to shoot at,” said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), who is locked in a battle with his home stategovernor, Mark Sanford, over money for unemployment insurance. “They’re making a calculated decision to just say ‘no.’”
Republicans don’t readily concede the risks inherent in their approach. In an acknowledgment of Obama’s popularity, they are carefully drawing distinctions in what exactly they oppose and trying to avoid going up against Obama’s formidable personal charisma.
“I think there is a rift between the popularity of the president and the unpopularity of Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi,” said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). “[People] are pro-Obama, anti-stimulus.”
In some instances, Republicans also are trying to counter Obama on process, rather than on issues that may have broad popularity among their constituents. In the House, GOP leaders continue to complain that Democrats have blocked them from participating and have sought to draw contrasts with Obama’s rhetoric as he promises to tackle the massive budget deficit.
“This is fiscal responsibility week and you foist 9,000 earmarks on us?” said Kirk, who sits on the Appropriations Committee. “This seems poorly coordinated.”
The problem, of course, is that plenty of those earmarks are directed toward Republican-held districts. Indeed, anticipating a line of Democratic attack, Cantor warned his fellow Republicans on Tuesday not to “allow a $500,000 earmark or pet project to be used as a bribe for your vote on this reckless $500 billion omnibus bill,” according to the notes of someone who attended the closed-door meeting at the Capitol Hill Club.
And the distinctions between Obama and Pelosi will become harder to draw with each ensuing vote, including another later this week on an additional White House priority: housing legislation that would make it easier for bankruptcy judges to rework the terms of a primary home loan.
Only one Republican — Ohio Rep. Michael Turner, whose home state has been ravaged by the economic downturn — has signed on to the bill, and GOP leaders may whip against it when it comes to the floor later this week, members and aides said Tuesday.
The most controversial change would allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages for a homeowner’s primary residence. Republicans, along with their allies in the lending industry, oppose the measure because it would reduce the amount of money owed on the house. These reductions will result in higher mortgage costs for all homeowners, opponents argue.
Supporters of the change argue that this is the easiest way to keep people in their homes without committing taxpayer funds — a strategy that could save strapped homeowners and over-leveraged lenders alike by helping the housing market find its bottom.
Either way, it’s a complex issue that isn’t easily explained and again raises the risk of fostering an image of the GOP as the party of no, rather than a party of competing ideas — and as a party that is hardhearted in its approach toward the nation’s economic catastrophe.
“That’s certainly a discussion [Republicans] are having,” said Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.). “Certainly people are paying attention to some of the media commentaries who are saying we are the party of no.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090226/pl_politico/19346
Topic: GOP at risk of becoming party in the no (Read 601 times)