And so the moment slips from Boehnor
Dec. 29th, 2012 10:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/us/politics/key-meeting-looms-as-scaled-back-fiscal-deal-is-explored.html?hp&_r=1&
The most significant item here is not that there's still no progress, it's that Boehnor is no longer in the driver's seat. Now it seems that it's up to the Senate (which isn't even supposed to be the body that originates financial legislation) to come up with a compromise.
This is interesting from so many angles. The Senate is in Democratic control, true, but the Republicans have been able to use various legislative moves - most notoriously the filibuster (about which more soon I promise) - to keep things from happening that they don't like. In addition, the Senate is much more a bastion of traditional (machine) Republican politics. The Tea Party has had remarkably little success there compared to the House, though most of the moderate Republicans (and many aisle-crossing Democrats) have left.
If in fact the Senate can come up with a deal, the House will be under the gun. Boehnor will have to figure out how to meld a coalition to pass some version of whatever the Senate has agreed to. This will be affected in some part by some House members' desire to 'move up' to the Senate and not wanting to alienate people there. This will also be affected by the degree to which the Senate plan - if it comes to be - is seen to be bipartisan. House Republicans will have to know how bad they're going to look if they block not a "Democratic" plan but a "bipartisan" plan. Will that be enough to bring the hard-liners to heel? I don't know. I believe it's possible for House members to Abstain or vote "Present" which would let them go home and claim they didn't vote for a tax increase while still letting the bill pass the House. I believe that if a proposal gets bipartisan Senate support then House Democrats will line up behind it, at least enough of them to pass it with some Republicans. This will be doubly true if, as the Times article suggests, what comes out of the Senate is purely a tax bill that defers work on the spending side.
The most significant item here is not that there's still no progress, it's that Boehnor is no longer in the driver's seat. Now it seems that it's up to the Senate (which isn't even supposed to be the body that originates financial legislation) to come up with a compromise.
This is interesting from so many angles. The Senate is in Democratic control, true, but the Republicans have been able to use various legislative moves - most notoriously the filibuster (about which more soon I promise) - to keep things from happening that they don't like. In addition, the Senate is much more a bastion of traditional (machine) Republican politics. The Tea Party has had remarkably little success there compared to the House, though most of the moderate Republicans (and many aisle-crossing Democrats) have left.
If in fact the Senate can come up with a deal, the House will be under the gun. Boehnor will have to figure out how to meld a coalition to pass some version of whatever the Senate has agreed to. This will be affected in some part by some House members' desire to 'move up' to the Senate and not wanting to alienate people there. This will also be affected by the degree to which the Senate plan - if it comes to be - is seen to be bipartisan. House Republicans will have to know how bad they're going to look if they block not a "Democratic" plan but a "bipartisan" plan. Will that be enough to bring the hard-liners to heel? I don't know. I believe it's possible for House members to Abstain or vote "Present" which would let them go home and claim they didn't vote for a tax increase while still letting the bill pass the House. I believe that if a proposal gets bipartisan Senate support then House Democrats will line up behind it, at least enough of them to pass it with some Republicans. This will be doubly true if, as the Times article suggests, what comes out of the Senate is purely a tax bill that defers work on the spending side.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-30 07:14 pm (UTC)Because in reality, Boehnor was never in any driver's seat, with Reid deciding what'll get brought up in the senate.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-31 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-31 04:23 pm (UTC)But aside from that, how does that translate to Boehnor ever being in the drivers seat? With Reid deciding what'll get brought up in the senate, a couple one-on-one conversations at the White House still pretty clearly fall into political gamesmanship, not "Boehnor's in control."
Bluntly, based on the work of this WH and Congress, no one's in control, they're all a pack of fools. But I find it interesting that you think Boehnor is more in control than Obama or Reid. That follows the media line (though I'm seeing more breaking away from that as time passes), but it doesn't seem to fit with reality.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-31 04:45 pm (UTC)As for Obama-Reid, I think you'd have to go on a very long hunt to find an issue on which they've been on opposite sides. Reid has been Obama's loyal pointman and strategist for the last four years, with the maneuvered passage of Obamacare being perhaps the centerpiece of that partnering. Even with that partnership in place it was still Boehnor who negotiated the grand compromise with Obama prior to the election - the compromise that he then had to walk away from because he couldn't get his party to back him.
If you're unconvinced by the public evidence I can't say much more - I have no secret access to White House strategy briefings. All I can do is repeatedly point to who got private invites, who gave the press conferences after those meetings, etc. If that's not sufficient evidence for you to accept my hypothesis, so be it.