Republicans: once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
It’s a familiar story. The Republicans are riding high and have the Democrats down on their luck, only to hand them a present: in this case, the House passage of the so-called infrastructure bill.
It’s easy to blame all Republicans, although it’s often just a few, as it is now: 13 out of 213 to the Democrats’ 220, of whom 6 voted against. That’s 6% of the Republicans – but ’tis enough, ’twill serve.
Here’s the list:
Adam Kinzinger of Illinois
Don Bacon of Nebraska
Don Young of Alaska
John Katko of New York
Tom Reed of New York
Andrew Garbarino of New York
Nicole Malliotakis of New York
Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
Chris Smith of New Jersey
Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey
Fred Upton of Michigan
Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio
David McKinley of West Virginia
A couple of these – Kinzinger and Van Drew (the latter is a recent changer to the GOP) – are pretty much Democrats. A great many of the others are from New York or New Jersey, and my guess is that most (although not all) are from purple districts. This is the sort of argument they use:
“Most of the hard infrastructure bill is paid for by unspent COVID money that was already appropriated by Congress. This bill makes our nation stronger and more competitive for years to come,” Bacon said in a Friday statement. “Make no mistake. This is not the Bernie Sanders’ Socialist Budget Busting Bill, which would’ve cost American taxpayers their hard-earned money. When that bill does come to the floor for a vote, I will be a hard ‘NO.’”
He might even be correct, although I tend to doubt it. Politics is about a lot of things, and some of it is about not handing your opponents a victory. It’s a lesson the Democrats learned quite some time ago, but some Republicans haven’t.
Of course, if these thirteen had voted “no” with the other Republicans, I have little doubt that all of the six reluctant Democrats would have been bullied or threatened into submission and the bill would have passed anyway because they all knew they needed to pass something to show success and this bill was their best chance. But the thirteen Republicans gave them bipartisan cover.
The thirteen will almost certainly be primaried, which is not necessarily the best idea ever for those who come from districts in which a more conservative candidate is unlikely to win. That’s the dilemma, and it’s been the dilemma for a long time.
Yes, I still can not understand any Rep voting for anything from the Dems. Few if any voted for Trump’s nominees, yet we have Rep voting to confirm Biden’s.
I don’t care if the Dems had “bullied” the Squad into voting for it, just that Rep voted for the bill.
And now Sinema and Manchin will suddenly change course and vote for everything else.
All the Democrats needed was Republican fingerprints on the all the new spending. With that in hand, they will now pass the rest of Building Back Wors……Better.
Maybe I’m looking for the silver lining, but perhaps this gives the Rs cover to vote down the Spendapalooza bill, which is the one I worry about.
This is disappointing, but at minimum, it happened after the off year election, so it didn’t depress and discourage the base, heading into the polls.
All of it was always going to pass and I have never bought into this Manchin/Sinema stuff as they will move stuff around and say it’s smaller when it reality it is no different.
I was a little surprised at first to see Don Young of Alaska on that list, but then I remembered that his entire career in the House has been about bringing home the bacon and very little else. I assume there were enough Alaska highway improvements in the 25% of the bill that’s actually about physical infrastructure to buy him off.
Herrera Butler from here in WA and Cheney must have decided that Trump and his insurrectionists were not involved with this bill so it was safe for the republic to vote no.
It’s likely we will find that New York-New Jersey infrastructure spending is large in the 25% which is actually roads and bridges.
The other 75% was a clear giveaway to a bunch of Democrat-inspired pork, agreed to by 19 Republican senators who got rolled, if you ask me.
Upton is from a liberal district [Kalamazoo, MI] which includes the very left Western Michigan University, and Pfizer as major employers. He has always voted with Dems on many things to keep his seat. I wonder if Pfizer gets a big payout in the bill?
Kinzinger got a horrible remap by the supermajority dem legislature in Illinois, and announced he is not running for the house in 2022. This is him pandering to keep a statewide office option open or media role.
It’s not a case of “snatching defeat from victory”, as in this case victory was never a possibility.
It’s a case of betrayal by some and survival for those in majority democrat/independent districts.
As for only being 6%, isn’t it an interesting coincidence… that so very often it’s just enough to “snatch defeat from victory” and lend a patina of bipartisanship?
Of course some Congressional Republicans are more consistent than others. Like Sen. Graham, who has voted for every one of Biden’s nominees. Regardless of how radical, regardless of how unqualified.
There’s a difference between confirming a nominee as qualified and deserving versus rubber stamping nominees.
Me thinks he speaks with forked tongue.
1. Don Young has been in Congress since 1973 and should have retired > 20 years ago. Years ago, The Public Interest offered that one of the strong correlates with a willingness to spend money is time served in Congress. Young and Hal Rogers are exhibits A and B. (The feckless GOP caucus has allowed Rogers to occupy a gatekeeper position all these years).
2. Christopher Smith I respect for having promoted the anti-abortion cause in Congress for 40 years. He’s always been at least a temporizer if not vaguely liberal on other issues. I’ll take him over Christine Todd Whitman any day of the week. Still, he’s 68 years old and has been in Congress since he was 27. That should not be constitutionally permissible and it’s not an indication of civic vigor. He should retire.
3. Adam Kinzinger is a manifest poseur whose redistricting problems have led him to announce he will no longer be stinking up the joint.
4. Tom Reed is a lapsed lawyer / mortgage broker. Politics is just another business he’s in.
5. John Katko is a big step down from the previous Republican to occupy that seat, Ann Marie Buerkle. Buerkle is in the real estate business and had better things to do with her life than have grueling re-election campaigns in a marginal district. The feckless Syracuse electorate prefers Katko, a lawyer formerly employed by the U.S. Attorney’s office who is bad on a host of issues. He also voted for one of the shampeachment resolutions.
6. Fred Upton is 68 years old. He was elected to Congress at age 33 and held patronage jobs for a dozen years prior. He’s a pure career politician. He also voted for one of the shampeachment resolutions.
So, yes, a primary is advisable in regard to four of these individuals. If we’re fortunate, someone will persuade Christopher Smith that the time to retire is now. As for Kinzinger, don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Of course some Congressional Republicans are more consistent than others. Like Sen. Graham, who has voted for every one of Biden’s nominees. Regardless of how radical, regardless of how unqualified.
As a rule, you shouldn’t obstruct the nominees for positions in the executive unless (1) they’re crooks or (2) they’re monsters or (3) they are untrustworthy and their position is in law enforcement, the military, the security services, civil regulation, statistical collection, tax collection, or oversight. The dame they’ve nominated for Comptroller of the Currency should be obstructed without apology. Same deal with a mess of Justice Department appointees, Lloyd Austin, &c.
Upton is from a liberal district [Kalamazoo, MI] which includes the very left Western Michigan University
He was censured by local Republican organizations in southwestern Michigan. Kalamazoo County was the only county in southwestern Michigan which Biden carried. As for Western Michigan, the students, the employees, and those whose employment is a knock-on effect of the presence of the school might account for 4% of the local electorate. There’s no compelling reason to believe a conventional Republican could not carry the district. Can Upton’s ass.
I assume there were enough Alaska highway improvements in the 25% of the bill that’s actually about physical infrastructure to buy him off.
Alaska can pay for it’s own bloody highways. So can every other state.
If we’re concerned about the capacity of impecunious states to pay for public services, the appropriate response would to distribute an unrestricted general grant for which each state’s portion is determined by a formula for which the state’s population and per capita personal income are arguments. No need for Congress to be financing particular projects and distorting the expression of local preferences. The thing is, Alaska is a mildly affluent state and would receive only the most modest grant in a sensibly-constructed revenue sharing program.
Well, of course they did.
Inner Party / Outer Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy
I think the decision to pass the bill was smart. Joe Manchin’s major pitch is that he wants Democrats and Republicans to compromise and work together. If Republicans don’t do that, Manchin may throw up his hands. By passing this bill, Manchin demonstrates that compromise works, the BBB bill is not necessary, the filibuster should remain, etc.
neo writes:
“It’s a familiar story. The Republicans are riding high and have the Democrats down on their luck, only to hand them a present…”
Gee…. It’s almost like they’re on the same side… It’s almost like the Republicans don’t really want to shrink the federal government….
And you all beat up on me on the McConnell thread and the post election thread.
🙂
Lucy. Football. Rinse, repeat.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Our argument was over what we mean by “the Republicans.” In the sentence you quoted here of mine, it was a shorthand for the way it often looks – as though the whole Republican Party in Congress is in on it. But over and over again, it is actually almost always a very small proportion of the party doing this. There are plenty of Republicans in Congress lashing out at the 13 who voted the way they did.
94% of the Republicans in the House voted against the bill. Now, unless you think they’re all just cynically pretending to be against it when they’re really onboard with it, that vote total indicates that the vast majority of Republicans are not part of any uniparty. Unfortunately, a distinct and often large-enough-to-make-a-difference group is part of that uniparty.
Gonzales is a backstabber, I’m sad to have voted for him.
His district should be a safe R.
neo @ 12:07am,
I believe the majority of Republicans who voted against the bill are sincerely against the bill. It’s the Party I’m speaking of. If a Dem gets out of line their own party will shiv them. Look at what was happening to Sinema. But you won’t see Republican leadership lashing out at the traitors. You won’t see the Party working to primary them.
I typically use the word, “feckless” to describe the Republican party. They are not as organized and determined as the Dems. Feckless. However, I do genuinely believe much of the opposition is theater. I outlined a lot of this in the McConnell thread. It was obvious with the ACA. Decades of warning that the Dems were serious about socializing medicine, yet no serious efforts to fix what was wrong with healthcare. Bill after bill to repeal when they were in the minority. Yet nothing when they were in the majority with a President who wouldn’t veto. Things like that happen a lot. It’s good theater, they look like they are sincerely trying, but, somehow, it keeps going the Democrats way, which is also the way of Big Government.
13 members of the uniparty took one for the team providing cover for 6 dems and 94% of the GOP. Their votes weren’t needed. This is how the game is played. People who are for a thing get to vote against it for cover and sometimes vise versa. No reason to analyze it deeper.
Pardon my legal naïveté by by the house voting for this bill that began in the Senate, doesn’t it mean that they’ve lost the opportunity to use reconciliation for the build back better part of the bill?
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
@neo:Now, unless you think they’re all just cynically pretending to be against it when they’re really onboard with it,
Any of them who had anything put in that bill to benefit their district, clients, patrons or friends, I’d say the evidence is that their “no” vote is token opposition. Those bills don’t get thousands of pages in them without lots of hands.
After all, aren’t the progressives voting against it because they are holding out for more? So their opposition isn’t real either, and I don’t see any skepticism here about that kind of theater. I’m afraid neither Democrats nor progressives hold the monopoly on vice.
The “Stupid Party” myth is convenient for the GOP wing of the uniparty…. behind the scenes, they get their snouts in the trough, and on stage the ones from red districts can beat their breasts in token opposition. They can always blame the squishes in the purple districts.
“…doesn’t it mean that they’ve lost the opportunity to use reconciliation…?”
I think I read somewhere where the Democrats believe they can ignore the rules regarding “reconciliation” as only applicable to strict budgetary issues (as laid down by the “Parliamentarian”—or whatever the position is called) and go for it on strictly partisan lines.
After all, rules are for suckers… (and/or they can “reconfigure” the Parliamentarian’s decision as merely a “suggestion” rather than anything binding).
…That is, if I understood it all correctly.
That being said, it is 100% consistent with the Democrats’ squalid modus vivendi—i.e., change the rules if they don’t work out for you…and if they STILL don’t work, change ’em again. And again. And again….
Correction: “strict” should be “strictly”…
The title of this post ends with a question mark.
Here’s someone who defends “the 13”: His reasoning (key graf):
“…The final possible outcome, and one that seems most likely, is that Build Back Better sees significant cuts now that the progressives are no longer holding the infrastructure bill hostage. This is the outcome the 13 GOP defectors are counting on. And if that is indeed what happens, it should be viewed as a win for the Republicans in Congress….”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/13-house-gop-votes-infrastructure-helped-conservatives-david-marcus
As they say, YMMV… (OK, give it to ‘m but GOOD….)
I actually think it’s more than a bit of a stretch, but stranger things have happened…
Frederick:
What makes you think Republicans voting “no” had any meaningful input into what’s in the bill? If you have such evidence, lay it out. I haven’t seen any.
Barry, I think that analysis is completely backwards. By passing and getting signed the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill, Manchin and Sinema can now vote yes on the rest because it will all end up being described as “bipartisan” by the media.
Possibly, but I’m not sure why they’d do that, given their substantive opposition to the economic ramifications of the bill (as opposed to the “optics” of it).
(That is, I don’t believe they’ve been waiting all this time for the Republicans (or some of them) to give them an excuse to change their minds.)
But that’s just speculation on my part (as well as wishful thinking)…. I hope I’m not wrong on this but I certainly could be.
The BIF was bipartisan and ready to pass a month or so ago, when the radical progs persuaded/forced Pelosi to hold that bill hostage at the last moment. It was only to be passed in tandem with the Spendapalooza.
Apparently the losses on Election Night gave Pelosi the clout to let the hostage go and pass the BIF without the Spenda.
There may be further layers of skullduggery but this does reflect a loss of prog power to dictate terms. I wouldn’t assume it makes things easier for Manchin and Sinema to roll over. It may just be Pelosi’s pragmatic assessment to ensure the Dems get at least a half a loaf.
The republicans lack discipline. The dems march in line, even voting in unison for such things as denouncing their own members for anti semitism. In comparison the stupid party does things like keeping Cheney on committees. As a minority they should have tossed bee out of the party altogether.
It’s why I don’t and won’t support the republican party. I gave money directly to the Trump campaign but it will be a cold day in hell before I give dime to the party.
Both infrastructure and the BBB reconciliation bills are an unholy mess that shouldn’t be law. I’m with Art Deco – Alaska can pay for its own highways. (And federal tax payers shouldn’t give a rip about helping Machin catch up with the late Robert Byrd for the most “memorial” highways in West Virginia.)
That said, thanks to Trump’s temper tantrum in Georgia, Republicans can’t really stop anything. Democrats were going to get something awful regardless, so the game is damage mitigation. The worst case is the end of the fibuster, court packing, federalized elections, plus a bunch of new permanent entitlements. (And the very worst case would be if Republicans happen to be in power when it the massive middle class tax increases to pay for today’s largess become unavoidable.)
Given that, I really can’t get too bent out of shape about the infrastructure bill passing. It’s a terrible bill, but it being “bipartisan” and passing through the regular order in the Senate takes a lot of wind out of the sails of the radicals who want to punt the filibuster. It might even strengthen the hands of Manchin and Sinema to either limit or maybe even kill the BBB reconciliation bill.
Of course it might not work out that way, but both sides of the argument right now are playing prognosticator to some extent.
John Katko is one of the 13, he is our rep in NY-24. He’s DONE. He also voted to impeach Trump for daring to give a speech on 1/6. I’d vote for Satan himself before I’d ever vote for Katko again. He already has 2 primary opponents and has yet to announce if he is running or not. I suspect not since I know plenty of people that would never vote for him again. I guess you could call NY-24 a purple district, but I feel confident an actual Conservative that isn’t full of shit could get elected. I guess we’ll find out. Among the 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans already having announced they’re running, I’d venture a guess that the one that seems the most competent will likely win. Could be from either party.
I see no reason at all that this changes the position of Manchin or Sinema. They both supported to smaller “bipartisan” bill, but have serious reservations about different parts of the BBB spendapolooza. There is no rational reason why their concerns would be alleviated by having passed a smaller bill. I’d say the exact opposite is true. They already compromised with Senate republicans in passing this bill. I do believe, however, if Biden signs this bill, Democrats ability to pass BBB using reconciliation is dead. The Senate rules enforcer has been pretty solid at limiting their ability to use it, so I’d wager that having the House bill that they could merge using reconciliation is passed and signed into law, that their reconciliation opening is closed. Not to mention that McConnell has said that Democrats will get now help at all to raise the debt limit again this year, so the Democrats may have to use their remaining reconciliation for that.
@neo:What makes you think Republicans voting “no” had any meaningful input into what’s in the bill? If you have such evidence, lay it out. I haven’t seen any.
The people who wish to deceive you on this are not going to lay it out for you, and if you don’t look for it you won’t see it.
On Congress’s website you can see who offered what amendment to every bill. It might be wise in cases of this sort to take a look at the history of the bill so you can get the facts the media chooses to leave out.
The vast majority of the amendments were done in the Senate, of course, where the bill passed with the support of 19 Republicans (and Republicans offered a lot of amendments). So you were already sold out before it got to the House…
Once there, not much happened with the House bill– the fix was already in. It was sponsored by Kat Cammack, R-FL, not a “no” voter.
One Republican amendment was offered by Beth Van Duyne, R-TX, not one of the “no” voters. 230 Congressmen voted for that amendment. It had 189 Republican votes to amend and was opposed by 178 Democrats.
Another was offered by Kat Cammack, the Republican sponsor, which was withdrawn.
The topics of these amendments were “to allow states flexibility to return funds for HOV facility after 10 years of operation” and “to amend the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 to exempt livestock haulers from ELD requirements within a 150 mile radius of the final destination”.
So that’s what the House Republicans focused their energy on. It doesn’t look like they attempted much meaningful opposition, does it? Wouldn’t they have done more if they were really fighting it? Like propose common-sense sort of changes and have the Dems vote “no”, that sort of thing?
But they didn’t, because they were doing what their buddies in the Senate wanted done. The 13 R “no” votes are theater. They are cover for the 189 R’s who could get energized about HOV funds and vote for that over Dem opposition…
That said, thanks to Trump’s temper tantrum in Georgia,
Why does this judgment not surprise me? Georgia’s Republican establishment proved the enemy of good sense, and that’s Trump’s fault.
John Katko is one of the 13, he is our rep in NY-24. He’s DONE. He also voted to impeach Trump for daring to give a speech on 1/6.
I’ve lived in Richard Hanna’s district and Sherwood Boehlert’s.
In the years since 1980, there have been about 20 Republicans elected to Congress who proved particularly troublesome for party whips. For the most part, this crew has had a weak hold over their respective constituencies. About 1/2 concluded their careers by being voted out of office; the probability of that happening in any given electoral cycle has averaged about 25% for this set of 20, v. 5.5% on average for Congress as a whole. They make weak candidates, as a rule. There are four in Congress today: Susan Collins, Katko, Elise Stafanik, and Brian FitzPatrick of the Philadelphia suburbs. Collins was just returned to office (and is currently the least troublesome Senator from New England). Stefanik is a policy dissident but one who has no time for the Democrats’ lawfare or their propaganda campaigns, so you might have ambivalent feelings about her. You’ve done better than Katko in the past and at least one of the candidates running against him is just the sort of person you want seeking elected office – a man in late middle age who has done other things with his life and does not need the aggravation.
Frederick:
If you want to believe the “it’s all theater and all the Republicans are in on it whether they vote yes or no and whether they speak out vociferously against it” go right ahead. I don’t, and I see no evidence for it. What I see evidence for is that the people in the GOP who voted “yes” were involved, not the people who voted no.
As for what the “no” voters said or did to stop it, they had no power to stop it; there weren’t anywhere near enough of them. I bet if you were to go back and search their Twitter feeds or look at every single press release each put out you’d find them speaking against it and also if you had been a fly on the wall in deliberations you’d have seen the same thing.
McConnell was one of the “yes” votes, by the way, and he is one of the main culprits for this one in my book. It turns out Trump agrees with that assessment.
@neo:What I see evidence for is that the people in the GOP who voted “yes” were involved, not the people who voted no.
I assume you didn’t see where I linked to “no” voters amendments to the bill, and the 180+ “no” voters who were able somehow to muster the energy to get that amendment in which the Dems didn’t want.
Frederick; deadrody:
My 2:05 comment actually should have been addressed to Frederick, and I’ve changed it to reflect that.
But I don’t see the point you’re trying to make. It was clear from the start that the bill would be passing because a lot of GOP members supported it. The GOP offered amendments that they thought had a chance of passing. Why spin their wheels otherwise, particularly since McConnell was FOR it?
Don Bacon is my Representative. He’s a spineless worm.
He’s also a former AF general. One would think after Biden’s performance on Afghanistan that he wouldn’t give Joe a win.
@neo:But I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.
Well maybe I’ve lost track of yours. Here’s what I was responding to:
94% of the Republicans in the House voted against the bill. Now, unless you think they’re all just cynically pretending to be against it when they’re really onboard with it, that vote total indicates that the vast majority of Republicans are not part of any uniparty.
My point is that the vote total you cited is engineered to produce that impression in people who are willing to vote Republican. You can tell by the actions recorded in the legislative history of the bill. And I showed you too that the people voting “no” were also contributing to the bill which you said you didn’t believe happened. One of them sponsored it in the house, two of them proposed amendments, 189 of them voted to amend it, and then the vast majority of those people turned right around and voted “no” on the entire bill because that’s what would get reported in the media.
Frederick:
People voting NO didn’t contribute to the bill in the sense of designing it or sponsoring or promoting it (what I meant by “meaningful input”). An amendment is not necessarily contributing, particularly if the amendment tempers something in a bill that is sure to pass. I suppose you might say it’s “cooperating with the inevitable,” and in that sense I think plenty of GOP members who voted “no” did that for one amendment or another. But I have no animus towards them for that, unless it was an amendment that made things in the bill worse.
@neo:sponsoring
I linked to the “no” voting R who sponsored the bill in the House. You told me you wanted evidence, and I found it for you…
I suppose you might say it’s “cooperating with the inevitable,”
I think a lot of us here question the “evitability”. I’d say ‘token resistance for the cameras’. If they really wanted to do something about it, there are tons of procedural tricks they are able to do in other situations when they actually want to stop things. And as you pointed out the Senate Republicans were definitely helping this thing pass. So, is the House then some pure and helpless bastion of conservative idealism that doesn’t understand their own procedures? What good does it do us to have them?
It’s never going to change without holding them accountable. As long as we keep filling the seats for it the theater will continue. As long as we keep voting for red lizards in the hope of keeping the blue lizards from “taking over” then we’re going to be ruled by lizard people for generations to come. The lizards care far more about each other than they do about you.
Frederick:
You indicated they were all (or most of them, anyway) dissembling when they said they were against it, which I paraphrased as “it’s all theater and all the Republicans are in on it whether they vote yes or no and whether they speak out vociferously against it.”
I wrote, “What makes you think Republicans voting ‘no’ had any meaningful input into what’s in the bill? If you have such evidence, lay it out.” See also my 12:07 comment. The point is, I’ve always been talking about Republicans, plural (and that’s what I understood you to be talking about as well), who voted “no.” Of course there might be one or two who were dissembling about their “no.”
@neo:You indicated they were all (or most of them, anyway) dissembling when they said they were against it
That’s not what I said. I said “Any of them who had anything put in that bill to benefit their district, clients, patrons or friends, I’d say the evidence is that their “no” vote is token opposition. Those bills don’t get thousands of pages in them without lots of hands.”
189 of these Rs put something in this bill that they liked just before they turned around and voted “no”…. and they put up no other resistance.
@Art Deco – Trump continuously told Republicans that the election would be rigged and that their votes wouldn’t count. His surrogates were actually telling Georgia Republicans not to vote for Perdue and Loeffler because they wouldn’t go all in on Trump’s Dominion nonsense.
Republicans ended up losing those seats by a small margin with turnout down from November in the Republican areas.
But yeah, the loss was totally the fault of the state party.
I don’t doubt that the state party had problems. One of them, however, was clearly named Trump.
Trump continuously told Republicans that the election would be rigged and that their votes wouldn’t count. His surrogates were actually telling Georgia Republicans not to vote for Perdue and Loeffler because they wouldn’t go all in on Trump’s Dominion nonsense.
He campaigned for Perdue and Loeffler.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-rinos-kemp-raffensperger-solely-responsible-if-loeffler-perdue-lose-election/ar-BB1bIUNh
Your handlers aren’t getting their money’s worth from you.