Rush Limbaugh is now telling his audience the federal government "damn well needs to be shut down" because President Obama intends to take executive actions on immigration policy. Erick Erickson is thinking along the same lines, pushing for a shutdown in a blog post, and reminding his Republican allies that their party has never actually faced adverse consequences from their previous shutdowns, so they have no incentive to back off now.
All of this appears to be causing some anxiety for GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.
As we discussed yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is counting heads and coming to the realization that he may not have the votes needed to keep the government's lights on. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is "worried" about the direction of the debate and circulating materials to his members arguing against a shutdown standoff.
And Politicoreports that Republican leaders in both chambers are scrambling to find a way out of the mess.
Republican leaders have intensified their planning to prevent a government funding showdown, weighing legislative options that would redirect GOP anger at Barack Obama's expected action on immigration and stave off a political disaster, according to sources involved with the sessions. [...]
Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and their top aides and deputies are mulling several options that would give Capitol Hill Republicans the opportunity to vent their frustration with what they view as an unconstitutional power grab by the White House -- without jeopardizing the government financing bill.
Let's note for the record that neither Boehner nor McConnell are especially strong leaders who demand the loyalty and fealty of their members -- this isn't a situation in which Republican leaders simply tell the rank-and-file members how it's going to be, with an expectation that the conference will fall in line. Today's GOP leaders simply don't have that kind of influence over their ostensible followers.
Instead, they're floating a series of alternatives intended to placate the far-right while preventing another self-imposed crisis.
It was just last month when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sat down with the editorial board of the Cincinnati Enquirer, which raised the question of global warming. McConnell said he doesn't know whether or not climate change is real because -- let's all say it together -- "I'm not a scientist."
But that was last month. Today, McConnell has discovered that he's a science enthusiast after all. Rebecca Leber reported this morning:
In remarks on the Senate floor, hours before a vote on a bill that fast-tracks construction of the [Keystone XL pipeline], McConnell pointed to the "science" supporting the legislation.
"Those who took a serious look at the science and the potential benefits reached the conclusion long ago," he said Tuesday. "They understand that the whole drama over Keystone has been as protracted as it is unnecessary. We hope to turn the page on all of that today."
Oh, I see. When Republicans want an oil pipeline, it's incumbent on policymakers to take "a serious look at the science."
But when policymakers are asked to address a global climate crisis, a political party is comfortable playing dumb?
Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Outgoing Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) called Sen.-elect Dan Sullivan (R) to concede the race. The net gain for Republicans in the 2014 Senate now stands at eight seats.
* In the year's final Senate race, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) is facing Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) in a Dec. 6 runoff, and in the latest twist, the NRA's Legislative Action lobbying arm is running attack ads against the incumbent. There's ample evidence that the centrist Democrat is being swamped on Louisiana airwaves.
* In a big surprise, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced yesterday that Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) will be the new chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He was not considered one of the finalists for the position.
* And speaking of Pelosi, the House Democratic conference unanimously chose to keep the Minority Leader in her current post.
* To the surprise of no one, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is wrapping up his tenure as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, though it's unclear who'll next take the reins.
This was supposed to be the day when the superintendent of public schools in Gilbert, Arizona, would present a plan (pdf) for redacting the kids' honors biology textbooks. The Tea Party majority on the school board voted last month to remove references to abortion from the books, which have been in use for several years now in the district. The board ordered the superintendent to figure out how to do it.
"The cheapest, least disruptive way to solve the problem is to remove the page," said board member Daryl Colvin.
Board president Staci Burk told the Arizona Republic that parents had already volunteered to help with the redacting, whether by tearing out the pages or cutting out the paragraphs with scissors or blacking them out with a Sharpie. Even after voters undid the Tea Party majority in the elections this month, Burk told us that she expected the superintendent to report back today with a plan for carrying out the board's order. "I don't believe there will be any more discussion on the textbooks," she said.
The board may have failed to account for the opinion of the superintendent herself. read more
The Senate is expected to vote today on a House GOP bill authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and by all appearances, the vote will be close. Proponents appear to be one-vote shy of the 60 votes they need to advance the bill, but there are still a few hours of arm-twisting remaining.
Ultimately, however, it probably won't matter -- President Obama is likely to veto the measure if it reaches his desk, and there's simply no possibility of Keystone supporters finding enough votes to override.
The policy will remain a top Republican priority in the new GOP-led Congress, and in an interesting twist, the New York Timesreports that the White House might consider a deal.
[T]he events of this week suggest that after the expected veto, Mr. Obama may eventually approve the pipeline, which would run from the oil sands of Alberta to the Gulf Coast. The project is anathema to the environmentalists who are part of the president's political base.
White House advisers have repeatedly said that they do not intend to issue a final decision until a Nebraska court issues a verdict on the route of the pipeline through that state. But that decision is expected to come as soon as January, the same month that an incoming Republican-majority Congress can be expected to send another Keystone bill to the president's desk -- one that could be within a few votes of a veto-proof majority.
If that is the case, people familiar with the president's thinking say that in 2015 he might use Keystone as a bargaining chip: He would offer Republicans approval of it in exchange for approval of one of his policies.
In theory, this raises the interesting prospect of some kind of bipartisan compromise. There's just one problem: for the last six years, Republicans haven't been willing to accept any concessions at all.
A few years ago, Republican state policymakers in Texas created something called the Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency. Officials were already committed to rejecting every possible aspect of the Affordable Care Act, and undermining its implementation wherever possible, but Institute members were nevertheless tasked with looking for ways Texas could improve the state's struggling health care infrastructure.
When Gov. Rick Perry (R) endorsed the creation of the panel in 2011, and chose its members, this probably isn't what he had in mind.
A board of medical professionals appointed by Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday that the state should provide health coverage to low-income Texans under the Affordable Care Act -- a move the Republican-led Legislature has opposed.
The 15-member Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency recommended that the state's health commissioner be authorized to negotiate a Texas-specific agreement with the federal government to expand health coverage to the poor, "using available federal funds."
And while that's certainly a noble goal, if state policymakers were willing to take politics out of the decision-making process, they wouldn't have rejected Medicaid expansion in the first place.
Joel Allison, a board member who is chief executive of the Baylor Scott & White Health System, added, "We should be maximizing available federal funds through the Medicaid program to improve health care for all Texans."
President Obama has had some success of late in addressing the climate crisis, but he's hardly finished: Chris Mooney reported yesterday that the White House hopes to invest up to $3 billion in the Green Climate Fund, an international effort to bolster clean-energy programs in developing nations.
Indeed, the U.S. contribution to the global effort would complement similar billion-dollar investments from allies including France, Germany, and Japan.
There's just one problem. Even though the idea for international climate funding measures like this one dates back to the George W. Bush administration -- where they were crucially championed by then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson -- there are concerns that Congressional Republicans may try to thwart some of the new U.S. funds through the appropriations process. In fact, long before the GOP's triumph in the midterm elections, House Republicans in early 2011 introduced a continuing budget resolution that would have "gut most climate aid" -- a sign of the conflict that may be to come.
Indeed, the presumptive new chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Oklahoma's James Inhofe, used a 2012 video to decry a "United Nations green slush fund that would redistribute over $ 100 billion from developed countries to developing countries" -- which certainly sounds like a reference to today's Green Climate Fund. The $100 billion figure refers to a pledge in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord that developed nations would spend that amount by 2020 helping countries adapt to climate change, and that mentioned the development of a Green Climate Fund.
Remember, the Bush/Cheney administration -- hardly pioneers in the fight against the climate crisis -- saw these kinds of investments as important and worthwhile. As Mooney's report noted, former President George W. Bush used his final State of the Union address to outline a $2 billion investment in "a new international clean energy technology fund to help confront climate change worldwide."
But now that Obama wants to follow through on the Bush/Cheney commitment, Republicans seem eager to move in the opposite direction.
Part of this, of course, is the reflexive GOP opposition to anything Obama is for. But there's also been an aggressive shift in the GOP's posture on environmental policy itself, to the point that contemporary Republicans now see Bush's policies as far too liberal.
Early last year, Republican officials in a variety of states were pretty frustrated by the scope of President Obama's re-election victory. They decided the electoral college might need a little touch-up, tilting the playing field in the GOP's direction -- if Republicans were losing, it was time to change the rules of the game.
And so, a scheme was hatched: instead of allocating electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, the way nearly all states have done throughout American history, several key states would rig the election by awarding votes based on gerrymandered congressional district lines. GOP operatives in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania Virginia, and Wisconsin immediately took up the cause.
The push didn't last long, and within a few months, as revulsion to the scheme grew, each of the states had effectively given up on the idea.
And though Michigan, run by a Republican governor and Republican state legislature, backed off on the scheme, support for the idea lingered in the Wolverine State for quite a while. In fact, it's back.
Michigan would divide its electoral college votes in presidential elections rather than award them all to a single candidate under legislation being introduced Thursday in the state House.
Sponsoring Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, says the bill would make Michigan more important in presidential elections, but Democrats argue it would only benefit Republicans, who haven't won a presidential election in Michigan since 1988.
Michigan isn't entirely alone. Zach Roth reported last week that the scheme may rear its head in 2015 now that Republican control of state governments has grown, and National Review published a piece calling the election-rigging plan "pretty tempting," largely because it would make it "nearly impossible" for the country to elect a Democratic president.
But in Michigan, proponents aren't just thinking about possible action in the new year; all of this is playing out right now. In fact, there was a legislative committee hearing on a proposal literally yesterday.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who's made no secret of his national ambitions, sat down over the weekend with the Fox affiliate in Milwaukee, which asked him about his possible presidential campaign. The Republican governor's response seemed noteworthy.
"To me, I'm not going to run just because of the pundits or anything else like that. The closer you get to something like that the more you realize -- and I say this only half-jokingly -- that you have to be crazy to want to be president. And anyone who has seen pictures of this president or any of the former presidents can see the before and after. No matter how fit, no matter how young they are, they age pretty rapidly when you look at their hair any everything else involved with it.
"Whether it's two years, six years or 20 years from now -- because I think of Hillary Clinton. I could run 20 years from now and still be about the same age as the former Secretary of State is right now."
In context, the question the reporter asked was, "Do you have a sense that this is your moment?" There were no previous references to Clinton or ages; it was just what Walker had on his mind at the time, and he felt inclined to share the thought, no matter how gratuitous it was.
The Wisconsin governor's comments come just a week after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was "none too subtly raising the issue of her age," too.
To be sure, we're still very much in the oblique phase of the debate, though Walker was more direct than Paul, so I'm not suggesting the left crank the Outrage-O-Meter to 11. Clinton has no doubt heard much more offensive criticism from Republican rivals before.
That said, this is an awkward game Republicans are playing.
Rachel Maddow reviews instances of Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush taking executive action on immigration, contrary to anti-Obama Republicans who insist that President Obama's proposed action in the absence of a bill from Congress is unprecedented. watch
Rachel Maddow sorts fact from fiction on an earlier prediction about pot policy in Washington, D.C. and a failed Republican candidate who ran against Obamacare but now wants a job handling its administration. watch