According to reporting by Katrina Trinko of National Review, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told one member during a closed-door conference yesterday that they had to allow a vote on the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) or they would cause a “civil war” within the Republican caucus. It is quite possible that Cantor was correct. South Jersey Congressman Jon Runyan (formerly a red cape for Michael Strahan when he played offensive tackle for the Philadelphia Eagles), led a bloc of 19 Republicans who insisted on a vote on the Senate version. The Republican majority is currently 232-200, which means that 19 defections would put the Democrats in the majority on this issue at 219-213. The way the rules of the House work, whatever a majority wants to do, they can do. If a bipartisan majority wants something that the House leadership opposes, they can create a discharge petition. The way a discharge works is hard to explain but what it boils down to is that if a majority of the total membership of the House signs the petition then they can force a vote on a bill.
What Rep. Runyan demonstrated was that he had the votes to prevail on a discharge petition. Signing a discharge petition when you are serving in the majority is deeply disloyal and is almost never done. But Runyan didn’t have to sign one because his ordinary petition conveyed the message adequately.
Cantor was chosen to send this message to the pro-rape caucus because he was the leader of the pro-rape cause. Cantor still wound up voting against the VAWA reauthorization, but he recognized that his side was defeated and he didn’t want his defeat to become a huge story.
If you are wondering how Boehner could lose his speakership, this is basically how it would happen. It would probably be a coup from the middle rather than a coup from the right. In this case, Boehner caved in because he wanted to cave in. But he could easily face a different issue where he decides to stand with the wingnuts. And then some bloc of about 20 moderate Republicans (mostly from the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest) could cut a deal with the Democrats to elect a new Speaker.
If you think it can’t happen, take a look at comments from Mid-Atlantic Republicans Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and Pete King of Long Island, New York. Patience is definitely wearing thin since the vast majority of the Republican caucus voted against relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy.
The thing is, if this cookie crumbles, it won’t crumble just for Boehner. If the caucus splits apart in the way I’ve described, it will pretty much be the end of the GOP as a national party.
Update [2013-2-28 22:56:39 by BooMan]: I see from some of the initial responses to this piece that I have left too much unsaid and therefore too much left to the imagination. So, let me expand on this a little to make clear what different scenarios would look like.
Scenario One: Right-wing Republicans grow frustrated with Speaker Boehner repeatedly violating the Hastert Rule and passing bills that the majority of Republicans oppose. They want to replace Boehner with someone more conservative who won’t violate the Hastert Rule. The problem is that the Speaker is elected by a vote of the entire House, and they must receive an absolute majority. This ensures that a Democrat cannot win unless some Republicans vote for a Democrat, but it also means that moderate Republicans can threaten to do just that. A split in the conference would result in Pelosi winning a plurality and that would force a second vote. It would be on that second vote, or possibly a subsequent vote, that the Speaker would actually be chosen, and it is unlikely that the result would be a more conservative speaker.
Scenario Two: Moderate Republicans get fed up with gridlock and inaction, and decide to cut a deal with the Democrats. All the Democrats will agree to vote for a moderate alternative to Boehner in return for certain concessions. The concessions would probably take the form of ratios on committees, but could conceivably involve changes in the House rules or power-sharing arrangements. It’s hard to say, since this kind of haggling ordinarily occurs only in parliamentary systems.
Scenario Three: Pro-Defense Republicans get fed up with the Sequester and make a deal similar in many respects with Scenario Two. The problem here is that it would require a simultaneous split in the Democratic Party, and this is unlikely to occur, especially in the numbers required for success.
It’s really only Scenario Two that has any chance of happening, and it won’t happen unless and until things deteriorate significantly from where things stand today. However, the template for such a split was seen in the Superstorm Sandy vote and the VAWA reauthorization vote, both of which caused almost unprecedented strain within the GOP caucus with strong regional differences.
Meanwhile, over at another area of the Corner:
Military Rape? Bitches Asked for It
Blech. That was unpleasant.
Worse than unpleasant. But I guess that is what is to be expected from the NRO.
They have the most unpleasant women. It’s unbelievable.
Nice explanation, BooMan. I can’t believe Peter King is a voice of sanity on any issue under the sun, but there it is.
If the caucus splits apart in the way I’ve described, it will pretty much be the end of the GOP as a national party.
I hope that’s the case. I don’t agree it will happen but I hope you’re right.
Great post, Booman. Do you think that, if this coalition were to form, that there’s any chance that they would elect Pelosi Speaker? Or would Steny Hoyer play his hand? Is anyone else in the wings who might be acceptable to such a group?
A Republican would still be speaker.
Presumably one of the rebel Republicans would take control of the faction and demand they be named Speaker.
Right. See update.
A likely candidate is Tom Cole, who seems to be positioning himself.
Wow, that would be interesting. I’m in Oklahoma and been wondering what the heck he’s up to lately.
This happened in Alaska (until last election) and Idaho too, IIRC.
I love these “feel good” posts.
We’ll have our own crumble pie soon enough, when Obama gets behind a deal that cuts programs that are keeping people housed and fed. Drama on the Hill will get more media attention, but soon enough, the Democrats will ask us to show enthusiasm for the Party and will have to win elections without it.
You are aware that President Obama has done more to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from the wealthy to the poor and working-class than any president in over 40 years, yes?
You mean ObamaCare? Have you been paying attention lately?
That. The Recovery Act. Etc.
It’s important for progressives to continue to be dissatisfied at the progress we’ve made, and at the pace of progress.
It’s also important, in my view, for progressives to recognize and claim credit for the victories we’ve won and are winning. Otherwise, people could lose hope of further change…and people without hope do not, in my experience, make change.
Of the many great things that Obama and Democrats have done since 2008, I’m not aware of the transfer of wealth that you speak of. There’s a very modest increase in the top tax rate, but also an increase in payroll taxes. There was the massive taxpayer bailouts that went to TBTF banks and was supposed to trickle down to us but didn’t if you consider personal debt, foreclosures, etc. There’s the removal of some obstacles for buying health insurance, but how that actually gets us health care that we can afford hasn’t yet been explained to me. When I think of Obama’s many accomplishments, transfer of wealth from the top to the rest of us isn’t something that comes to mind.
This may explain your general attitude.
First of all, payroll taxes are the same as they were when Obama took office. Because the GOP would not accede to a second stimulus package in any other form, Obama gave a payroll tax holiday for a couple of years. It expired on New Year’s Day. In other words, most people experienced a payroll tax cut, not a raise.
Secondly, the ACA expands Medicaid to cover anyone up to 133% of the poverty line and subsidizes the purchase of private insurance for people between 133% and 400% of the poverty line. This is the biggest redistribution of wealth the government has accomplished since at least Clinton’s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and possibly since Medicare was enacted.
It would explain a fair bit of it. I’d be interested in a discussion of how to assess Obama on this question of redistribution of wealth. I had forgotten about the payroll tax cut (which I thought was applied too broadly, but anyway, you’re right about that). Expanding Medicaid coverage is another point. I’m not yet convinced that subsidizing the purchase of private health insurance without real cost control and with our disproportionate tax code is actually a redistribution from rich to not-rich. I did think it’s incontrovertible that the rich have fared much better since 2009 in terms of employment, wages, and assets than have the not-rich. So if I’m mistaken, it would be a discussion worth reading.
And now of course the disloyalty has been broached. And it was successful. Next time will come easier.
“And then some bloc of about 20 moderate Republicans (mostly from the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest) could cut a deal with the Democrats to elect a new Speaker.”
What do you rate the chances of this actually happening? The trouble is, I see every one of those Republicans going the way of Arlen Specter in the next election — depending on their districts they’d be dumped either for a Democrat or a harder-right Republican (probably more the latter than the former). I don’t know that I see that many Republican congressmen committing political suicide for the sake of a very temporary shift in the balance of power.
Presumably the rebel Republicans are from purple districts. If they can avoid being primaried, bucking their party’s unpopular positions would probably be a general election strength. That’s what people dream of their politicians doing… bein’ independent and standin’ up for what s/he believes in and stuff! People love that shit.
Have relatives in NY and they say Peter King is toast. He has shown Long Island there is no need to send a repub to DC. Being independent will not save him….Sandy killed his chance for reelection.
Very interesting, if true.
Like I said when I had the same idea (in less detail) on the last thread, the chances of it happening are almost nil. Boehner wants to be in power, so he’s not going to drive the “moderates”‘ (who are not moderate at all) into the arms of the Democrats. I doubt Boehner personally has a problem with any of the three bills passed this way so far, anyway. Even if he did, his own personal desire for power would be more important to him.
That said, the endangered “moderate” dynamic does create a path to get things done in this Congress, and expect more of it. I’m feeling rather optimistic about gun registration and immigration reform at the moment, which is much better than I felt two months ago when I expected nothing whatsoever would get passed by this Congress.
I also suspect Pelosi is rather enjoying her job at the moment.
If the NE and Midwestern R’s toe the Teahadist line, it’s political suicide in the general w/o a primary from the right.
If they spend the next 2 years doing nothing but whining about Obama while wages and UI stagnate, it’s also likely political suicide in many of their districts, w/ or w/o a primary challenge.
So you’re right these R’s run a big risk openly rebelling and working with the Democrats but, IMO, rebelling and taking a Chris Christie posture is the best chance they have to save their seats.
“it will pretty much be the end of the GOP as a national party”
From your lips to God’s ear. Even if this doesn’t happen the possibility of a revolution among the moderate GOP house members might force Boner to break the Hastert rule with more regularity.
Beware becoming a one-party state like Chicago.
Right now I’d file that under: problems we’d be happy to deal with when and if they come to pass. (Kind of like annual inflation rates creeping above 5% in economics. Not necessarily a good thing, but can we first deal with the ongoing 8% unemployment/1% GDP growth crisis that’s been in our faces for the past five years.)
Also, unlikely to happen given the constitutional incentives for two national political parties.
That’s what I thought–Speaker generously agrees to (figure)head the coup against himself. But after yesterday I think he may really be unable to take care of himself.
Gosh, this idea looks familiar.
Political historians will look back and say that Sandy was what destroyed the Republican Party.