Vox Blogoli 2.2: Whither the GOP
Hugh Hewitt asks, "Does the Senate GOP go McClellan or Grant if Harry Reid goes "Gingrich?" This is a lot more important than just pure politics, which is why I'm responding in a tax blog.
First, for the non-Civil War buffs, General McClellan was the first Union Commander of the Army of the Potomac, and was (at best) wishy-washy. General Grant, on the other hand, successfully led the Union and defeated the Confederacy. He might have been an alcoholic, and had other personal problems, but he knew how to lead.
Now, why is this important for tax policy? Let's assume that the judicial nominees make it out of the Judiciary Committee (a safe assumption), and come to a vote on the Senate Floor and the Democrats filibuster (another safe assumption). Now, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said he will go nuclear: interpret the Senate rules so that judiciary votes cannot be filibustered. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has promised, if this occurs, to shut down the Senate. This, if it were to occur, would cause budgeting and tax issues to grind to a halt (which is why I'm interested).
I'm all for the nuclear option, if the Senate Democrats filibuster. In the long-term, this will work for the GOP. The Democrats will be seen (by most of the public) as the party that shut down government, caused benefits to vanish, etc. This will lead to the Democrats getting further marginalized. (Remember what happened when Newt Gingrich shut down the government back in the Clinton years?)
Unfortunately, that's not what I think will happen. No, I don't think the GOP will go McClellan; rather, I expect a compromise. The Democrats don't want the long-term damage. So the Democrats will say to the GOP, "We'll allow votes on half the nominees." And the Republicans will acquiesce. There are enough GOP Senators who don't want to disturb the "Gentleman's Club" of the Senate.
I don't think that's like General McClellan (although it's much more like McClellan than Grant). Unfortunately, I don't know any Generals best known for compromising. Probably a French general....
First, for the non-Civil War buffs, General McClellan was the first Union Commander of the Army of the Potomac, and was (at best) wishy-washy. General Grant, on the other hand, successfully led the Union and defeated the Confederacy. He might have been an alcoholic, and had other personal problems, but he knew how to lead.
Now, why is this important for tax policy? Let's assume that the judicial nominees make it out of the Judiciary Committee (a safe assumption), and come to a vote on the Senate Floor and the Democrats filibuster (another safe assumption). Now, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said he will go nuclear: interpret the Senate rules so that judiciary votes cannot be filibustered. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has promised, if this occurs, to shut down the Senate. This, if it were to occur, would cause budgeting and tax issues to grind to a halt (which is why I'm interested).
I'm all for the nuclear option, if the Senate Democrats filibuster. In the long-term, this will work for the GOP. The Democrats will be seen (by most of the public) as the party that shut down government, caused benefits to vanish, etc. This will lead to the Democrats getting further marginalized. (Remember what happened when Newt Gingrich shut down the government back in the Clinton years?)
Unfortunately, that's not what I think will happen. No, I don't think the GOP will go McClellan; rather, I expect a compromise. The Democrats don't want the long-term damage. So the Democrats will say to the GOP, "We'll allow votes on half the nominees." And the Republicans will acquiesce. There are enough GOP Senators who don't want to disturb the "Gentleman's Club" of the Senate.
I don't think that's like General McClellan (although it's much more like McClellan than Grant). Unfortunately, I don't know any Generals best known for compromising. Probably a French general....