What comeback?
Not too many weeks ago much of the gab in Washington was about Barack Obama’s doomed presidency. His job approval ratings were in a free fall, Democrats got their corn creamed in the mid-term congressional elections and the atmosphere inside the Beltway resembled the scenes in “Gone With The Wind” where everybody’s trying to get out of Atlanta ahead of Sherman’s marauding Yankees.
That was then, this is now: Obama’s the “comeback kid” after Democrat majorities in the lame-duck Congress passed some items on his wish list — just before the dreaded Republicans take over the House and bulk up in the Senate. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed, the New START arms control treaty was ratified and a new health care package for 9/11 first responders was created. Obama called it proof Democrats and Republicans can work together — under his leadership, of course — and scooted off to Hawaii for a luau. Stories appeared in The Washington Post, New York Times and on Web sites marveling at Obama’s resurgence. Amazing, right? Uh, no.
Lest we forget, Obama also absorbed a tax deal with Republicans that has ‘em rioting over at Moveon.org, and he and his Hill allies retreated on a gargantuan spending bill. DREAM Act legislation creating a citizenship path for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as children, coveted by Obama, fizzled. As for Obama’s victories, the DADT repeal and New START both had significant Republican support all along. It’s not like Obama rose up and decreed their passage. Besides, as Jennifer Rubin writes on her Washington Post blog, Republicans wouldn’t trade victories on taxes, spending and the DREAM Act for wins on DADT and the treaty — “not in a million years.”
So has Obama got the “mojo” back? Unclear. Passing stuff with the help of a bunch of Democrats who won’t be back next month is hardly an objective test. Let’s see how things go when the 112th Congress comes to town before we start laying it on about comebacks.
Senator No’s dilemma
Just about everyone knows U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn is known around Washington as “Senator No,” for the times he single-handedly has blocked what he considers wasteful federal spending and legislation funded by borrowing. In the clubby atmosphere of the Senate it’s an awkward roost — except that Coburn doesn’t care a whit about the institution’s you-scratch-my-back, I’ll-scratch-yours expectations.
Things get a little harrier when there’s an issue that attracts attention beyond the Beltway, such as legislation creating a health care package for 9/11 first responders. Coburn was opposed mostly because the spending wasn’t offset and because it bore the aroma of a new entitlement. Supporters easily morphed that position into attacks that Coburn didn’t care about first responders. Eventually, a compromise was worked out, but not before Coburn was portrayed as a heartless villain.
The issue illustrates one of Coburn’s main points about Washington: You can’t cut anything. Yes, we know the bill’s not paid for, it was said. But the first responders are sooo deserving. Guess what: The same can be said of just about every Washington program. Each has a deserving constituency. No one’s more consistent than Sen. Coburn in their opposition to that way of thinking. If it occasionally lands him in hot water from a PR standpoint, so be it. He doesn’t care much about PR, either.
At odds
Seeing published remarks by Marine Corps Commandant James F. Amos, talking negatively about the possible repeal of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays serving openly in the military, a question comes to mind: What are Amos’ plans after military service? It’s not the first time Amos has questioned the wisdom of repealing DADT (as the policy is known inside the Beltway). You’ve got to wonder how many times Amos can be publicly at odds with President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen on DADT before he gets word that he’s been invited to a wonderful retirement ceremony at Quantico.
Speaking to newspaper and wire service reporters, Amos said combat service requires such a focus that no distractions can be permitted. He said repealing the policy would harm unit cohesion. A Defense Department survey of armed services personnel found 58 percent of Marine combat unit members said repealing DADT would be a negative (compared to 48 percent in Army combat units). “The Marines came back and they said, ‘Look, anything that’s going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,’ ” Amos said. “I don’t want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I’ll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital … Marines are up there with no legs, none. We’ve got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs.” Amos adds that if higher ups repeal the policy he’ll salute and move smartly to implement changes. But the odds are rising he won’t get that chance.
Waterworks
John Boehner, the next speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, admits he’s a pretty emotional guy. In a segment with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Boehner breaks up a couple of times and tells Lesley Stahl, “What you see is what you get.” The mere mention of children, U.S. security, the “American Dream” — his ascendancy to the speakership from working as the night janitor at a bar — all break Boehner up. He’s not ashamed of it, telling Stahl he’s comfortable in his own skin. As mentioned in another post, Boehner will be the sharp contrast with Barack Obama, our Cool Cat president. Yet, what of a leader whose face, at a moment’s notice, looks like it’s being melted by a heat dish? Maybe Boehner will liberate a lot of closet-crying men out there, tough guys who need help being comfortable in their own skins. Stahl thinks America will like Boehner’s crying. Maybe. Or maybe, after a few months of a watery-eyed Boehner, we’ll all wish former Marine/actor R. Lee Ermey would stop by Boehner’s office with a box of tissues.
Non-optimal optics
Let’s see: You’re the president of the United States, in the unenviable position of having to defend your tax plan against your own party. So you call in the Big Tuna of re-enforcements: former President Bill Clinton. The two of you meet, you set your stra-tee-gery (as W. liked to say it) and you go out to meet the press, which is in a froth for some red meat. Things are going well. The big guy has ‘em eating out of his hand, and in the process he’s letting Democrats know they better back your tax deal or risk being blamed for unleashing the economy from hell on America. But then a question comes your way, you check your watch and announce you’ve got to leave. The first lady is waiting. You head for the briefing room door, leaving the Tuna with the press while America gets the idea Mrs. Obama is tugging your leash. The optics? Not so good.
The last shriek?
U.S. House Democrats say the White House’s tax compromise with Republicans is a bridge too far for them. On Thursday the Democratic caucus held a non-binding vote rejecting President Obama’s tax deal that would keep income tax rates where they’ve been for the better part of the past decade. The deal also would temporarily lower the payroll tax and extend unemployment benefits. The last shriek of a House Democratic majority that’s about to go poof, or a rallying cry for progressives and liberals throughout the land? If taxes go up on all Americans in January, the backwash against Democrats might be fearful. “A clear majority of the U.S. House of Representatives supports this plan,” Rep. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, said in a statement. “We are allowing the liberal wing of the Democratic caucus to hold these critically needed tax cuts hostage.” Maybe, but not for long. Even if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her loyalists fight it out on last stand hill, you’ve got to think the new Republican majority’s first agenda item will be taxes.
Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood
The incoming chairman of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee is … Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky. Rogers is the pick of the Republican steering committee over Rep. Jerry Lewis of California in a contest between two veteran appropriators. The full GOP caucus was scheduled to vote on all chairmen Wednesday. Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia was favored for appropriations by tea party groups, but really, it was Rogers vs. Lewis — who would’ve needed a waiver of GOP term-limit rules on committee chairmen to take the gavel. In terms of the recent elections, neither Rogers nor Lewis looks especially responsive to the anti-Washington, anti-spending wave that rolled through in last month’s elections. Both are Beltway insiders, and cynics have a point when they say each has piled up so many earmarks during their careers that entrusting either with the helm of the House’s chief spending committee looks dubious — that is, if the idea is to cut federal spending. Rogers has said he got the message on spending from the mid-terms. We’ll see.
Issue of conscience
If Congress repeals the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that effectively bars gays from serving openly in the armed forces, no one will be more affected than the military’s chaplains. The Pentagon’s report on the potential effects of repealing the policy notes that some chaplains “condemn in the strongest possible terms homosexuality as a sin and an abomination, and inform us that they would refuse to in any way support, comfort, or assist someone they knew to be homosexual.” Not all chaplains feel that way, of course, but clearly a policy change would have ramifications for the spiritual role chaplains play. Among those most opposed to lifting the policy are Catholic chaplains, ministering to service members who comprise about 20 percent of the armed forces, according to The Washington Post.
It’s hard to predict what will happen if the policy is changed. Most likely, some chaplains will welcome the change, others will adjust and still others will leave the service rather than do anything they would consider a faith compromise. “If there’s no protection for the chaplain to be able to speak according to his faith group, that might affect the number of chaplains we recruit or our ability to do our duty for the troops,” the Rev. Douglas Lee, a retired Presbyterian Air Force chaplain and brigadier general, told The Post.
Voice in the wilderness
This week U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe reportedly was the only member of the Senate’s Republican caucus voting against a moratorium on earmarks — the process by which members of Congress designate federal spending on specific projects in their states and districts. Sen. Lisa Murkowski missed the vote because she’s in Alaska awaiting the conclusion of her re-election race but says she would’ve voted against the ban if she had been around.
As he’s explained many times, Inhofe believes the earmark moratorium is a lot of hot air over a relatively small amount of money (2 percent to 3 percent of total federal spending). And besides, he argues, the legislative branch is constitutionally empowered to appropriate funds. So, no, he’s not concerned about being a lone wolf on earmarks.
Nor on other stuff, either. He was an early opponent to the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade bill and his stalwart crusade against anti-global warming measures has earned plenty of bile from advocates. No matter. One of Inhofe’s favorite stories is about how he jetted to last year’s big climate change conference in Denmark, basically parachuting into Copenhagen for a couple of hours to be a one-man band in opposition — surrounded by a sea of people who didn’t agree with him. You need a tough hide to play the role of a voice crying out in the wilderness. Inhofe’s most certainly is.
The appropriations helm
Don’t pay as much attention to pronouncements from House Speaker-to-be John Boehner on controlling federal spending as to who ends up in charge of the new Republican House’s Appropriations Committee. Appropriations is where the nuts-and-bolts decisions on spending will be made and already there’s lots of jockeying for that chairmanship. The eventual winner either could be a great help to national GOP leaders on spending or an incredible hindrance.
According to Politico, former approps chairman Jerry Lewis of California wants another swing at the job. But that would require waiving the party’s term-limits rules. Lewis is known around Washington as the consummate appropriator — which is to say, the kind of insider who generally fared poorly in congressional elections earlier this month. Lots of Republicans and tea partiers want someone else to chair the committee, someone who will hold the line on earmarks and overall spending. After all, both were major themes in the just-concluded campaign.
But if not Lewis, who? Kentucky’s Harold Rogers would be next in line, but he, too, is a long-time committee member — whose commitment to spending restraint is automatically suspect. Politico reports Rogers is vowing allegiance to an earmarks ban and other reforms. And, big surprise, Rogers has been saying that waiving the term-limits rule would be a big mistake. It’ll be interesting to see how the leadership race pans out — Boehner will play a huge role — and whether fiscal hawks like Arizona’s Jeff Flake land spots on the committee. Certainly, both questions will be watched carefully by voters expecting change, not more of the same old, same old.
