What to think of the current standoff in the state House of Representatives now that House Democrats have exiled themselves, bringing business in the House to a standstill for lack of a quorum?
The House G.O.P. reminds me of one of those receivers that catches a deep pass in the open field, then starts showboating short of the end zone before being stripped by a second-stringer too dumb or stubborn to know the game is supposed to be over. It’s all the more maddening because the guy who stripped the ball is a short dude with bad hair.
For years, it’s been a field position game with the Democrats and Republicans going back and forth across the 50 yard line. The Democrats would have the Governor’s mansion, the G.O.P. would have the Senate and the Congressional delegation, and they’d ebb back and forth with control of the House. Then, the G.O.P. took the Governor’s mansion, but ended up losing the House and Congressional delegation. This year, however, the Republicans connected long – keeping the Governor’s mansion (however gently that house actually gets used), increasing their perpetual majority in the Senate, taking a monstrous 60-40 lead in the House, capturing Bayh’s Senate seat, and taking a 6-3 majority in the Congress.
Publicly, anyway, Gov. Daniels sounded like the seasoned quarterback – when you get to the end zone, act like you’ve been there before. Tone down the social issues, focus on conservative economic priorities, and leave right-to-work alone. Sadly, no. House Republicans seemed to have started their victory dance at about the 20 yard line – a Constitutional Amendment discriminating against gays; lots of abortion stuff; and then, the bridge too far – right to work. That provided the opening for the uninspiring, but undeniably gritty, Pat Bauer to come and strip the ball by staging a walkout. Now, instead of walking into the end zone, the Republicans find themselves facing a goal line stand from about the 2 yard line. They may well punch the ball in anyway, but now they’re going to have to work for it.
All this does not bode well for Mr. Daniels in that he is definitely not in control. A presidential candidate that can not control his own party within the state is unlikely to appeal across the country.
That’s as good an analogy as any.
It’s not unlike the Republican Revolution of ’95. You get into power for the first time in a long time, and you think that you can do anything now. I remember in ’95, seeing Clinton on TV, and thinking, “who cares what he thinks, we WON. It’s all about us, he’s irrelevant.”
Of course, Clinton went on to show just how relevant he continued to be.
I think that we made the same mistake this session, and the D’s schooled us in the finer points of House rules.
Jack, the Republican party is so loose and fluid that no one is really in control of it. I really don’t see what Mitch could do to control what went on this session. He has no hand over Bosma.
Daniels is a lame duck, and he’s been one, certainly, since his Presidential campaign (or “pre-campaign”) became an open secret, but he’s also one of the most powerful ever. He elected a lot of that monstrous majority. He raises a lot of money. He’s put the kibosh on it before. He stifled the religious uprising of 2006. He can’t expend any political capital to do so now because he’s running for President (or “running for President”; at any rate, official or no, national calculations now trump the operation of the state, but then, Mitch is the most calculating governor in any of our lifetimes).
He’s gotten a lot of the party to go along with his charades; now he has to go along with theirs, and occasionally pretend he’s holding his nose while doing so. The bill’s come due; if Hoosier voters had any sense this would’ve been the Session to have some “Democratic” control of state government as a counterbalance.
Like 1995? It’s almost the exact opposite. That was a party coming into power after forty years in the Wilderness, led by a slimy grifter, and whose previous stint had been frittered away. This is a party which has been in de facto control since the Nixon/Bowen landslide of 1972. This is just the return of full control to the ruling powers, led by a savvy religious nut, with the governor off, in both senses.
We’ve just returned to the glory days of Rex Early, John Mutz, and the Burton brothers is all, and they imagine that the public is in a mood for raging wingnuttery. Republicans, and fellow-travelers, who try to tell you this is the aberration are just peddling soap.
And no one controls that wingnuttery in the House — not even Boams.
A few thoughts….
(1) Yes, the Republicans now need to punch it in from the two-yard line, but the Democrats seem to have lost a bit of respect in this flight to Illinois. I think some moderate R’s stood with the Dems when it was about “right to work”, which Republicans had admittedly not campaigned for. Republicans gave in on Right to Work. So now, Dems are saying the flight is about school reform. Well guess what, Republicans DID campaign for school reform, and were elected on that platform (or at least, despite that platform). This means that Dems are no longer fighting for democracy, but against it.
(2) Check out this story: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/26/attacks-spurred-exodus-bauer/
So, Rep. Sullivan wanted to make a change, and that change was defeated by Republicans in a party line vote. How does that constitute an “attack”? My answer is that it doesn’t. These amendments are not a popularity contest, and this is the worst reason you could submit for walking out. Frankly, I am ashamed of Gail Riecken for forwarding it.
3) The damage from this walkout to the Democrats could make it as if the Republicans are about to score their second touchdown, rather than their first.
4) It appears to me that certain Republicans are attempting to advance the issues discussed here (gay marriage, gun rights, right to work, etc). Other, more moderate R’s don’t seem to want these bills, but seem to be forced to vote for or against them. In that situation, they appear to be toeing the party line. The moderates need to get the extreme to stop pushing their agenda.
As to the last, it’s pretty easy. Vote against the bills they don’t think are good ideas. The tribalism of voting for your party, right or wrong, is probably good for winning elections; bad for governing. And, before someone beats me to it, this is not exclusively a Republican problem.
As to whether this is hurting or helping the Democrats, I don’t think we have any reliable way of knowing. I would’ve stopped after the right to work victory. But, I’m a conservative negotiator. In any event, most of the times where I’ve heard concern that this is hurting the Democrats, it’s been from people who are generally more sympathetic to the Republicans. Some are concern trolls. Others are speaking honestly and without ulterior motive, but suffer – as we all do to some extent – from that confirmation bias that Black Bart mentioned in another post.
Just to be clear,what I am trying to say is that (I believe) a bunch of Republicans agree with the Governor that this might be time for a truce and not to worry about social issues. However, when a bill like the same-sex marriage amendment comes up for voting, legislators have no choice but to either shoot it down or to pass it. Well, there goes that truce we were hoping for.
Doug – the “Right to Work Victory” was never a factor in any negotiations. All parties involved knew full well the Senate had no intention of ever moving the Right to Work bill. Daniels tried to offer that one up as a way to look moderate and compromising to the public – knowing full well that he wasn’t giving up anything.
The Democrats tried to explain the walk was not, in fact, only about Right to Work – but about a panoply of labor and education bills. But the union protesters filling the Statehouse were all waving “No RTW” signs, so that’s what the media said the story was about.
By day 2 and 3, the press slowly began to pay attention to what the Dems in Illinois were actually saying about why they walked, and the story got more complicated. The real negotiations are happening now. RTW was always a red herring.
Elections determine what legislation is to be passed? I’d like my single-payer health insurance, please. Retroactive to January 2009.
By the way, somebody needs to explain to me what Indiana Democrats have to lose.
Doghouse is right. Democrats lost their majority in the House, they haven’t had one in the Senate in the memory of anyone who is now alive, and they don’t hold the governorship. And after redistricting, my prediction is that they will have a supermajority in the House to go with the one in the Senate.
This really is their last stand. It certainly has woken up their base, the same one that won the state for Obama. What is the downside? I really don’t see one, and the alternative is just accepting the coming irrelevance.