Republican Party in Turmoil

The Republican Party is in turmoil.  Its leadership has so far chosen to support a presumptive nominee that has used hate, fear and personal attacks to secure enough delegates to be nominated at its upcoming convention.  Does the GOP really want to be the party of Donald Trump?

Does it want to cave to the rebuke Trump challenged them with on Wednesday in campaign a speech Atlanta?  "You know, the Republicans, honestly, folks, our leaders -- our leaders have to get tougher," he said.  "This is too tough to do it alone.  But you know what?  I think I am going to be forced to."  Does the party want to roll over in the face of the stinging criticism it received from Sam Clovis, Trump's campaign co-chair? "Either they want to get behind the presumptive nominee, who will be the nominee of this party, and make sure that we do everything we can to win in November, or we're just asking them if they can't do that, then just shut the hell up," he said.

Following Trump's outrageous statements about an American born judge of Mexican heritage, and his statements about Muslims, he has seen his support among Americans sharply decline.  An astonishing 70 percent of Americans surveyed recently by ABC News now have an unfavorable view of Trump.  Yet Trump intends on doing nothing to address this problem.  Instead, he is using the same narrow strategy that brought him victory in the Republican primaries--attack, divide and bully.  But in order to win in the general election he will need to attract independents, Democrats, women and minorities. 

A growing number of Republicans at all levels are distancing themselves from Trump. Asked to comment on Trump's ridiculous statement that President Obama was responsible for the terrorist massacre in Orlando, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded, "I am not going to be commenting on the presidential candidate today."  Last week, when McConnell was asked who Trump should pick as his running mate, he said, "He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it's pretty obvious he doesn't know a lot about the issues."  

House Speaker Paul Ryan, who announced his support of Trump after many weeks, still has not fully embraced the candidate.  In an interview with NBC News, which will air Sunday, Ryan was asked whether Republicans should follow their conscience?   "The last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that's contrary to their conscience," he said. "I get that this a very strange situation. He a very unique nominee. But I feel as a responsibility institutionally as the speaker of the House that I should not be leading some chasm in the middle of our party. Because you know what I know that'll do? That'll definitely knock us out of the White House," he added.  

Fundraising is now a problem for the Republican Party.  And many major companies that sponsored the GOP's 2012 convention have announced they will not be sponsoring its upcoming convention.  Down-ballot races are now threatened because Trump's behavior is undermining Senate and House candidates across the country.  The problem is so severe that the party has turned to former President George W. Bush, who was very unpopular when he left office, to help save its most vulnerable senators.  

Stopping Trump from becoming the Republican presidential nominee will not be easy at this point.  Trump received more than 13 million votes in the primaries, and he has won more than enough delegates to be nominated.   If the party gives its nomination to someone else, and there is no clear alternative, it will risk revolt.   But would the GOP really be worse off if it did so?

For the past eight years the Republicans have been the party of obstructionism in Congress. Its leadership has allowed a minority of conservatives to dictate the direction of the party no matter the consequences, including shutting the government down.  The leadership has repeatedly said no to compromise with Democrats for fear of upsetting those on its far right.

So it should be no surprise that the party's leadership has not stood up to Donald Trump. His bullying tactics, racist statements and lack of temperament have damaged their brand, and they will do nothing except hope for the best in November's elections.  

In short, Republicans will reap what they have sown.    

Judge Merrick Garland

President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, is described as brilliant and eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court by both Republicans and Democrats.  In making his announcement, President Obama described Garland as, "someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence."   But, unfortunately Garland's superb qualifications will not matter. 

Garland is currently the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court.  He is a native Chicagoan, and was the valedictorian of his high school class.  In 1974, he was valedictorian of his Harvard class, where he graduated with an A.B. summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in social studies.  He then attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 1977 with a J.D. magna cum laude.  He was also a member of the Harvard Law Review.   He was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, and took a job as a federal prosecutor during President George H. W. Bush's administration.  

 In 1993, Garland joined the Clinton administration as deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Subsequently, he did an outstanding job supervising the Oklahoma City bombing prosecutions, the UNABOM prosecution, and the Atlanta Olympics bombing investigation.  President Bill Clinton nominated Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997, and the Senate confirmed him by a 76-23 vote.  The 23 no votes were cast by Republicans who were opposed to an eleventh seat on the D.C. Circuit.   They included Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, who at the time said,  "I have nothing against the nominee.  Mr. Garland seems well qualified, and would probably make a good judge--in some other court." 

Judge Garland is generally viewed as "essentially the model, neutral judge" in his time on the D.C. Circuit.  He has twice been a finalist for open Supreme Court seats, earning praise from Republicans and Democrats.  The law has been a lifelong commitment for Garland, who emotionally described his nomination as "the greatest honor in my life, other than Lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago." 

In selecting Judge Garland, the president fulfilled his constitutional duty: "he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." The Constitution does not say a president cannot nominate a justice if he has less than a year left in his or her presidency.  Nor does it say that the Senate must consider the president's nominee.  However, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 63 percent of Americans believe that the Senate should hold hearings on the president's nominee. 

Shortly following the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abruptly declared, "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”  In an unprecedented move, McConnell said the Senate would not consider a nominee.  In a letter published in USA Today Wednesday, McConnell wrote,  "As Vice President Biden said when he was Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, 'Once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.'” 

Then Senator Joe Biden's remarks were delivered on the Senate floor in June of 1992, after several fierce Supreme Court fights.  Biden also said he would support a future President George Bush nominee.  Last month, Biden released a statement that read, “Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year...This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

Nonetheless, the president, a constitutional lawyer, spent one month reviewing candidates prior to his announcement Wednesday.   "At a time when our politics are so polarized," the president said Wednesday, "this is precisely the time we should play it straight."  Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who has been a supporter of Garland, may have been pleasantly surprised with the president's announcement.  Last week Hatch told Newsmax, "(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man."  He then added,  "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."   Hatch is among a handful of Republican Senators who say they will extend Garland the courtesy of a meeting.  

Because Scalia was such a powerful conservative voice in this nation, Republicans are determined to block Obama from filling the position.  Of course, since Obama's first day in office in 2009, Senator McConnell and Congressional Republicans have done all they can to block the president's agenda.  They have exacerbated the divisions within this country, and regularly played on people's worst fears instead of their hopes and dreams.  They have demonized and often disrespected President Obama.  They have consistently put their political party ahead of their country.   Their tactics have led to the emergence of Donald Trump. In fact, if Garland is not confirmed, the appointment could be filled by President Trump or President Hillary Clinton.

In accepting the president's nomination, a grateful Judge Garland said, "A life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those who he is serving."  He concluded, "there can be no higher public service than serving as a member of the United States Supreme Court."  That may be true, but he may never have a chance to do so.  

Supreme Court Showdown

Once a lame duck president called upon the Senate to, "Join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the U.S. Supreme Court to full strength."  He also called on the Senate for, "Prompt hearings conducted in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship."  In February 1988, eight months before that year's presidential election, the Senate voted 97-0 to confirm President Ronald Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy.  

President Reagan, the founding father of the modern Republican Party, governed recognizing that the American democratic system calls for compromise.   He is quoted as telling aides, "I'd rather get 80 per cent of what I want than go over the cliff with my flag flying."   Reagan and then Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill respectfully worked together in the best interest of the American people, just the way our Founding Fathers had originally envisioned. 

So when conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly earlier this month, President Barack Obama announced his intention to fulfill his constitutional obligation to put forth a Supreme Court nominee.  In a post on the ScotusBlog website Wednesday, the president wrote the person he nominates will the eminently qualified.  "I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda," he wrote, "but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand."

But Senate Republicans announced that there would be a no confirmation hearing and no vote on the president's nominee.  "This nominee will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the polls," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said to reporters Tuesday.  "In short, there will not be action taken."  As a justification, Republicans cited a June 1992 quote from then Senator Joe Biden, who said, "President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed."  However, Biden's comments were not made in February, but rather in late June, shortly before Congress's summer recess.  And Biden was speaking of a possible resignation, not a sudden death. 

Battles between the political parties over Supreme Court nominees have been increasingly contentious in recent history.  Nonetheless, in a shocking and unprecedented move, McConnell said would not even meet with Obama's nominee.  "I don't know the purpose of such a visit," he told reporters.

By making such a move, Senate Republicans are once again showing their utter contempt for President Obama.   More importantly, they are once again demonstrating that their most important priority is winning political victories and settling scores rather than complying with the Constitution.   Republicans think that by calling Obama the most divisive president ever, voters will overlook the fact that it is really the GOP that has been the great divider.  

On the day Obama was first sworn in 2008, Republican leaders held a meeting in which they agreed to block Obama and make him a one term president.  Of course, Republicans have since consistently done all they could to gum up the works.  For instance, they blocked immigration reform, they shut the federal government down in 2012 over whether to raise the federal debt ceiling, they have blocked dozens of important judicial appointments, and they did nothing to silence the Obama birther movement.  

However, as a consequence of endless Republican obstructionism, voters are frustrated and angry with Washington.  This has led to the rise of Donald Trump as a Republican presidential candidate, and a civil war within the party.  Meanwhile, Obama, despite of all the impediments he has faced these past seven years, has made real headway on the economy, banking reform, equal pay for women, health care, and he has kept the country safe.  

The president intends on nominating a replacement for Scalia.  A Fox News poll released Monday found that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe that Obama should make a nomination and the Senate should take action.   Despite their bluster, Senate Republican leaders should allow the president's candidate to be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  If the candidate is affirmed there, the Republican controlled Senate should take up the nomination.  For Senate Republicans to declare that they won't even meet with the candidate goes against the constitution, and it seems childish.  What do they fear?

Perhaps they should reflect on the words of their spiritual leader, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers," Ronald Reagan said.  "We must have the courage to do what is morally right."  

Antonin Scalia and Politics

Antonin Scalia was one of the most influential and consequential justices in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, he was the intellectual anchor for today's conservative movement. His sudden death was a shock to all Americans, especially Republicans, who immediately assumed their battle positions.

The U.S. Constitution specifies (Article II, Section 2) that the president, "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law." Certainly a strict constitutional originalist like Scalia would have agreed that a president with eleven months left in office has the right to nominate someone for the Supreme Court.

Shortly after word of Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who decides what the Senate takes up, said in a statement that President Barack Obama should not nominate a replacement. "The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

This unprecedented message was followed by similar warnings from Republican presidential candidates. Texas Senator Ted Cruz took to Twitter, saying, "Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement." Florida Senator Marco Rubio also said Obama should not nominate a replacement. "The next president must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia's unwavering belief in the founding principles that we hold dear," he said in a statement.

Justice Scalia's death dominated the early portion of Saturday's Republican debate in South Carolina. Minutes before the debate, which aired on CBS, President Obama expressed his condolences to Scalia's family while praising the jurist's "remarkable" life. Then the president said, "I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in -- due time." He continued, "There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote."

The president's comments were fuel for an over-heated and feisty debate atmosphere. Donald Trump warned Senate Republicans to "delay, delay, delay." Cruz said that, "the Senate needs to stand strong and say we're not going to give up the Supreme Court for a generation." Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush called for a "consensus pick," which would be almost impossible to find with a deeply divided Congress.

Republicans feel they own the Scalia court position. Their comments and actions are consistent with the partisan war they have been waging in Washington from the day President Obama was first sworn in to office. For nearly eight years now the first instinct for Republicans in Congress has been to obstruct, block and divide. This, no doubt, plays well with certain segments of the Republican Party. But such tactics have demoralized much of the electorate and have probably led to the rise of Donald Trump.

Why didn't McConnell simply say that should the president offer a nomination, as is his right under the Constitution, the Senate would take it up? After all, the same American people who McConnell says should have a voice twice overwhelmingly reelected President Obama to office. Furthermore, the Constitution does not say the president shall appoint unless he has less than a year left in office.

Republicans would be far wiser to agree to let the process take its course and then focus their attention on defeating the president's nominee in the Senate. This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the rules.

What an appropriate way this would be for Republicans to remember the man who they consider to be the greatest defender of the U.S. Constitution.

The Homeland Security Impasse

 Minnesota's Mall of America was named this past weekend as a possible target of a terrorist attack in a one-hour video released by the militant Somali group al-Shabaab.   Concern about such an attack could not be higher, especially following on the heels of terrorist attacks in France and Denmark.  But that has not deterred congressional Republicans from playing games with America's security.

Republicans promised things would get better if they were put in charge of Congress.  Yet, due to a lack of leadership and seemingly irresolvable differences among their members, they are holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which is set to run out this Friday. 

What kind of game is this?  Well, House Republicans, unhappy with President Barack Obama's executive order on immigration, have attached an amendment to the DHS funding bill that would stop the president's immigration action, which they consider illegal.  The strategy was to have the DHS funding bill pass with the immigration amendment attached.  If the president subsequently vetoed the measure he would be attacked for failing to protect the nation. 

But the Republican measure has not been able to clear the Senate because Republicans do not have enough votes to avoid a filibuster.   Democrats in Congress want a "clean bill" to fund DHS, one without any amendments.  Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.  If DHS funding runs out thousands of its employees will be furloughed, while 170,000 essential personal will have to work without pay.  "We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Monday evening, "We cannot shut down the Department of Homeland Security." 

With Republicans facing increased criticism and blame for the impasse, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proposed an alternative strategy.  He would allow a clean vote on the DHS funding bill, which is for one year, and then have a separate vote on a bill that would stop President Obama's executive actions on immigration.  His goal would be to make Democrats, who did not favor the president's executive action, have to vote on the record.

But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was more concerned that House Republicans would not go along with the proposal.  This is because House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) cannot control his own caucus.  And, sure enough, with McConnell's proposal only hours old, conservative House members spoke out against the gambit.   Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) issued a statement saying, "The Senate Majority Leader’s plan to divorce the funding bill from the unlawful actions it is restricting is tantamount to surrender, and won’t meet with support in the People’s House."

Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the man responsible for the 2013 government shutdown, issued a statement of his own.   "Leadership's current plan -- to pass clean DHS funding and separate legislation barring executive amnesty -- is a mistake," Cruz said. "Congress is obliged to use every constitutional check and balance we have to rein in President Obama's lawlessness, and that includes both our confirmation authority over nominees and the power of the purse."

Last week a Texas federal judge halted implementation of the president's executive order on immigration.  The case is likely to take some time to work its way through the courts.  This has led many observers to wonder why Republicans just don't go ahead with a clean DHS funding bill and let the courts deal with the legality of the president's action on immigration.  

That would seem like common sense, especially considering the increased terrorist threats.  But common sense does not apply in Washington, least of all for congressional Republicans. 

Immigration Man

President Barack Obama took a historic step in announcing he would take far-reaching executive actions to change immigration policy.  He spoke with the confidence of a man who believed he was doing the right thing.  But his actions have set up a major confrontation with Republicans who have accused the president of an abuse of power.

The president's actions, which will go into effect in the new year, will provide relief for up to five million people living illegally in this country.   “The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half-century,” Mr. Obama said. “To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

At the heart of the president's announcement is a new program for undocumented people who have been in the United States for at least five years and are parents of children who are citizens.  Most of them would be eligible for a new temporary legal status that would allow them to work in the country for three years.  However, they must pass criminal background checks and pay taxes.  "I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it's not," the president said in his prime time address from the White House.  "Amnesty is the immigration system we have today -- millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time."

The president also said he would "build on our progress at the border" with additional resources to help further stem with the flow of illegal immigrants.   He added that deportations of criminals are up 80% over the past six years.  "That's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who's working hard to provide for her kids. We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day."

The president also responded to many business leaders by announcing relief for some immigrant workers with special skills.  "I will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed. "

The president did not propose a pathway to citizenship.  Instead, in announcing his actions, the president called upon Congress to act on immigration.   The Senate passed a bi-partisan immigration bill eighteen months ago, but the Republican controlled House has refused to vote on the measure because of divisions within the GOP House membership.  Speaker John Boehner has attempted to cobble together a piecemeal approach to immigration, but his members have refused to act.

It is clear, despite all their outrage, the Republican controlled Congress is not going to pass immigration reform.  Pragmatic members of the party know that Latinos are a large and growing segment of the U.S. population that will play an important role in deciding who is elected president in 2016.  But a large faction of the party has been opposed to a larger solution, instead focusing their efforts on border security.  There are currently more than eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States.  About 40% of them entered through airports and overstayed the visas, according to Congressmen Luis Gutiérrez (D-Il), who is elated with the president's actions.

Republican leaders are not so eleated.  Speaker John Boehner released a video response, "The president has said before that 'he's not the king' and 'he's not an emperor," but he is sure acting like one."  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who helped write the Senate immigration bill, said, "The president's actions now make all of this harder and are unfair to people in our immigration system who are doing things the right way."  Senate Rand Paul (R-Ky) said he would "not sit idly by and let the president bypass Congress and our Constitution."  Earlier, soon to be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell threatened to act, saying, "We're considering a variety of options."

Latinos gathered at the White House, and in cities around the country, to express their support for the president's actions.  Millions of them will soon be able to come out of the shadows of our society and live in peace.  One of them told the Los Angeles Times, "We're going to leave the darkness -- we're going to stop being scared."

The dilemma for Republicans is that if they undo what the president has done they will alienate millions of Latinos and other immigrants.  But that has never stopped them before.
   

Midterm Madness

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and the Republicans are capitalizing on every crisis, foreign and domestic.  With less than two weeks to go before the midterm elections, Republicans are perfectly positioned to win control of the U.S. Senate because the president is unpopular.

Republican Congressional candidates, from North Carolina to Iowa, are running against Barack Obama rather than their opponent.   Turnout in midterm elections is traditionally poor.  All Republicans have to do is mobilize their base by keeping the focus on President Barack Obama, pounding away at him with their message of incompetence and detachment.   If the Democrat base does not turn out, which appears likely, control of the Senate will change hands. 

Nothing mobilizes a population more than fear, and that's where the crises come in.  Republicans have seized on Ebola.   Congressman Louie Gohmert, R-Tx, along with other members of Congress, has called for a travel ban on citizens traveling from Western Africa to the United States.  The president has said he is open to the idea, but is currently relying on the judgment of most medical experts who say such a ban would be counterproductive.  "This president, I guarantee you, we're going to find out, he has cut a deal with African leaders.  They're going to bring people in," Ghomert told conservative media host Sean Hannity. 

It was noteworthy that Congressional Republicans raced back to the Capitol from their break for a hearing on the Ebola crisis, yet they have been unwilling to debate the issue of America's response to ISIS, the Islamic terrorist group that has threatened much of the Middle East.  Instead, they have attacked the president for his lack of leadership in handling the ISIS crisis.   

There is no question that most Americans are weary of Washington gridlock.  A recent poll found that 70% of "likely voters" disapprove of Congressional Republicans, while 61% disapprove of Congressional Democrats.  Meanwhile, 53% disapprove of the president's performance.  No wonder most voters will stay home on November 4. 

This election is not about issues--it is about politics.  Polls show that a majority of Americans would not repeal Obamacare.  In a moment of candor, Ohio Governor John Kasich, a potential Republican presidential candidate, was asked about repealing Obamacare.  "That's not going to happen," he told the Associated Press.  "The opposition to it was really either political or ideological...I don't think that holds water against flesh and blood, and real improvement in people's lives."  Later in comments to the Washington Post, Kasich, perhaps realizing he had been too honest, said he would repeal Obamacare.  "If the House and Senate (are controlled by Republicans) and we have a Republican president, Obamacare will be repealed flat out," he said.  "And it will be replaced."  Kasich was back on message.

Obamacare has been a big success in Kentucky, where it is a state exchange known as Kynect.  Yet, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, who is in a tight race for reelection in that state, denounced Obamacare in a recent debate.  "The best interest of the country would be achieved by pulling out Obamacare, root and branch," he said.  "Now with regard to Kynect, it's a state exchange.  They can continue it if they'd like to.  They'll have to pay for it because the (federal) grant will be over."  These remarks were no doubt unsettling for the more than 400,000 Kentuckians who have signed up for health insurance through Kyneck.  But McConnell is more interested in the politics of the issue. 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, also a likely Republican presidential contender, had a moment of candor when he expressed frustration with all the talk of increasing the minimum wage to the Chamber of Commerce, a largely Republican group.  “I’m tired of hearing about the minimum wage,” Christie said. “I really am. I don’t think there’s a mother or a father sitting around the kitchen table tonight in America saying, ‘You know, honey, if our son or daughter could just make a higher minimum wage, my God, all of our dreams would be realized.’ ”  Democrats have been leading efforts to increase the minimum wage across the country as a way to address income inequality.  But Christie was clearly more interested in the politics of the room he was addressing.

Should the Republicans win the Senate this election, they will control both houses of Congress for the next two years.  The result will be further gridlock, more partisanship, and more frustration for all Americans.  But the Republicans will have what they want most, a political victory.  

The 2014 Midterm Elections

With less than 10 weeks to go before the midterm Congressional elections Americans in general are frustrated with Washington.  National polls show that about three quarters of all Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job.  By comparison, about half of those Americans polled disapprove of President Barack Obama's handling of his job. 

Sunday's New York Post reported that 163 laws have been passed and signed by the president since this two-year term of Congress began in January 2013.  That is far lower than the 284 laws that were passed by the 2011-2013 session, which is an all time record for fewest bills passed.  Congress passed 386 laws during the 2009-2011 session.   Former Representative Lee Hamilton (R-IN) told the Post, "I've never seen it any worse in terms of public esteem for the Congress.  I can't find anybody who says a good word about it."

Despite Congress's lack of productivity, and as outrageous as it may seem, it appears that most incumbents will be reelected in November.   Conventional wisdom is that while most Americans want to get rid of Congress, they nonetheless support their own representative.  This is especially true during midterm elections because voter turnout is often very low, which gives incumbents an advantage.  But both parties are leaving nothing to chance, as a record amount of campaign dollars will be poured into this election, surpassing the $3.6 billion spent in 2010.   

Republicans currently hold a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, 233-199; there are three vacant seats.  The GOP expects to expand its majority in the House.  Meanwhile, Democrats currently hold a majority in the Senate.  But of the 36 Senate seats in play, 21 of them held by Democrats, while 15 are held by Republicans.  If the GOP picks up six Senate seats this midterm they will be in the majority in both houses of Congress.  Most experts, including Nate Silver, of the election site FiveThirtyEight, give Republicans a slight edge to take those seats and become the majority party in the Senate.  

The Republicans are targeting the seven Democratic seats that are up in states where Mitt Romney beat President Obama in the 2012 presidential election.  They are also going after four additional Democratic seats in states where the president remains unpopular.  Republicans will do all they can to make this election about President Obama's unpopularity. 

Domestically the president has been attacked for executive actions he has taken to bypass the blockade that Congress has become.  For example, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who himself has presidential aspirations, has regularly attacked the president, telling Fox News "He believes somehow that he's become a monarch or an emperor that can basically ignore the law and do whatever he wants."  On the other hand, Republicans have attacked President Obama for being disengaged and "leading from behind" on foreign policy.  The president's recent comment the he does not have a strategy on dealing with ISIS in Syria was seized upon by Republicans.  Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), said on CBS Sunday,  "What I want to hear from the president is that he has a strategy to finish ISIS off, to defeat ISIS."

Congressional and Senate Democratic candidates have tried to localize their elections, but Republicans are focusing on President Obama in an effort to energize their base.  So Democrats are trying to mobilize minority voters,  especially African-Americans, who generally don't vote in midterms.  Party activists are using the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., and conservative calls to impeach the president, to mobilize Blacks.  An increase in the number of Southern Blacks helped Democrats during the 1998 midterm election, when President Bill Clinton was under heavy fire from the right.

Ironically, the one Republican Senator who is in the toughest fight to be reelected is the man who has the most to gain if Republicans win majority control.  Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the Senate minority leader, has done all he can to obstruct and block the agenda of President Obama since the day he was sworn in to office in 2009.  McConnell is facing a vigorous challenge from Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.  McConnell is not popular in Kentucky, but a recent state poll shows he has the edge.  Lundergan Grimes is making McConnell's failings in Congress the issue.  But McConnell is tying his opponent to President Obama.  

Should Republicans take control of both houses the legislative process will grind to a halt.  Anything the Republicans pass, like efforts to defund Obamacare, will be vetoed by the president.  Meanwhile, congressional investigations into the so-called scandals surrounding the IRS and Benghazi will intensify.  The partisan divide will widen as Republicans try to score points before the 2016 Presidential Elections.   

Because so much is at stake, this coming election day is not a time for eligible voters to stay home.

Fix the Glitches

The government shutdown was a misguided and senseless tactic that cost American taxpayers at least $24 billion and damaged the Republican brand.  But the error-plagued rollout of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has given the GOP a way to change the conversation.

Senator Ted Cruz's reckless strategy to defund Obamacare was never going to succeed.  But he knew that.  However, the ambitious Cruz saw it as tremendous opportunity to galvanize Tea Party members behind his leadership.   And, while moderate Republicans call his maneuvers a "fool's errand," there is no question Cruz has now won the loyal support of many on the right.

Yet many Republicans are shaking their heads in frustration because the Cruz shutdown has taken attention away from Obamacare's problems.  "The fiasco of rollout has been obscured because of this internecine strife that's been going on in the Republican Party," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Sunday on CNN.  "Keep up the fight against Obamacare, but don't shut down the government and have so much collateral damage to innocent Americans."

However, out of the GOP wreckage will quickly emerge an all out attack against the problem-plagued launch of Obamacare.  On CBS's Face the Nation Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called Obamacare,  "The worst piece of legislation passed in the last half century...we need to get rid of it." He claimed that even if one can get on the site, they will find fewer choices and higher costs.

Democrats recognize that the faulty rollout is an issue ripe for exploitation.   Last week on MSNBC, Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called it, "Excruciatingly embarrassing for the White House and for the Department of Health and Human Services." On ABC's This Week, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the problems "unacceptable."  She added, "This has to be fixed, but what doesn't have to be fixed is the fact the tens of millions of more people will have access to affordable healthcare, quality healthcare.  That no longer having a preexisting medical condition will bar you from getting affordable care." 

The White House and HHS have had years to prepare for the launch of Obamacare.  All along they have said that Republicans oppose it because Americans will fall in love with it once it is available.  But now the architects of President Obama's signature legislative achievement are vulnerable to attack and relentless scrutiny from Congressional Committees.  Republicans would like nothing more than to turn Obamacare against Democrats in the 2014-midterm elections.

Already Republican Chairmen Fred Upton, of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has announced he will investigate.  "It is well past time for the administration to be straight and transparent with the American people," he said in a statement last week.  For instance, how many millions of dollars were spent to design the error plagued software?  Whose fault is it that the program has failed?

President Obama is expected to address the health care glitches on Monday.  While making health care accessible for all remains a worthy goal, and millions of people have already tried to learn more about the offerings, the problems must be quickly remedied.  If the president fails to make that happen, Obamacare may damage his ability to achieve any further legislative successes.

Mr. Obama has already stated his intention to pivot onto the difficult and complex issue of immigration reform.  He has also indicated he is interested in achieving a budget deal with Republicans that will include infrastructure, tax and entitlement reform.   But the problems with Obamacare will weaken his position.

Republicans are mindful of the words once spoken by the president's former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Cruz Control

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is rallying the conservative base of the Republican Party with a simple message.  "A significant amount of Republicans assume, with an impasse, that President Obama will never ever give up his principles, so Republicans have to give up theirs," Cruz said Tuesday evening at a town hall meeting. "If you have an impasse, you know -- one side or the other has to blink. How do we win this fight? Don't blink."   But the ambitious Cruz knows better, and so do many in the Republican Party.  

The ever-cocksure Cruz has set his sites on defunding Obamacare at all costs.  "Under no circumstances will I vote for a continuing resolution that funds even one penny of Obamacare," Cruz said in his town hall remarks.  But a continuing resolution is necessary to provide funds for the federal government to operate.  If Congress fails to act in a timely manner it risks shutting down the government.

A growing number of leading Republicans are opposed to this strategy because they believe that the GOP will be blamed for the consequences.   "I think it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of," Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said last month.  "I'm for stopping Obamacare, but shutting down the government will not stop Obamacare," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told a Kentucky town hall meeting earlier this month.  And Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., commissioned a Congressional Research Service report that shows that the health care law would get its funding even if the rest of the government shuts down.

Former John McCain presidential campaign aide Nicolle Wallace said on MSNBC Wednesday,  “The reason we’re going to lose this debate about defunding Obamacare is because we don’t occupy the White House."  She added, “We don’t have the ability to pass laws and then sign them. The best way to win this fight is to elect a Republican president.”  Wallace also denounced Cruz for doing "a whole lot of fear mongering" and being "intellectually dishonest" when he was asked at a recent event about impeaching the president.  She said Cruz responded, "Because we don't have the votes (in Congress)."  Wallace bluntly corrected the senator, "The true answer, the intellectually honest answer: Because he’s not committed an impeachable offense."

Senator Cruz is on a crusade to become president.  He has deftly deflected criticism that he may not qualify because he was born in Canada.  Most constitutional scholars appear to agree he does in fact qualify because his mother is American, though it says nothing about persons with a dual citizenship.  Cruz said in a statement Monday,  "Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American."  Ironically, President Obama's qualifications for office are still questioned by some who wrongly believe he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, even though his mother was American.   Perhaps leading "Birther" mogul Donald Trump should make a ruling? 

Bertrand Russell once wrote, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are always cocksure and the intelligent are always filled with doubt. "  But Senator Cruz is not stupid, and he knows it.  He exudes self-confidence and swagger.  Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, who taught Cruz, told The Daily Caller this past May, “Without a doubt he is among the smartest students I’ve ever had… I’ve had great students but he has to be at the top of anyone’s short list, in terms of raw brain power.” 

Senator Cruz knows that if he can win over the conservative wing of his party with stirring speeches, he will be in a formidable position for the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.  This strategy may indeed secure him the nomination.  However, Cruz is smart enough to realize that he will have to move more to the center on health care, immigration, and social issues in order to attract the number of independent voters needed to win the White House.   No doubt, he will have no problem doing that. 

Conservatives, take off your blinders, and don't blink!

Debt Ceiling Showdown

No wonder Congress is so unpopular. Last year's House and Senate teamed up to be the most ineffective Congress in decades. Sadly, the new Congress looks like it is going to underperform its predecessor.

In the next few weeks, Congress must decide whether to raise the debt ceiling. Under law, the debt ceiling limits the U.S. Treasury's authority to borrow money to pay for decisions already enacted by Congress and the president. In other words, the government needs Congress's approval to raise money to pay its bills.

If Congress fails to raise the debt limit, America will be in default. In 2011, the rancorous debate over raising the debt limit caused bond-rating agencies to downgrade America's credit. Though the debt ceiling was raised, the government (i.e. taxpayers) had to pay higher interest on money it borrowed.

The near crisis also had an adverse affect for America in the global markets.
So here Americans are again, after surviving the end of the world, supposedly predicted by the Mayans, and after avoiding the fiscal cliff, on the verge of yet another financial crisis. The fact that Republicans would use raising the debt ceiling as "leverage" to secure deep budget cuts, largely in entitlement programs, is irresponsible.

In his appearance on ABC's This Week Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ruled out additional tax increases as part of a debt ceiling or deficit reduction deal. "That's behind us. Now the question is, what are we going to do about the biggest problem confronting our country and our future? And that's our spending addiction. It's time to confront it," Senator McConnell said. "The president surely knows that. I mean, he has mentioned it both publicly and privately. The time to confront it is now." Senator McConnell indicated he would not approve action on the debt ceiling without sizable budget cuts.

But, in his weekly radio address, the president, who was able to get Congress to pass tax increases on high-income earners, was adamant about not using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip. "One thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they've already racked up," President Obama said. "If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game."

America is in the midst of a slow recovery. Unemployment is still unacceptably high, and consumers are wary of the future. Yet who can blame them given Congress's erratic behavior. Most Americans feel a responsibility to pay back the money they owe in a timely manner. They full well know the consequences of failing to do so, including having their credit rating reduced.

If Congress fails to act it risks another downgrade of U.S. Treasury bonds. Brian Kessler, of Moody's Analytics, told MarketWatch, "For the last 60-ish years, U.S. Treasury bonds have been the foundational rock of the entire world financial markets. A second downgrade could be like an earthquake on that financial rock." He added, "I'm very nervous that people in Washington don't really take that seriously enough."

In the 2011 debt ceiling debate, The Economic Policy Institute said that failure to raise the limit would create, "a massive shock to the economy." It further warned, "Social Security checks would be cut, doctors would not be reimbursed in full for seeing Medicare and Medicaid patients, and private contractors doing business with the federal government would not be paid." Ditto for 2012.

Making matters even more complicated are upcoming debates over the "sequester" spending cuts to defense and domestic spending, agreed to as part of the 2011 debt ceiling deal, and a stopgap bill that will likely be needed in March to keep the government operating.

Congressional Republicans must act responsibly by putting country ahead of partisan politics. They must vote to raise the debt ceiling. American cannot endure another self-inflicted wound from Congress.

The U.S. Constitution defines the powers it grants Congress. They include: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling it will weaken the country and fail to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
  

GOP: A New Direction

As members of the Republican Party reflect on their losses at the polls November 6, they should do so with complete honesty and a commitment to play a constructive role in effective governance.  Their first step should be to get their house in order.  

The Republican Party under Reince Priebus was a failure.  His leadership during this past election was characterized by distortion and deception.  His incessant reliance on talking points and mean-spirited attacks did not elevate the debate nor inspire his troops.  Not only did he miscalculate how Mitt Romney would do Election Day, Romney failed to carry Priebus's home state of Wisconsin.    

Supporters credit him with cutting the RNC's debt in half, and increasing the party's donor base.  Priebus sent an email to committee members notifying them he intends to run again in January, but barely mentioned Romney's defeat and the loss of Senate seats.  Instead, he praised the RNC's get out the vote effort, even though Romney received fewer votes than Senator John McCain did four years earlier.

Preibus has not owned up to his role in voter suppression, an effort that backfired.  This tactic was based on the old axiom that if the voter turnout is large the Democrats win.  There were also allegations of voter registration fraud involving Strategic Allied Consulting, a firm the RNC retained for $1.3 million before being forced to terminate the contract.  At the time, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said, "It's not hard to connect the dots here -- each of these cases is directly connected to Chair Reince Priebus, who as Chair of the RNC hired the firm headed by Nathan Sproul, a longtime Republican consultant with a known history of alleged voter registration fraud."  

Senate Republicans should replace their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.  He has consistently put partisan politics ahead of working on a bipartisan basis with President Barack Obama.  Prior to the 2010-midterm elections, Senator McConnell famously threw down the gauntlet.   In an interview with the National Journal, the senator said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  If Congress actually accomplished something, he reasoned, it would make the president look good.

Republicans became the party of roadblocks.  Republicans have had effective control of the Senate since the beginning of President Obama's first term.  While they did not have a majority in the Senate, they had enough seats to keep Democrats from getting the required 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.   And under Senator McConnell's leadership Republicans shattered all previous records for using filibusters.  According to the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, "There were more filibusters between 2009 and 2010 than there were in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's combined."  In the election earlier this month Republicans lost seats to the Democrats, although not enough to end a filibuster by that party.

A mandate is in the eye of the beholder.  Democrats say the election gave the president a mandate, especially for raising taxes on the rich, while Republicans disagree.  No matter, Americans voted for a divided government, where Democrats control the White House and the Senate, and Republicans control the House of Representatives.  It was as if the voters were saying, "Alright guys, enough with the gridlock, get back in there and get something done."  

Meanwhile, government is on the edge of a fiscal cliff, which Congress created.  If no action is taken by the end of the year automatic spending reductions will kick in and all of the Bush tax cuts will expire.  That will mean the tax bill for the average household will increase by several thousand dollars, which will snuff out America's already anemic economic recovery.   

So the second thing Republicans should do is to take the high ground in the debate on the impending fiscal crisis.  They should agree to the president's proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy, while putting in place some tax reforms.  Republicans should show they are willing to compromise for the good of the country.  To do otherwise would garner blame for a Republican party that is already flat on its back from a staggering defeat on election day.  

It is time for the Republican Party to end its failed era of obstructionism.  Elections do have consequences.