When Will the Shutdown Talk Get Shut Down?

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

August 14, 2013

When Will the Shutdown Talk Get Shut Down?

The issue with this threatened government shutdown is the same as all the preceding ones: If the federal government is shut down, and public opinion turns against Republicans . . . then what? What's Plan B?

Yes, I know that ideally, given a choice between defunding Obamacare and a government shutdown, President Obama would fold and accept defunding in order to keep the government open. But let's recognize that no president will ever de-fund legislation named after himself.

Karl Rove discussing this idea on Sean Hannity, notes that the last government shutdown effectively ended the Gingrich Revolution. (Republicans kept control of the House until 2006, but one could argue that their desire and drive to cut spending died pretty quickly after 1995.)

"This time around when the government runs out of money on September 30, it runs out of money for all the discretionary parts of the government. So the military isn't going to get paid, FBI agents are not going to get paid. Border Patrol people aren't going to get paid. Anything that requires discretionary outlays is not going to get paid." He predicts a slew of heart-rending stories about military families struggling without pay, necessary medical procedures not being performed, and so on.

Senator Mike Lee insists that it's a false choice; that the Republicans would be passing a budget to fund everything except Obamacare, and it would force Senate Democrats to say that they would rather shut down the government than give up Obamacare. Rove doubts that the Senate Democrats will cave; he predicts they'll just amend the legislation to fund everything, including Obamacare, and then send it back to the House and dare Republicans to reject that.

"You mean to suggest that we're not going to fight and we shouldn't fight just for the reason we're going to get blamed for it?" Lee said. "We're afraid that the other side won't cave, so we have to? We cave and we cave and we cave. And we get Obamacare, and we get new entitlement programs that never go away. This is how we get into trouble."

There's an oft-cited apparently apocryphal anecdote, mentioned in The Hunt for Red October, of Hernán Cortés burning his ships after reaching the New World, in order to ensure his men were highly motivated. A certain portion of the GOP grassroots wants that kind of all-or-nothing brinksmanship, to put all of their remaining chips into the middle of the table and bet it all on winning one fight. You win, you win big -- i.e., President Obama, capitulating in humiliation, signing legislation to repeal his signature domestic policy achievement. The problem is that if you lose, you lose big.

Lee contends that Rove's scenario amounts to "the other side is going to try to blame something bad on us." Except that a government shutdown will garner coverage that makes the Fiscal Cliff look like a handicapped ramp. It will be like the sequester doomsday talk, except that the doomsday talk will be largely right, at least in the short term. The consequences of a government shutdown would be felt immediately and be widespread.

For what it's worth, Senator Lee is completely, totally convinced that if the government shuts down, Republicans will win the messaging fight. I'd rather live in a world where he's right. But I don't think he's right.

This may be moot, as Bob Costa is about as plugged into the House Republicans as any man alive, and his sources say buckets of cold water are being tossed onto this idea:

My cloakroom sources tell me they're now confident that House Republicans will not tread into a shutdown battle with the Obama White House. GOP firebrands may threaten a shutdown and theatrically insist it remains an option, but the party's private appetite for one, even among the right flank, is dissipating. "The electorate expects Congress to govern," explains pollster David Winston, a longtime adviser to the House leadership. "House Republicans are going to offer their health-care alternatives within that process."

The House leadership's aversion to the tea-party plan is driven not only by strategy but also by the fear that having a debate on tactics would devolve into a Republican civil war. Boehner and Cantor, in conversations with fellow members, have reportedly warned that a shutdown would almost undoubtedly end in intraparty strife, owing to the Senate's Democratic majority. To pass a vote on defunding Obamacare, Republicans would need 14 Senate Democrats to join them, and if Democrats declined, all blame, the thinking goes, would fall back on the House GOP for refusing to pass legislation to fund federal services. In all likelihood, Republicans would then be pressured to rush through a continuing resolution, only to get hit with recriminations and chaos in the wake of a shutdown.

But Conn Carroll points out that congressional Republicans' leverage on another spending fight is based upon the same basic principle as Lee's Obamacare gambit: Make some concessions or we won't fund anything:

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is also on record threatening not to raise the debt limit unless Obama agrees to dollar-for-dollar spending cuts. On July 24, Boehner said, "We're not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending. It's as simple as that." "I believe the so-called Boehner Rule is the right formula for getting that done," he added, referring to his rule matching new debt authority with spending cuts.

House Republicans can't announce they are willing to surrender on Obamacare funding in the CR because they are afraid they will be blamed for a government shutdown, and then turn right around and threaten not to raise the debt limit unless Obama agrees to more spending cuts. There is no reason anyone should take them seriously.

If anything, a government shutdown is much safer ground to fight on. Hitting the debt limit would trigger far harsher consequences than a government shutdown.

If Republicans in Washington don't want to fight Obamacare through the CR, that's fine. But they shouldn't then pretend that Obama and the Democrats should take their debt limit threats seriously at all.

Keeping You Abreast of San Diego Mayor Bob Filner's War on Women

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner's record of objectifying women is becoming so glaring, creepy, and widespread that he's no longer welcome at the local Hooters.

That sounds like a joke, but no, really:

Description: View image on Twitter

As Francis Barazza, the executive director of the Republican party of San Diego reports, apparently it applies to all Hooters establishments in the city.

Dave Weigel: "According to the manager of that restaurant, all of the Hooters locations in the city (Rancho Bernardo is in the zone) have taken up this policy. "The signs went up at our four locations in San Diego this morning," said Melissa Fry, director of marketing for HootWinc, the west coast Hooters franchise. "It's not a political move for us in any way, shape, or form. We're strictly taking a stand for the fair treatment of women. At our franchise alone, we employ 1100 beautiful, talented women." And so Mayor Bob Filner, who has been locked out of city hall, has just been locked out of this fine family restaurant."

A recall effort is underway:

Thousands of dollars have been donated over the past few days to a recall effort seeking to oust embattled San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, according to organizers.

The race to collect nearly 102,000 signatures to qualify the Filner recall petition for the ballot was streamlined this week with the launch of recallbobfilner.com. The new website was created after a group of area political consultants joined the recall effort, which previously had been run by land use consultant Mike Pallamary, homemaker Elisa Brent and newspaper publisher Stampp Corbin.

According to the City Clerk's Office, organizers have until Sept. 26 to submit the signatures, which will have to be validated.

Filner is accused of sexually harassing by 14 women to various degrees.

(Sigh) Egypt's a Bloodbath. Again.

Hey, remember the Arab Spring?

Hey, remember Egypt?

Egyptian security forces stormed two sprawling sit-ins by supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi shortly after dawn Wednesday, firing weapons, bulldozing tents and beating and arresting protesters in raids that Morsi's political party said caused heavy casualties.

A senior Health Ministry official, Ahmed el-Ansari, said a total of nine people were killed and 50 injured at the two sites. But the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, which backs the ousted president, claimed that more than 2,000 people died. The party initially said 500 protesters were killed and about 9,000 wounded in the raids.

You don't want to search for "Egypt" on Twitter, unless you're ready to see some extremely bloody, extremely graphic photos of dead bodies in the streets. Body parts, and such.

Ultimately, Americans may not care all that much. But as Jonathan Tepperman, managing editor of Foreign Affairs notes, the president and administration are tuning it all out as well:

In just the last few weeks, the Russian government has used a show trial to silence a prominent activist, Egypt's junta has massacred protesters, Turkey has cracked down on peaceful dissent, and the rulers of Cambodia and Zimbabwe have stolen elections -- again.

In each case, the Obama administration has done little more than mutter objections under its breath. Such seeming indifference has infuriated human rights and democracy advocates, who are dismayed by the mismatch between the president's occasional stirring speech and his everyday lack of action. . . .

By trying to play both sides, the Obama administration is winning over neither. It's left with the worst of all worlds, and both Americans and the people of Egypt, Turkey, Cambodia, Zimbabwe (you can go down the list) are paying the price.

In other news, President Obama and Michelle had date night last night! Yay!

ADDENDUM: Seton Motley, responding to the New York judge's tossing out the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy: "May we please end 'stop and risk' by the TSA at every single American airport?"

NRO Digest — August 14, 2013

Today on National Review Online . . .

THEODORE DALRYMPLE: We could not negotiate the world without stereotypes. Types of Stereotypes

THE EDITORS: Boehner should make a blood-oath commitment to oppose any conference committee on immigration. No Conference

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY: The president wags his finger at Putin for anti-gay laws while kowtowing to Islamic leaders. Obama's Gay-Rights Hypocrisy

AVIK ROY: Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have a plan — to make Obamacare permanent. Obamacare's Shutdown Shock-Jocks

ANDREW STILES: Implementation of Obamacare hits hurdle after hurdle — let us count the ways. The Obamacare Train Wreck

CHARLES C. W. COOKE: Oprah Winfrey's reflexive jump to bigotry comes just as her new movie opens. Oprah's Convenient 'Racism' Incident

To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com

Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here.

Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital.

National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.