RSS Feed Menu
Politico reports on how the GOP leadership was caught off-guard when Rep. Michele Bachmann announced the formation of a Tea Party caucus in the House:
Minnesota’s Bachmann, a favorite of the tea party movement, earned approval from the Democratic leadership for her caucus late last week. It came as a bit of a surprise to her leadership, whom she didn’t forewarn before formally applying to create the caucus.
“It was something we were doing on our own,” Bachmann spokesman Dave Dziok said. “Ultimately, we just pulled the trigger.”
Indeed, the tea party movement is a loaded political weapon for Republicans heading into the midterm elections.
Until now, they have had the luxury of enjoying the benefits of tea party enthusiasm without having to actually declare membership. But now that Bachmann has brought the tea party inside the Capitol, House Republican leaders and rank-and-file members may have to choose whether to join the institutionalized movement.
It’s easy to see why some Republicans may be hesitant, even as the tea party itself fights over the sentiments expressed by the movement’s most extreme elements.
The Tea Party Federation expelled its most prominent faction, the Tea Party Express, after a spokesman wrote a racially charged letter framed as a satirical jab at Ben Jealous, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The Tea Party Express fired back, with a spokesman calling the decision “arrogant and preposterous.”
“If there are some tendencies in the outside movement that you don’t want to be associated with, this could be a risky step,” said Celia Carroll, a political science professor at Hampden-Sydney College who has done academic research on congressional caucuses.
Joining caucuses is somewhat of a ritual in the House, where niche groups like the Sportsmen’s Caucus or the Armenian Caucus are supposed to give lawmakers a chance to build their political identity and promote their own ideas and those of allies outside Congress. The Senate is less relevant in the caucus debate: There is only one officially recognized caucus, the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control.
Rob_654 // Jul 20, 2010 at 1:43 pm
The Republicans and Tea Party groups can no longer make any claim that they are not closely aligned – thanks Michelle for putting the GOP into the box :0
CAPryde // Jul 20, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Every night before bed, David Axelrod kneels down and says, “Please, God, please: Palin/Bachmann 2012.”
Watusie // Jul 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm
This is so excellent. Republicans who don’t join the caucus will be hounded. And Republicans who do join the caucus might as well spray themselves with a can of independent voter repellent.
dante // Jul 20, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Fiscal conservatism at its finest….
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/07/bachmann-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts.html
canuckistani // Jul 20, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Laissez les bon temps roullez!
Watching Sessions and Cornyn on MTP Sunday was spectacularly disappointing. I want the old bunch back from the ‘94 campaign. These duds today have no idea how to handle legitimate questions of policy. They have been soothed by the softball tosses from FNC and lost their edge along the way.
Cornyn was Cornyn, but Sessions was abysmally bad and should resign immediately from front line leadership. Every non-FNC interviewer will now just keep asking the simple policy questions, again and again and again.
The dems have all the fodder they need to scare inds straight to the ballot box.
canuckistani // Jul 20, 2010 at 4:29 pm
…even better, Sessions just announced joining the Tea Party Caucus!!!!
GOP leadership has drunk the Kool-aid….someone ring the damn bell!
dante // Jul 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm
@canuckistani – I just watched that segment on MTP, and this is what I got out of it:
Sessions:
Live within our means
Read our bills
Balance the budget by looking hard at what we’re spending.
Cornryn
See what the debt commission says
Living within our means
Replace health care reform with something (not specified)
They were BOTH horrible, mainly because they’re trying to avoid specifying what they’re going to do in power. Claims like “balance the budget” are easy to say, and hard to define. Balancing the budget solely based on cuts will gut SS, gut Medicare and Medicaid, and probably gut the military as well. Add in the fact that they want to extend the ‘01/03 tax cuts and it’s even harder. And since the GOP knows that “balancing the budget” plays well as a sound bite, and “gutting SS and Medicare” plays badly as a sound bite, well guess which way they’re going to try to spin it.
I personally think that the GOP is going to start losing, and FAST come the fall, when people start paying attention and really start looking for answers. A 1994 CWA-style declaration might play well with Independents (and Democrats, and RINOs), but it would never make it out of GOP headquarters. The CWA was based on 60% issues, those issues where 60% of Americans could agree. Those type of moderate positions would never get the support of the tea party / ultra neo-cons. So instead we’re either going to have nothing (leading to more embarrassing moments like the previous MTP), or we’re going to have a hard-right document that pisses off 60% of the American people instead of appealing to them.
busboy33 // Jul 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm
@canuck:
That sounded so preposterous I had to actually Google it to verify.
*facepalm*
Remeber when Republicans were, well, organized? I may not have agreed with alot of their positions or tactics, but I’ve always admired the GOP for its performance. They moved in tandem, had each other’s back, set a target, and drove directly toward it. It was terrifying (to a non-GOPer), but it was also impressive.
Now . . . hell, now they’re acting like Democrats. What happened?
dante // Jul 20, 2010 at 5:15 pm
To anyone else that’s interested in the MTP video, it’s up here on HULU:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/164867/nbc-meet-the-press-what-will-gop-agenda-be-if-it-regains-power
forgetn // Jul 20, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Some months ago, David Frum had a series of comments on the UK Labour Party of the 1980s, at the time Thatcher was in power and they were out of power. For nearly a decade, the Labour party kept the same hymn that killed the UK economy in the 1970s.
The Republican Party today looks exactly like the then Labour party. Their song remains intact — their solution is more of the same which has not worked for the majority of Americans. There is a crisis of leadership, mainly because most Republicans in Congress and the Senate are honest, and cannot repudiate their own policies.
The problem is that I’m not hearing any smart ideas out of the think tanks; usually policy ideas percolate through the summer. Maybe the TP has scared everyone away, maybe the banning of the TPExpress (although the best organised) will allow scholars to begin writing again.
One think for sure, is that the Republicans cannot get away with: “Live within our means”
“Read our bills” “Replace health care reform with something (not specified)” “Balance the budget by looking hard at what we’re spending”. More than 80% of the Federal Government budget is spent on: Defense, Medicare, social security and interest payments.
Moderate // Jul 20, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Don’t get me wrong: I think Bachmann is a loathsome representative. Still, if this caucus moves the House Republicans in a fiscally conservative direction, it might not be entirely awful.
What I’d REALLY like to see if a GOP that becomes so inclusive that it can win elections by more than a one- or two-state margin, so that it doesn’t need to pass b.s. like Medicare Part D in order to secure Florida, etc.
msmilack // Jul 20, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Moderate
Before you get too excited please remember that Bachmann was also the one who wanted people to ignore the census. She is the biggest loose canon the GOP has.
Moderate // Jul 21, 2010 at 12:52 am
I don’t think that “this might not be as awful as we all fear” should be read as “I’m excited for this!”
Watusie // Jul 21, 2010 at 8:39 am
Moderate if this caucus moves the House Republicans in a fiscally conservative direction, it might not be entirely awful.
What on earth makes you think the Tea Party would be a force for real – and I do mean real – solutions to our budget problems? They are are the front of the line for insisting that taxes be lowered while Medicare and Social Security benefits not be touched. And Bachmann herself just this week said, in one breath, that unemployment benefits have to be accounted for the in the federal budget but the deficits created by new tax cuts do not. In short, she still believes the old “tax cuts pay for themselves” BS.
The Tea Party is nothing more than Bush’s base, and if they had their way we’d have Medicare Parts E through Z.
dante // Jul 21, 2010 at 10:45 am
Moderate – go check out the link I posted above to Bachmann’s appearance on GMA. She basically wants to extend the ‘01 / ‘03 tax cuts with NO offsets in the rest of the budget. The cost is going to be 4.4 trillion dollars over the next 8 years, added directly, 100% onto our national debt. This is the EXACT same policy that GWB had; cutting taxes, with no simultaneous cuts to spending, leaving it all piled onto our national deficit/debt.
Can you please, please, PLEASE tell me how that is financially conservative?? When the F did “cutting taxes regardless of economic and budgetary impact” become synonymous with “fiscal conservatism”?
bamboozer // Jul 21, 2010 at 11:20 am
Care to name a better example of “carefull what you ask for…”? Well, the Republicans got it and it stinks. Kudos to Bachmann! And take that John Boehner!
msmilack // Jul 21, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Moderate // Jul 21, 2010 at 12:52 am
“I don’t think that “this might not be as awful as we all fear” should be read as “I’m excited for this!”
Moderate, I hear you, point taken.
What I like about this showdown is that it’s a put your money where your mouth is moment. I enjoyed watching Cantor avoid the press for a full day before commenting on the development; the party-line for not joining seems to be “the tea party should stay grassroots”. For the record, it was never grassroots unless you call Dick Armey hiring buses and bringing in retirees on buses he rented for rallies he arranged grassroots.
Stefano // Jul 21, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Does anyone else think that Bachmann is trying to make some sort of power move? By putting together a Tea Party caucus in the House, she will attract other like minded Republicans to her group. If she garners enough House members, she could potentially build significant support for a leadership position, maybe even the speakership if the Republicans take back the House.
I find it rather telling that she didn’t bother to consult GOP leadership in the House about this new caucus, and I suspect that she did so deliberately because she did not want them to stop her before she could build momentum. It would have been easier for Boehner, Canter & al. to say no behind closed doors, but now that the cat is out of the bag it will be very difficult to put a stop on her little endeavor. I am fairly sure that Boehner would have said no to keep up appearances of distance between the GOP and the Tea Party, as well as assure his spot as Speaker should the GOP reclaim the House.
busboy33 // Jul 21, 2010 at 1:38 pm
@Stefano:
That’s where my money is. She is a permanent mid-to-low-level player in the GOP machine by virtue of her Raging Crazies, but when she plays to the TP crowd she’s treated like a leader. For a politician, that has got a very strong appeal.
She’d never win any kind of intre-party power struggle, and she’d be irrevelant if she left and joined/formed another party. With this scheme, she keeps the “legitimacy” of the GOP name but at the same time gets to play the “I’m an outsider, rising up with the common man” card.
The only reason I question if this is her plan is it would be suprisingly sophisticated for Bachmann to concieve and implement. I’d buy soemone planted this bug in her ear in a heartbeat . . . but giving her the credit for this little game is hard for me to believe.
Diomedes // Jul 21, 2010 at 1:42 pm
“Palin/Bachmann 2012″
Or Gingrich/Palin 2012.
The dems could run Obama/Ludacris 2012 and still win easily.