{"id":5929,"date":"2011-09-24T00:03:14","date_gmt":"2011-09-24T07:03:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=5929"},"modified":"2011-09-24T00:03:14","modified_gmt":"2011-09-24T07:03:14","slug":"baggers-rule-boehner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2011\/09\/24\/baggers-rule-boehner\/","title":{"rendered":"Baggers rule Boehner!"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Wednesday, I published Republican blackmail fails<\/a>.  Boehner\u2019s stop gap-spending measure had just failed.  Democrats opposed it, because would have forced $1 billion in cuts to a loan guarantee program for fuel efficient hybrids.  Those cuts welch on the deal they made when Democrats caved-in on the Republican economic terrorism over the debt ceiling.  Teabaggers opposed it, because they wanted even more cuts, welching on the deal even further.  This demonstrates that, when Republicans make agreements, their word is worthless.  This is where we left off.  Thursday, Boehner caved-in to the Teabaggers and added even more green energy cuts, also breaking their earlier promise, to the spending measure.  This time the bill passed.  Knowing that the bill would not get through the Senate, House Republicans delayed reporting the Bill to the Senate until after midnight, giving them time to skip town, and leave the Senate holding the bag.  Republican blackmail is back.  Yesterday, the Senate did reject it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"24boehner\"…In the Senate today, Dems stood firm in their opposition to funding disaster relief with offsets elsewhere, as Republicans want. Senate Democrats voted down a House GOP-authored measure<\/a> to temporarily fund the government, intensifying the impasse over the disaster relief funds, even as FEMA is set to run out of money next week.<\/p>\n

At a presser after the vote, Dem leaders vowed they would not blink. Asked if there were any offsets Dems would accept, Harry Reid said: \u201cNo.\u201d That seems like a pretty high stakes gamble. As Eric Cantor put it<\/a>: \u201cI guess Harry Reid will have to bear the burden of denying disaster victims the money they need.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Senate Dems don\u2019t appear worried about bearing the blame in this standoff \u2014 they continue to insist they won\u2019t budge, and continue to demand that the House drop its insistence on offsetting the funds. Their argument: Disaster victims need help, period, and they should get it with no political strings attached<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Dems could revert to type and "cave\u201d at any moment. But why the current firm line? It goes to the heart of the Dems\u2019 new calculus after getting shellacked so badly \u2014 and giving up so many concessions \u2014 in the debt ceiling fight.<\/p>\n

My read: Dems think the debt ceiling battle has successfully established them as the reasonable party that\u2019s seeking true balance on fiscal issues, having agreed to so many GOP demands on the spending cut front<\/strong>. Dems also believe the debt ceiling fight established public perceptions of the GOP\u2019s pursuit of endless spending cuts as being fundamentally ideological in nature, and not motivated by a desire to craft sensible policy<\/strong>. Dems also believe \u2014 or hope \u2014 this impression was solidified by the House GOP\u2019s initial failure to pass a funding bill when conservatives decided it didn\u2019t cut spending enough\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Washington Post<\/a>><\/p>\n

Personally I think Greg Sargent\u2019s read on this is on the mark.  At this point, I\u2019m not overly worried about a government shutdown.  The public at large has become aware of Republican shenanigans during the crisis they manufactured in the debt ceiling debacle.  I think Republicans will return early, as Keith Olbermann and Ryan Grimm explain on Countdown<\/a>.<\/font><\/p>\n