Dem
49
GOP
51
Some readers don't like it when we use the term "kabuki theater" to refer to political maneuvering that is just for show, with the outcome already known to all participants. So, maybe we'll try "Wrestlemania" and see how that works. After all, pro wrestling is also highly scripted, and the outcome is also pre-ordained. Plus, one of the most distinguished members of the Republican Party is a pro wrestler. At least, we assume that the third-to-last speaker at the RNC would be one of the most distinguished members of the Republican Party.
Or, if we want to be more specific, we could say that it's the time of year for everyone's favorite Hammerstein and Kern musical, Show Vote. At least, we think that's the title. In any case, there are two reasons that right now is prime time for this particular behavior. First, some sort of budget has to be in place by October 1, or else there will be a shutdown. Second, most of the members of the House, and about a third of the members of the Senate, will be hitting the campaign trail for most of the month of October, and they want to have cudgels to wield against the other party.
This week, there are theatrics underway on both sides of the Capitol. Starting with the Senate, since they are the upper chamber, and they went first, there were a pair of wrestling matches related to In-Vitro Fertilization. In theory, the Republican Party is the party of IVF, at least according to the unquestioned leader of the party, one Donald John Trump. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) decided to give the members of the red team a chance to put their newfound principles into action, bringing a Democratic-authored bill to the floor that would protect the right to IVF and IUI treatments nationwide. Turns out, Republicans aren't so gung-ho about IVF after all. For the second time (the first was in June), all of the Republican senators, excepting Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), voted against the bill. That means that there were actually 51 votes for the bill, but 51 is rather short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. The Republicans' reasons, which aren't especially well explained in any of the stories we read (including the one on Fox), were "too broad," "infringes on religious liberty" and "not necessary." From this, we conclude that the real answer is: "It would piss off the evangelicals."
After the Democratic IVF bill was voted down, the Republicans, specifically Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Katie Britt (R-AL), returned fire with a bill of their own. For that one, Cruz asked for unanimous consent, and he didn't get it, as Patty Murray (D-WA) objected. So, there's no vote tally, unless you want to count it as 1-0. In this case, at least we understand what the objection is. The Cruz-Britt bill doesn't actually protect IVF and IUI, it just says that any state that bans the procedures will lose some Medicaid funding. Since red-state governors have shown a willingness—an eagerness, even—to reject Medicaid funding in order to make "a point," that poison pill isn't all that poisonous. In any case, there isn't going to be an IVF bill this year, and probably not next year, either. This despite the fact that close to two-thirds of Americans support continued access to IVF and IUI treatments.
Meanwhile, over on the other side of the Hill, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has scheduled a vote on a stop-gap budget bill. The Democrats won't vote for it, because it includes the SAVE Act, which "forbids" undocumented immigrants from voting in U.S. elections. Since that is already forbidden, the only purpose of the verbiage is to give Republicans and right-wing media "proof" that even Democrats think undocumented-immigrant voting is a problem (it isn't, and the Democrats don't think that it is). Meanwhile, a couple of dozen hard-right Republicans, mostly Freedom Caucusers, won't vote for the legislation because it's not draconian enough in cutting spending. So, there is no chance that the budget bill will pass. And that's before we talk about the Senate, where it also has no chance of passing. Or the White House, where it has no chance of getting a presidential signature.
What is Johnson playing at, then? That question actually has two answers. The first of those answers is easy as pie: The Speaker wants to show that the current bill, with the SAVE Act included, cannot possibly become law. The second of those answers is much trickier: What next? Even Johnson's Republican colleagues say they have no idea what he's planning, once he's made his point. It's worth noting that Johnson already scheduled, and yanked, this exact bill a week ago. This certainly does nothing to dispel the impression that he's flying by the seat of his pants.
At least one person is worried that Johnson is playing with fire, and it's a person who knows a thing or two about these games of budget chicken. That would be Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who spoke to reporters a few hours after Johnson announced his plans to hold a vote, and said it would be "politically beyond stupid" to have a shutdown 5 weeks before an election and that, if there is a shutdown, "certainly we'd get the blame."
The smart money says that Johnson will dither for another week, and then he'll hammer out something that can attract 100 or so Republican votes and 200 or so Democratic votes, and that can also pass the Senate and get a presidential signature. This will happen with days or hours to spare, and will leave the Freedom Caucusers fuming. It is not a difficult prediction to make, since this is pretty much how it's gone down each of the last three or four times the government was about to shut down, and none of those were just weeks before a presidential election. The only drama, we would guess, is whether the FCers decide to punish Johnson with a Motion to Vacate. They certainly could; that would thrill the voters back in their home districts, even if it would be really bad news for the GOP as a whole, very effectively making the argument "Republicans just can't govern." (Z)