With a couple dozen House Republicans retiring this year, GOP leaders are counting on them to cast cost-free, party-line votes this election year. It’s not working out the way the leadership hoped.
As far as Boehner & Co. are concerned, they can understand when a vulnerable incumbent in a competitive district breaks party ranks. Plenty of Republican lawmakers have to run to the middle to avoid defeat in November. But for those who are retiring, they have nothing to worry about — no matter how far to the right they go, these retiring members can’t (and won’t) get punished by voters. Why not give the party a hand?
These lawmakers clearly don’t see things that way. In fact, now that they finally feel liberated to vote how they please, they’re breaking party ranks quite a bit.
Republican Reps. Vito J. Fossella of New York, Ray LaHood of Illinois, Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, Ralph Regula of Ohio and Jim Walsh of New York all crossed party lines recently to join with Democrats on a tight vote to extend unemployment insurance — even though they won’t be around to suffer the potential political consequences of voting no. After two contentious votes in which key retiring Republicans defected, the plan ultimately passed the following week in a lesser form as a bipartisan compromise attached to the war funding bill.
Retiring Republicans crossed over to vote with Democrats last week on federal parental leave and in previous weeks on union authority, expanded children’s health insurance, women’s rights and an expansive new GI Bill. Outgoing Republican Reps. Dave Hobson and Deborah Pryce of Ohio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, Tom Davis of Virginia and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland have all bucked the party on key votes.
“It’s not helpful,” said a frustrated Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), “and you can use that quote.”
I can’t help but find this rather amusing. In fact, this is especially entertaining given the pressure these guys are placing on Republican incumbents who aren’t retiring.
When the soon-to-retire flee the party line in droves — as they did last week on a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits for jobless workers — other members can feel stuck casting votes that they, too, might prefer to avoid.
Exactly. If the retiring Republicans vote with the Democratic majority, suddenly that becomes the bipartisan position. If you’re a vulnerable GOP incumbent on a major domestic issue — such as, say, extending unemployment insurance — do you want to go home and tell voters you stuck with the Republican leadership to deny benefits to those hurting during an economic downturn, or is it better to say you worked with Dems to pass the bill?
This has come up more than a few times.
At least eight retiring Republicans joined Democrats last November during a bitter fight to pass a funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. President Bush’s subsequent veto was sustained by a mere three votes; seven retiring members joined Democrats in the override vote, meaning Republican leadership needed vulnerable members to vote with the president against funding for nurses, schools and other politically popular programs.
And this is welcome news to Dems, who’ll happily let the constituents of those vulnerable GOP lawmakers know about the vote.
Of course, if the Republican caucus would move away from its far-right policy positions, this wouldn’t be such a problem in the first place.