It’s obvious that the unprecedented Senate Republican obstruction of executive branch nominations is bad for the president; it’s bad for the smooth functioning of the government; and it’s bad for voters who elected a Democratic president and a solid, 55-seat Democratic majority in the Senate. I’ve argued, too, that it’s bad for the Senate.
Less obvious? It’s bad for Republicans.
Now, in electoral terms, it can’t be bad for both parties, since electoral politics is a zero-sum game. Indeed, that’s sort of the problem for Republicans; obstruction of these nominations almost certainly has zero electoral effect. After all, most voters couldn’t tell you who the nominees for secretary of labor or to head the Environmental Protection Agency are, let alone the obscure rules Republicans are using to delay their confirmation.
So the effects of massive, across-the-board obstruction are going to be on policy, not elections. And that’s not a zero-sum game – and it will hurt Republicans and Republican-aligned groups, too. ...Jonathan Bernstein, Salon
There are actual data on the effects of Republican obstruction. Not just your assertion or mine but serious comparisons. Looking at the data gathered on processing judicial nominations (a key issue for each Congress), the answer seems pretty clear. According to Greg Sargent in the Washington Post, the person to turn to is a political scientist at UMass who "has developed what he calls an 'Index of Obstruction and Delay' designed to measure levels of obstructionism."
Goldman calculates his Index of Obstruction and Delay by adding together the number of unconfirmed nominations, plus the number of nominations that took more than 180 days to confirm (not including nominations towards the end of a given Congress) and dividing that by the total number of nominations. During the last Congress, Goldman calculates, the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Obama circuit court nominations was 0.9524.
“That’s the highest that’s ever been recorded,” he tells me. “In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay.”
By contrast, during the 108th Congress, from 2003-2004 – which is the most comparable, because George W. Bush was president and Republican controlled the Senate, meaning Dems had to use procedural tactics available to the minority to block nominations — the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Bush circuit court nominations was far lower, at 0.6176.
On Obama’s district court nominations during the 112th Congress, Goldman’s Index of Obstruction and Delay was a high 0.8716, he says. Nothing in Bush’s years comes even close, he adds.
“It is true that when Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans were in the White House, the index has spiked, especially during Bush’s first two years,” Goldman says. ”But it is unprecedented for the minority party to obstruct and delay to the level that Republicans have done to Obama in the 112th Congress.” ...Sargent,WaPo
Ron Fournier tried to find a flaw in this but failed. Yes, they've given Obama's nominees a particularly hard time, measured in days. The Congressional Research Service came to the same conclusion.
___
Dana Milbank, also in the Post, says Republican party seems to think it's Clinton all over again. If you can't bring down a popular president on issues, try endless "investigations" and showy hearings.
A good indication of House Republicans’ mind-set came last week, when Rep. John Boehner’s spokesman wrote on the House speaker’s official blog that a speech by Obama on student loans was an attempt “to change the subject from its growing list of scandals.” It’s telling that the GOP leadership would view a student loan event as a distraction from scandals but wouldn’t see the obsession with scandals as a distraction from pocketbook issues.
As The Post’s Paul Kane reported Tuesday, House Republicans haven’t passed much ambitious legislation this year after they “disintegrated into squabbling factions, no longer able to agree on — much less execute — some of the most basic government functions.” One of the few things that unite them is the investigation of scandals. A few weeks ago, Heritage Action for America, an influential conservative group, suggested that House Republicans focus on investigations and avoid legislation that could divide them. ...Milbank,WaPo
It's very easy to defeat the Republicans in the end because, as so many who follow these cooked-up "issues" find, there are few if any facts to sustain the charges.
Republicans, after fighting Obama’s economic policies for four years, may have no better option than to focus on scandal now that the economy is rebounding. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told reporters Tuesday morning that Republicans would simultaneously be “emphasizing working families” while investigating the administration “in a deliberative, thoughtful manner, allowing the facts to speak for themselves.” ...Milbank,WaPo
Sounds intelligent. But that's not what Cantor's colleagues are doing.
The problem for Republicans is that they appear to be following not the facts but rather their own theories — perhaps best illustrated by the illogical claim from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) last week that the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi were caused not just by actions before and during the attacks but also by “the subsequent political coverup.” ...Milbank,WaPo
As for the voters, the outcome is predictable. They'll likely treat Obama as they treated Clinton. Looks like that's happened already, judging by the approval ratings. In a political system that requires effective teamwork at least most of the time, Republicans may be well down the road to demonstrating not just that they won't govern, but that their right wing has never learned how to function effectively in Congress, much less govern.
