Senate Passes Short-Term Government Funding Bill 81-18
Now going to the House


As expected, the Senate voted in favor of a deal hashed out by Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, the Senate's majority and minority leaders, by a vote of 81 to 18. All the no votes were Republicans; including Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, who previously said they would nevertheless not try to delay the vote. Cruz led the ultimately failed effort to link government funding to the defunding of Obamacare. No Democrats voted against the measure. Democrat Chuck Schumer thanked McConnell in remarks on the Senate floor before the vote.
The measure now moves to the House, where it is also expected to pass. Acknowledging defeat, John Boehner and other House Republican leaders urged their fellow caucus members to vote yes.
The Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation recommended a no vote on the bill, pointing out it contained no actual spending reforms.
The bill funds the government through January 15 and raises the debt ceiling to cover spending projected through February 7. It also creates a super committee of sorts to negotiate on a budget for the remainder of the year. That committee is supposed to report back in December.
You can read a final draft of the bill here (pdf).
Follow the latest news on the shutdown deal at Reason 24/7.
Update: Here is the roll call for the vote.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What is included in this about changing the debt ceiling process?
Included in the bill is the "Kentucky Kickback", a $3 billion bridge for McConnell, and
The legislation broadly re-opens the government through Jan. 15, and extends the ability of the government to borrow money through Feb. 7. It does so by allowing President Obama to waive the debt ceiling, a move that can be overridden by a resolution of disapproval by Congress that Obama could still veto.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor.....z2hvyEZ88m
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Seems like Schumer thanking McConnell was a hell of a sharp stick in the eye, maybe even a death warrant for his re-election.
In other words, Harry Reid bought Mitch McConnell and three extra weeks of borrowing authority for a cool $3 billion of OPM.
Newsflash: Most establishment Republicans are unprincipled scumbags. But at least they have to be paid to fuck up the country; the Democrats will gladly do it for free.
If it matters, a spokesman for McConnell is denying that he asked for the kickback.
a spokesman paid liar for McConnell
FTFY.
Why don't you fuck off Shit Stopper!
Funny how $3,000,000,000 of pork for Mitch's state just happened to appear at this particular time.
News to PBP: It doesn't matter what a politician's mouthpiece says about this sort of thing.
Let me see if I got this right, from now on the debt ceiling will automatically be raised unless congress mounts a 2/3 vote in favor of not raising it? And the Republicans are giving away the only leverage they have?
They get to cast what they know in advance will be useless votes against debt-ceiling increases and then weep crocodile tears to the constituents about how Obama raised the ceiling and it *totally isn't their fault!*
Think Enabling Act, and you're on the right track.
That's Erm?chtigungsgesetz to you, buddy.
Fucking A the republicans have failed completely. I'm sure they thought that the unpopularity of the ACA could be a wedge to attack the administration. However, instead of looking like they were trying to be fiscally responsible (which they would have if they had gone after some more broad spending cuts), they look like irresponsible and spiteful children, who have been dutifully punished by Poppa Obama and Nana Pelosi. Snatching defeat out of the hands of success once again. Of course, the wacko birds are going to get blamed en masse for Ted Cruz's politically unwise posturing. He expended a lot of political capital on this and it got him nothing but an ass kicking.
That is the Gospel, Jesus.
They lost ground, yea. Entirely blown.
Yeah but come January no one will remember this and Obamacare's wonderful failures will continue to pile up.
Or there will be another school shooting and the Democrats will blow their big lead chasing gun regulations they can't win.
Or Obama will try to unilaterally attack another country.
And it will be blamed on the rethuglicans.
I'm not sure about that. The "shutdown" has been a fairly big deal. I think most people see the "shutdown" as a failure, and they blame the republicans.
He expended a lot of political capital on this and it got him nothing but an ass kicking.
I keep hearing this argument but I don't understand it. Everyone complained that the "wacko birds" were fiddling with disaster by trying to stand up to Obama and call him out for using executive orders to rule by fiat, even with his own signature bill, which as we were constantly reminded is "the law of the land" (and if that's true, then why did Obama get to waive parts of this law? Because he can and no one calls him out for it.)
So now Cruz is the bad guy because he at least TRIED to do something about it?
I don't get it.
What were the RINO's calling for instead? I don't remember hearing any alternative ideas for stopping the worst piece of legislation ever written. All I heard was "we need to compromise".
Fat lot of good that does anyone. Obama has never and will never compromise. Neither will Dingy Harry as long as he's still running the senate. And now they have even LESS reason to compromise since the broke the GOPs back.
So now Cruz is the bad guy because he at least TRIED to do something about it?
The time for "doing something" was 2012 -- but Reason, and most H+R commenters, were busy hamstringing the most libertarian viable presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
This strategy was doomed to make things worse from the moment it started, so intentions don't matter. I do think it's unfair to blame it all on Cruz (as I implicitly did below, sorry).
Wait...are you talking about Romney? I also like that you apparently think Reason and the commenters here have such massive political power that Romney lost because of us.
Well Sudoerman did what he could. And Montana libertarians handed the Dems another seat in the Senate.
More tears!
Unlike you, I can't take comfort in the fact that the drones are still flying and incinerating women and children. Oh to live the life of a Hellfire lover.
Yep Tulpa, guess your Team should have ran a more libertarian candidate, huh?
If they wanted to give BO 85% of the vote, sure.
There was a more libertarian candidate running -- how did he do?
Tulpa (LAOL-VA)|10.16.13 @ 9:10PM|#
"If they wanted to give BO 85% of the vote, sure."
If you add the two Obamas together, they got 90+% of the vote.
The only other GOP candidate who had a chance to dethrone BO was Rick Perry.
BO would have creamed the crease in his pants to be running against Ron Paul in the general election. You think they made hay out of some out-of-context Romney quotes, imagine what they'd do with the Ron Paul Survival Reports.
Well, he managed to take away enough votes from the Team Red to keep the Dem in office. Perhaps Team Red should stick with that strategy.
You stupid fuck.
A big swath of the 48% voting for Romney would never have voted for Gary flerking Johnson. They'd lose more than they'd gain.
No, you'd lose nothing. Team Red will vote Republican regardless and unthinkingly. It's their duty.
Oh Tulpa your tears are delicious and your delusion delightful. Are you still going to be crying like a bitch come 2014?
I think the tears will be continuing. Now we can probably expect Hillary to be prez in 2016 and 2020, and by then probably 60% of the country will be on government assistance, and Republicans will get less votes than the Green Party, even in Mississippi. The USA will probably move to a Democratic Party and some version of the Socialist Party (with a less threatening name). What's currently the Dems will be considered the "Right" in this country. The two parties together will lead a bipartisan agreement to "update" the Constitution, eliminating 2A, 4A and 5A, and severely restricting 1A so that it does not apply to "hate speech" or anything that criticizes the government.
Nope. We'll implode economically long before any of that happens.
Reason, and most H+R commenters, were busy hamstringing the most libertarian viable presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
As much as I would love to believe otherwise, Reason, and most H+R commenters, had absolutely nothing to do with the failure and or success of Mittens.
And whether or not that's true, that still doesn't answer my question. That's the past. What matters is now, and Cruz tried to fucking do SOMETHING.
The rest stood around and navel gazed as usual.
I never thought I'd live to see the day a libertarian got a case of the DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!1!!!
Yes, when I hope that an elected Congressperson do their fucking job and stand up against what they were elected to stand up against, meaning actually do what they say, that is "SOMETHING!!!!"
Welcome back Red Tony!
I don't think of Cruz as "the bad guy" so much as the "stupid guy". He had the right idea, to force concessions from the dems, but he used the wrong tool. He should have never tried to do something so brash as defund Obamacare. For shitsake, do you think a callous megalomaniac like Obama would allow his namesake legislation to be defunded on his watch? That fucker would let the country burn before submitting to such a political disgrace.
So what was the alternative? This is probably as good as it gets.
Both houses of Congress have passed legislation to allow religious services on military bases during the shutdown, but the legislation has yet to pass due to differences in wording in the House and Senate versions. The Thomas Web site indicates that the House version emphasizes the First Amendment, while the Senate version emphasizes morale. IOW, the Senate Democrats don't want to admit there is a First Amendment violation here.
http://www.milarch.org/site/ap.....45¬oc=1
The First Amendment violation that comes to mind is using taxpayer funded military bases as camps for proselytism.
So, in TEAM logic, this means you get to retaliate against priests by threatening to arrest them if they celebrate Mass on military bases? Even though Congressmen *of your own party* have repudiated such a policy?
You will double down on defending Obama even when his own Congressional party abandons him.
Why is loyalty to a Democratic President more important to you than supporting your party's Congressional delegation?
I am not defending Obama here. He would never be the hardline secularist that I am. He would likely agree with you on this one over me.
Re: Palin's Buttwipe,
Sesame Street was brought to you by the words "Hardline Secularist."
Whatever that means.
If I remember my catechism classes correctly, suffering persecution for the faith was considered a Good Thing. Shouldn't priests be flocking to military bases to be arrested rather than whining about it? They may never get a chance at martyrdom again.
I agree, but it occurs to me that arresting a priest during Mass would pose the risk of having the consecrated elements be dropped on the floor or trodden underfoot in the confusion. What did your catechism classes say about *that*?
And see below - the politico/legal pressure seems to be working and the priests are coming back - the administration is backing down rather than doubling down on the stupid.
Desacration of the eucharist is extremely unlikely unless the arresters are trying to make it happen, as supposedly happened when Bishop Romero was assassinated.
And a human being being killed is much worse than dropping the eucharist in any case, but the Church, at one time at least, considered it a danger worth taking. Now they're just a bunch of old mechanistic pedophile-shufflers.
The Judas priests have largely been purged - with the new Safe Environment policy I would trust a child more with a priest than with its stepfather (for instance).
I would have liked to see some dramatic arrests, but it seems that the Military Archdiocese is better than I thought and is getting the govt to back down *very rapidly* and allow services to resume without waiting for a spending bill to pass - indeed, without waiting for the special Congressional Resolution on religious services in the military.
And the St. Thomas More lawsuit is going forward despite the plaintiff being let back onto his base.
The relevant Church authorities seem to be succeeding in their main duty, which is to offer their military flock access to the sacraments.
Should I argue with success?
The lesson to future administrations is that if you try to use a so-called "shutdown" to ban ministers of religion from government property your own party, as well as the opposing party, will turn against you, and you'll be forced into a humiliating climbdown.
What are the chances that this or a later administration will try to pull such a stunt again?
And it's due to the effective campaign by the Military Archdiocese to get the matter before the public and the courts and make the administration back down.
The Judas priests have largely been purged
The ones who got caught, sure. But the atmosphere of bureaucratic administrative mechanical thinking that led to the scandal, still pervades church leadership.
It would be nice if we had a reformist Pope to look into the whole situation...
Won't matter. What you people need is a good persecution, but I'm not sure you're up for it.
If it's any consolation, even if we ignore that the US Church is fighting back against persecution in the courts, there's plenty of persecution to go around in the rest of the world. You have Christians (including Catholics) being beheaded, blown up, etc., you have longstanding Christian communities in the Middle East (including Catholics) being uprooted, a Malaysian court censoring Catholic publications, the Chinese govt suppressing the Catholic Church and promoting a schismatic "patriotic" Church with punishment for Catholics who stay loyal to the Pope, etc.
I hope this gives you enough to put in your spank bank for now.
It would be even nicer if we didn't have the church at all.
It doesn't matter if you believe in Kahless; Kahless believes in you.
Ah, a Star Trek reference!
Perhaps you might like this blog post on Religious Freedom and Star Trek:
http://themasterstable.wordpre.....tark-trek/
Look it up - versions of this bill were approved in the House 400-1 - that means with Democratic support, in case I need to explain it to you. A version passed in the Senate by unanimous consent which, let me again explain for your benefit, means with Democratic support.
Why do you disagree with your own party? Why do you oppose freedom of religion more than they do?
And I notice that the Air Force has decided to allow contract priests on its bases during the shutdown.
And the Navy is backing down, too - it's allowed the priest-plaintiff in the Georgia military base case to go back and perform the duties he was formerly banned from doing - this one day after the priest's lawsuit was filed. What a coincidence - almost as if they had no legal and political leg to stand on!
http://www.ncregister.com/dail.....aval-base/
How does it feel to have your own people pull the rug out from under you?
I am not a Democrat, you fool.
I am a secularist, capitalist, anti-war, social liberal extremist.
You're a closeted Democrat.
Such a secularist extremist that you support your President's policy of arresting priests, until he pulls the rug out from under you and - oops! - agrees to let the priests back onto the military bases.
What a strange surprise, Corker and Alexander are not in the "no" column!
I'm a Tennessean, and I am embarrassed by them repeatedly. But most of the state is humming along just fine so no one pays attention congressional stuff anymore.
I apologize in advance for their next capitulation.
Who is that new kid running against Alexander? I'm voting for him in the primary, and breaking my rule about primaries.
Rep. Joe Carr
I don't know a lot about him, but some of the bills he's sponsored were ok. Some were not.
But he can't possibly be worse than Lamar.
That is what I am banking on, "not worse." As far as Corker goes, Harold Ford, Jr. might as well have won a few years ago. No difference in the slightest.
Ford had moments where he talked a libertarian game too, even though you knew it was bullshit.
Corker is worse than Lamar.
Why is Joe Carr so serious?
Nice job wrecking it, Cruz.
About the only good thing to come out of this is that McConnell, and his manservant Jesse Benton, are probably going to get drubbed in the primary next year.
I actually feel like this was a no-lose for Republicans despite what the pundits are saying. It's far enough in advance of the actual midterm elections that no one will care about the shutdown by next November. If they'd succeeded in getting Obamacare stopped that would have been a victory, but now the runaway Obamacare train is going to crush a lot of people. They can use that as a club in 2014 and it will be a much more important issue to most people than a shutdown in late 2013.
The idea that this shutdown will somehow hurt Republicans in a year has always struck me as a strange argument. The average American has the attention span of a goldfish. There's no way they'll be thinking about this as a major issue come the midterms.
They fucked the GOP candidate in the NJ senate election today, and probably screwed Cucinnelli's chances in the VA governor's race in a couple of weeks. There are a shit-ton of federal workers and govt contractors around here who were fairly apathetic before but are spitting mad at all things Republican after a couple of weeks without pay.
They fucked the GOP candidate in the NJ senate election today
...the one who's doing way better than previously conceivable?
probably screwed Cucinnelli's chances in the VA governor's race in a couple of weeks
There is no evidence of this. Coochi screwed himself with his awful pronouncements on banning sodomy. Can't wait to hear you bitch about how the libertarian in the running ruined it for Coochi.
...the one who's doing way better than previously conceivable?
He was trending up before the shutdown and plateaued shortly afterward.
Correlation =/= causation
It's not a 'strange' argument, it's sophist bullshit peddled by people who like to think that if only the GOP would follow a particular political 'kata', that they would win. It's just faux-intellectual masturbation.
Right - if only they adopted the positions of the guy who got under 1% of the vote, they would have won in 2012. Sure.
Did you reply to the wrong comment or something? In any event, they would have had a better chance of winning with Johnson than Romney that's for sure.
Agreed. I will give Tulpa the VA race (though Cooch has made more than enough unforced errors that it's unlikely this will be the decisive factor). Wrt the midterms? I doubt there will be a significant effect; ObamaCare and other issues will be at the forefront by this time.
Irish|10.16.13 @ 8:44PM|#
"I actually feel like this was a no-lose for Republicans despite what the pundits are saying. It's far enough in advance of the actual midterm elections that no one will care about the shutdown by next November."
Dunno. The Dem PR dept (the national press) made a pretty big deal about how the rethugs sent out the brown shirts to keep people from enjoying the circuses.
------------
"If they'd succeeded in getting Obamacare stopped that would have been a victory, but now the runaway Obamacare train is going to crush a lot of people."
Already being blamed on the 'industry'. and the GOP did the one unforgivable act:
They weren't willing to carry the bluff to the last raise. They had no plan beyond folding on the draw. Shame, shame!
What, exactly, did they wreck? Your imaginary master plan for Team Red Domination?
They made it easy for the media to paint them as the bad guys again -- especially in races here in VA. Two weeks without pay doesn't get forgotten.
And they distracted from the failures of the BOCare exchanges. They'll be fixed soon enough.
1) That would happen anyway.
2) Coochi already screwed himself see above
3) There is no reason to believe that the media would pay any attention to the BOcare exchange failure nor is there any reason to believe they'll be fixed soon.
Rand Paul just tweeted chiding the Democrats for failing to compromise on spending and ignoring the pressing issue of debt.
I think he came out of this in a much stronger position than Cruz as far as the 'Wacko Birds' go.
True. The difference in style is black and white.
I think he did come out stronger, but he was unusually silent through most of this.
He's well positioned now with moderate conservatives who think Christie's too squishy and Cruz too extreme.
Whether that's a good or a bad thing I don't know yet.
He made the usual rounds on the Sunday talk shows where he pressed for a compromise and scolded Obama for pulling shit like the WWII memorial.
Really masterfully done, IMO, since he came off as sort of the bridge between the Ted Cruz-types and the more establishment Republicans. He looked like the grown-up in the room.
Problem is I doubt this will help in 2016 against Hitlery or Biden.
Somebody's keeping track of which Republicans voted for ObamaCare, right?
Because we'll need Tea Party Republicans to go after them in the primaries.
Until the Republicans kick Boehner out of the Speakers' chair, there isn't enough tea in the Republicans' milk.
Endless right-wing purity tests are the root cause of the Republican party's unprecedented disapproval ratings. By all means, keep inventing principles out of thin air and then demanding absolute fidelity to them.
They need more Romneys and 2006-midterm elections.
Romney losing does not mean Ted Cruz won't lose worse.
The American people chose a black Muslim socialist for the second time, and it wasn't because Mitt Romney wasn't rightwing enough.
Romney's loss had nothing to do with ideology; he was a rich guy who pushed all the wrong buttons in a recession economy and never made a case for himself.
I don't think Cruz would be a good Presidential candidate, but Romney's problems extended beyond ideology and in no way establish an upper limit on how limited government a Presidential candidate must be to win.
Regardless of how flawed Romney was as a candidate, the people voted for big government, or at least the alternative to what Republicans were selling. It is not a revelation to note that increasing radicalization turns off more and more people.
It is not a revelation to note that increasing radicalization turns off more and more people.
I dunno. Seems to have worked out pretty well for the Democrats from 2003-ish through today.
They are where Republicans were a generation ago.
"They are where Republicans were a generation ago."
Yeah I think Tony might be onto something. Obama is totally like Reagan, Goldwater and Taft.
Sometimes it does, most times it doesn't. Plenty of electoral gains have been made by ideologically charged parties in a variety of circumstances. Huckabee is far from my favorite politician, but he made a good point that perceived ideology is less important than the perceived direction that voters think the country will go in if the person they vote for wins. Voters do not vote philosophical platforms into office, they vote people into office.
"voters do not vote philosophical platforms into office, they vote people into office."
And last time around the black gentry liberal beat out the fluffy rich guy.
It's amazing really, because there isn't a single major policy of Obama's over the past 5 years that has poll support clearly over 50%. Most things are quite negative. The median voter disliked the majority of his policies, but voted for him anyway.
Republicans are the K-Mart of politics. Romney in particular is the poster boy for everything that ticks people off about Republicans on an instinctual level.
We will see what happens, but I think there is a better bench of Republicans for 2016. I suspect they'll do well and that ObamaCare's negatives will be more than sufficient to elect a pro-repeal Republican to the Presidency.
Tony|10.16.13 @ 8:58PM|#
"Endless right-wing purity tests are the root cause of the Republican party's unprecedented disapproval ratings."
You bet! More Obo-lights and the Rethugs will be polling in the double digits!
"Endless right-wing purity tests are the root cause of the Republican party's unprecedented disapproval ratings. By all means, keep inventing principles out of thin air and then demanding absolute fidelity to them."
I'm not talking about purity tests. I'm talking about a Speaker that turned to our adversaries in order to overrule a big section of his own party.
If you were a Republican and you voted for TARP? There's a good chance there's a Tea Party candidate sitting in your former chair in the House of Representatives right now.
We need to make the Republicans who voted for ObamaCare learn the same lesson. Getting rid of the Republicans who effectively voted for ObamaCare isn't about a purity test--it's about some of them forgetting what the whole reason for an opposition party is for.
Here's a hint: it's not to do whatever the opposition's president tells you to do.
Curious; by this logic, isn't it true that everyone who voted for any post-2010 CR that didn't defund BOCare was actually voting for BOCare? Or is this the only one that counted.
Getting rid of BOCare was never on the menu. You'd need 60 senate votes and BO himself to have a road-to-Damascus moment. Either that or keep the govt shut down indefinitely. Or at least until the new 2/3 Democrat House and 70 Dem Senators gets sworn in on Jan 1, 2015.
"Getting rid of BOCare was never on the menu."
I'm talking about putting it on the menu.
Until ObamaCare fails spectacularly, it's true we'll need someone other than Obama in the White House.
Meanwhile, I think ObamaCare is going to fail spectacularly, and when it does, I think the politicians associated with opposing it the most will benefit.
The Democrats won't have the White House forever.
Re: Tony,
While the unprincipled and crass expediency of the Democrats explains their supposed popularity?
You may be on to something here...
Whatever the case may be, Democrats are decidedly winning in the polls now.
Re:Tony,
Not that it matters. Either way, we all lose. Doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins.
...winning what? The opportunity to associate themselves even further with an extraordinarily unpopular government program, in exchange for associating the GOP with a shutdown that will soon be forgotten?
Its popularity grew during this farce! It is far more popular than Republicans.
As I've said previously, I suspect progressives will find themselves surprised by events.
I guess Obamacare isn't that bad. These clowns in the GOP are completely worthless. The only thing that could rescue them historically is if they get control of the House, Senate, and Presidency for two years, they take away women's suffrage.
The GOP did the one thing it needed to do: justify its existence (to its base). They did it messily but it's done. Thank you Cruz.
Limbaugh isn't even spinning this one dude.
No, they did the worst possible thing - alienate the public and get no change to Ovamacare, debt ceiling, or spending. They pissed away their only leverage. Beyond incompetent!!!
wow. I am shocked. shocked I say. unbelieberble.
You can read a final draft of the bill here (pdf).
1) Meh. You can't do jack shit with a *35*-page law.
2) Why should I? None of the people voting on it has.
Well it was certainly surreal to see Welch on the side of the GOP establishment and Peter King.
Anyway can we retire the nonsense about a "libertarian era" now? The public really wants to keep the free shit flowing. Any attempt to stop it will result in bad polls which Welch suddenly thinks is important now. And if this results in defeat for the "wacko birds" well the alternative of total capitulation to avoid a shutdown isn't exactly a victory for them either.
Re: Winston,
Of course there's no libertarian era, and of course people want the spigots wide open. That's why I'm waiting for the Great Default so I can then laugh at all the silly Americans that believed the government and give them a condescending "I told you so!"
Hopefully the Great Default will lead to some budget cuts rather the rise of outright Communists or Fascists.
There won't be a Great Default as long as there's money in anyone's 401k.
Re: Tulpa,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fJSxbVSKLw
I fuckin' hope so.
What's dumb is that the outcome could easily have been framed as a Republican victory if they had accepted it weeks ago. Their spending levels. Their short-term plan. Anyone standing their ground on the ACA was just stupid if they think it would have been a successful effort.
Is Tony going to be Reason's new editor?
Re: Tony,
Framed by whom?
By Republicans, who evidently think that grandstanding at monuments they closed and whining about the politicization of monuments was truly the best strategy.
I'm curious as to how the Republicans closed open air monuments. The monuments were closed by people who were inexplicably working despite the government being "shut down". I don't believe the branch of government employing those people included the house of representatives.
Wait so Rand Paul voted to continue the shutdown? If the shutdown is so unpopular then doesn't that make him a political idiot? Of course if he voted for it then he would be a sellout. Obviously things are getting better.
If Rand Paul is running for president, then before he can run for president, he has to win the nomination.
I suspect the shutdown wasn't as unpopular with Republican primary voters as it was with the general population.
I suspect the shutdown wasn't as unpopular with Republican campaign contributors as it was with the general population either.
Just call it a hunch.
You mean the same general population that will have to vote for him? And if the shutdown results in Democrats winning the house in 2014 then he will have a harder time in 2016 winning both houses let alone getting his agenda through Congress.
This is actually standard. It's been a dilemma for a hundred years.
Obama had to go through it, too. How do you go left far enough to beat out your competition and win the nomination, and then turn to the center quickly enough and legitimately enough to win the election? Obama managed that situation by horse trading. He got Hillary to drop out early and endorse him by agreeing to make her his Secretary of Defense; that way, he could stop veering to the left and start moving to the center.
Reagan dealt with a similar challenger (George H.W. Bush) by making him his vice-president.
This is one of the biggest reasons why incumbent presidents have an advantage--since they don't have to worry about having to veer far to one side to win the nomination.
I'm not making this up. As long as there have been nomination processes that don't involve smokey, back room deals, people running for the nomination have had to deal with this. Want to make sure you never even get to run for president? Run to the middle...
And your party will never nominate you.
He got Hillary to drop out early and endorse him by agreeing to make her his [Secretary of State]...
You knew what I meant!
Here's the real meaning of the deal:
Principal(t+1) = Principal(t)*i + Borrowing(t+1)
and we will keep this up for increasing t until something really bad happens.
You can buy louis vuitton
replica handbags in a variety of variations in styles from online shops as well as from
apparent outlets. The first must have this season in the range of
href="http://www.orderswithin.com"replica handbags are the Boston and Joy handbags.
I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! "a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!". go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
http://www.geosalary.com