The GOP's Reckless Bet

• By Charlie Cook
• September 23, 2013
• comments

Listening to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew speak to the Economic Club of Washington on Sept. 17 brought to mind how little many of the more conservative Republicans in the House really know about President Reagan's eight years in office, how he operated, and, for that matter, why and how he succeeded. In other words, few of them get how the town worked during Reagan's tenure, as opposed to today, when it only barely does.

In his speech and subsequent discussion with David Rubenstein—the president of the Economic Club and the cofounder and cochief executive officer of the Carlyle Group, a global private-equity firm—Lew pointed out that if the "Hastert Rule" had been observed when Democrats controlled the House during the Reagan administration, much of the legislation that Reagan is remembered for would not have passed. (Under the Hastert Rule, named for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, the majority party in the House does not act on bills unless the measures have the support of a majority of the majority party's members.)

There were plenty of Reagan-backed measures that Speakers Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright opposed, but these House leaders did not stand ...

Why Democrats Have Reason to Fear

• By Charlie Cook
• September 16, 2013
• comments

Members of Congress who were dreading a showdown on Capitol Hill over authorization of an attack on Syria have been given a reprieve. Even though the midterm elections are still more than 13 months away, the specter of an attack, and the unknown repercussions that could follow, were certainly on their minds. If the United States launched cruise missiles to punish the regime of President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, what would happen if Syria launched a retaliatory attack against Israel or other U.S. interests in the region? This had the potential to be a big issue in 2014.

Although many lawmakers had called on President Obama to seek congressional approval for such an attack, they were none too happy when he punted the ball to their end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The measure faced an uphill fight in the Senate and looked even more doubtful in the House. It was a lot easier for members to see how they might regret voting yes than no.

The Russian-offered solution—for Syria to turn over or put under international control its chemical-weapons stockpile—was an unexpected development, but politicians quickly embraced it as an easy way to get off the ...

GOP, Don't Shut Down the Government or Impeach Obama

• By Charlie Cook
• August 30, 2013
• comments

With all of the talk among some Republicans in Congress about impeachment and shutting down the government to stop Obamacare or force entitlement-spending cuts, you’d think that they were living in another reality back in the 1990s. Republicans were pursuing similar missions then, and things didn’t work out so well for the GOP. For those in need of a quick history lesson, all you need to know is that Republicans managed to lose House seats in the midterm elections of 1998. It was the only time since World War II that the party in the White House (Democrats) gained seats in a second-term, midterm election. Talk about seizing defeat from the jaws of victory!

Obviously, the people and policy particulars are different now, but the similarities are obvious. At that time, the loathing of President Clinton was so great, the emotions were so high, and the belief was so firm that their cause was righteous that Republicans could not conceive their actions were ill-advised. Blind hatred is a dangerous thing.

Of course, this isn’t to suggest that every Republican in Congress today advocates scorched-earth strategies and tactics. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ...

Here’s How Republicans Can Take Over the Senate

• By Charlie Cook
• August 5, 2013
• comments

One difference between professional athletes and fans, and between coaches and cheerleaders, is that while all of them see opportunities for their teams, the athletes and coaches are more likely to also see, and at least privately acknowledge, potential pitfalls. The 2014 Senate races, which are really a fight over who will hold the majority in the chamber, provide plenty of pitfalls for political professionals in both parties to worry about.

On its face, the math certainly creates opportunities for Republicans. Twenty Democratic seats are up in 2014, compared with only 15 for Republicans, although by the time of the election the numbers will be 21 and 14. (That’s because the New Jersey seat of the late Democrat Frank Lautenberg is now held by appointed Republican Jeffrey Chiesa, and it will almost certainly flip back to the Democrats in October.) As a result, while the current 54-46 partisan split (with independents Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont caucusing with Democrats) means that Republicans need only a five-seat gain to reach a majority, the bar will be raised to six seats after the New Jersey special election. So, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that ...

So Much for Immigration Reform

• By Charlie Cook
• July 29, 2013
• comments

It's hard to be optimistic about the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform when you talk to House Republicans. My conversations suggest that if anything passes the House, it will most likely be small, bite-sized morsels of largely noncontroversial ideas—lowest-common-denominator items that bear little resemblance to the sweeping immigration measure that passed the Senate on June 27.

I recently asked a very smart House Republican to rate the prospects for immigration reform in the chamber on a scale of zero to 100—with zero meaning the House passes nothing in this Congress and 100 meaning it approves the Senate-passed comprehensive plan. The answer was 35. In my view, a 35 would represent something along the lines of the Dream Act, legislation that would provide legal status to those who came to the United States as undocumented children and have gone on to college or joined the military. A version of the Dream Act passed the House in 2010, when Democrats controlled the chamber, but it failed to clear the Senate. House Republicans are working on a new version of the measure, which could be more restrictive than the 2010 legislation in terms of the number of immigrants who qualify ...