The Republican senators eyeing the presidency in 2016 are facing some political peril this week on Capitol Hill, where Democrats are trying to force them to take tough votes that could harm them in the future.
The basic idea is to force the GOP White House hopefuls to choose between appeals to the conservative primary electorate and more moderate general-election voters.
The votes will come on the yearly budget resolution, which sets spending levels for the next fiscal year but also allows nearly unlimited amendments on most any subject. Many of the amendments are expected to come during a marathon Thursday session known as vote-o-rama that could last into the wee hours of Friday morning.
Democrats say a handful of amendments will put Republicans in a difficult position in which they will sacrifice something no matter what they choose. The Democratic strategy: Tack right in the votes, and well go after you in the general election. Move left, and your competitors will eat you alive in the primary.
We want to make certain the budget is an opportunity to say which side are you on, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters last week. Taking sides could have consequences for not only potential presidential candidates but also incumbent senators.
These budget amendments, coming on a special piece of legislation that does not go to the president for his signature, cannot become law, but they do force lawmakers to go on the record on controversial issues. When Republicans were in the Senate minority, they similarly sought to use budget amendments to make Democrats uncomfortable.
The first amendment, pushed by Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), came up for a vote Tuesday. It asked senators to weigh in on closing tax loopholes, including a break for corporate jets, and shunting the revenue into the nations infrastructure needs.
That amendment failed largely along party lines, though one Republican expected to face a tight reelection race next year, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), did not vote. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), on a media blitz after his presidential campaign announcement, took no votes Tuesday.
In other votes, the parties traded amendments that took dueling approaches on equal pay for women. Independent Angus King (Maine) and two moderate Democrats, Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), voted for both measures.
An amendment offered by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would have mandated a 60-vote supermajority to pass any spending bill cutting Social Security benefits. Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) all potential GOP presidential contenders voted against the amendment, while Kirk was joined by five other Republicans in supporting it. It fell nine votes short of the 60 necessary for adoption.
Read this article:
Democrats to dial up some tough votes for GOPs 2016 contenders in Senate