Skip to comments.Status Quo Ante
Posted on 11/07/2012 6:35:05 AM PST by Wuli
ike when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, we now know what happens when a candidate so weak anybody can beat him meets a candidate so weak he cannot beat anybody. Americans vote for the status quo. $6 billion later, Americans voted for the status quo. Karl Rove, call your donors.
Republicans will keep the House. Democrats will keep the Senate. Obama will keep the White House.
It is what it is. The next two years are going to be some of the most fun and exciting years within the modern American conservative movement.
full article at the link
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
The big change in the status quo is the increase in conservative House members.
Other than appointments (most unfortunately) the socialists have a harder task than yesterday.
We’ll hear all about Akin and Murdock(?) being lousy candidates, but what about Thompson, and the other senate candidates who also lost?
Centrists? Will they be called bad candidates or will they be granted excuses, dispensations, and justifications?
The GOP-E is right when it’s right, and it’s also right when it’s wrong. Just ask it.
John Boehner and the House Pubbies are an immovable object?
Thanks, I needed the comic relief this morning!
“The big change in the status quo is the increase in conservative House members.”
That was the one thing I was asking everyone to put their work and energy into, no matter who the GOP POTUS candidate was - to hold the House and make it more Conservative - even if it needed to act more Conservative than a president Romney.
As far as I am concerned, that was our job and we did it, but our Congress reps coat tails were not big enough to lift Mister Nice Guy with them.
We chastised the phony “Hope” business of the thug from Chicago, then WE relied too much on mere hope with Romney. That sort of thing works in the Liberal mindset, not with people, whatever their political stripe, who know this guy Obama is wrong but lack the intellectual arguments to understand how deeply wrong; arguments that a Ronald Reagan would have been making; arguments Romney never communicated very well if at all.
He really never fought for all the support he got. It just came TO HIM more than FOR HIM for one reason - he was not Obama.
We know that, we Conservatives accepted that, once he had the GOP nomination; and for we Conservatives that was O.K., but it was not enough, it was not any kind of argument for everyone outside the stalwart GOPers and we truly Conservatives. We were not the ones Romney had to win over, once he had the GOP nomination. We were the crowds at his campaign stops, but we were not the ones he needed to communicate to.
A tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist might be wondering this morning if Romney’s old boys at Bain were among those betting on Intrade for Obama.
Very well put.
Conservatism wasn’t a factor in the presidential race, was a wash in the senate races, but was the core of the House contest.
We really only won by grace and it’s too soon to tell how much we won by and if enough to make a great immediate difference. But most of the times Reid and Obama got their insane way last session it would have only taken +-20 votes to stop them.
I chose not to critque mister Erickson’s article.
Then again, I think anyone can sign up for RedState and comment on Erick Erickson’s blog, and I think he should hear your contrary view regarding Mr Boehner - I think your view is right.
“The GOP-E is right when its right, and its also right when its wrong. Just ask it.”
The GOP-E behaves in the same institutional privileged manner as the Dim-E. They both take their rank and file party members, and junior office holders, for granted and believe they can get away with it.
We changed that in the House in the 1990s, and then the House leaders of the majority we built became the new elite and over time their conservative edge atrophied.
The basic difference between the GOP elite and the Dim elite is the GOP elite is in it to get along, and the Dim elite is in it to win.
We need to replace Boehner.
This election is no mandate for Obama.
The status quo is not just Obama in the White House it’s a Conservative majority in the House of Representatives as well - and that was also “the peoples choice”.
We need to pull the nuclear trigger on the fiscal cliff.
Obama cannot compromise and will not compromoise on any spending on HIS own agenda; unless he is forced to.
He and Harry Reid will attempt to keep funding the federal government, for another four years, with the 2009 budget the defacto budget and 11th hour make-or-break raise-the-debt-ceiling deals (because the annual increases were built into the 2009 budget) - and use the media to blame that circumstance on the GOP and the House, but he will not compromise on the points where the House must stand against him.
He has to be forced to make a deal. He’s not going to give it away. The first year (24 months away from new House elections) is ten hundred times better than the second year.
“The status quo is not just Obama in the White House its a Conservative majority in the House of Representatives “
Hold on, we won’t have a conservative ‘majority’in the House. No sir.
The Republican Party, including it’s liberals and ‘moderates’, will have the majority.
We conservatives will have the strongest minority.
A larger minority than we had before though, depending on the final count perhaps even a majority of the Republican caucus.
We have to bring the rest of the caucus along on what we do if we are to do it.
“Real spending cuts for real debt, real spending cuts for real taxes” should be an easy policy to rally the rest of the caucus around. Sure, I’d like more but that would be a revolution.
And it’s undeniably attainable.
And yes it has to be started at the beginning of the session- even better in the lame duck.
All it takes to get a budget out of the Senate is for one Senator to generally refuse “unanimous consent” until one is presented. A ‘nuclear’ action for a Senator to take but there it is.