Posted on 11/05/2014 4:31:54 AM PST by nathanbedford
The Republicans will enjoy firm control of both houses of Congress. Both parties will now begin the campaign for 2016. How they govern will depend on how they intend to campaign.
The dilemma for the Democrats is more stark than the dilemma for the Republicans. The Democrats must recognize that Obama is a potentially alien force within their ranks governing against their individual and party fortunes as Democrats. The question for Democrats, especially Senate Democrats, is whether they will stand with Obama if he chooses to continue to govern against the will of the American people even as Republicans send up bill after bill requiring Democrat legislators to either support or reject Obama's veto. Assuming that Obama will continue to oppose energy legislation including the pipeline, that he will veto popular modifications of Obamacare, that he will veto controls on spending, that he will decline to enforce legislation on immigration, elected Democrats will find themselves increasingly at odds with the American people if they sustain Obama. It will be productive to examine a roster of Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2016 and begin to aggressively campaign in their states to separate them from Obama.
The dilemma for Republicans is to thread the needle on immigration, Obamacare, and spending so that they retain support of The Tea Party and Rino wings of the party. One can expect the Republican establishment in the House and Senate under Boehner and McConnell to begin by picking low hanging fruit to send to the White House. An obvious example is legislation for the Keystone pipeline. But the real dilemma for Republicans will emerge as they address immigration and Obamacare. The choice of the establishment is to decide on immigration whether to appease fatcat donors on K St., Wall Street, and to appease (if possible) La Raza or whether to side with the majority of Americans in the middle-class, who want the border policed. If the establishment tries to appeal to both camps or to appease potential Hispanic voters, it runs the risk of losing both sides as the Democrats continue to align themselves with the fat cats and play the Hispanic race card. If the Republicans side with the people, they risk shortfall in funding in 2016 and the usual media slanders of racism. They might also lose enough of the Hispanic vote to tip the 2016 election to the Democrats. If they side with the fat cats, they risk a schism in the party, massive defections by Tea Party Republicans and a rupture of the base. Hence, it is critical that the Republican establishment threads the needle or comes down on the right side. Smart money will bet on the Republicans pretending to real immigration reform while selling out.
Expect equal quotients of cynicism from the establishment Republicans concerning spending and Obamacare. The Republican establishment has already back peddled on spending, announcing they would send up an omnibus spending bill. To be charitable they have been mealy mouth about repealing Obamacare. The passage of an omnibus spending bill means that the Republican Congress has abandoned its power of the purse as the only practical and effective means of defending the country against Obama's imperial tyranny. Not surprisingly, Republicans have announced that they will not impeach Obama so they have essentially unilaterally disarmed. Expect them to cynically engage in symbolic acts respecting both spending and Obamacare calculated to appease the base while borrowing to pay the fiddler to keep the music playing. At any rate, it is clear that the establishment of the Republican Party presently controlling both houses is not on fire to repeal Obamacare and will only make gestures in that direction.
Perhaps the most interesting player in this drama will be Barack Obama who must decide how he will exit the stage. I began by asserting that the Democrats must recognize that Obama is an "alien force" whose allegiance is not to the Democrat party which he opportunistically regards as a vehicle to exploit, but to the Communist Party. After six years, when even before his first inauguration we on Free Republic identified Obama as a communist, I believe those of us who got it right are entitled today to state the obvious: Obama does not carry allegiance to the Democrat party but to his ideology and he will sacrifice the Democrat party and Democrats in general to further his one world, utopian, Saul Alinsky community organizer ideology. Obama succeeded in ignoring the results of the 2010 election and pivoting to the right and was rewarded for his obdurancy by reelection in 2012. Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of American politics: All politics in America is not local but ultimately racial and that implies that Obama sees the world through the prism of race and will exploit the race card to mitigate the damage his socialist ideology will cause his own legacy and his putative party. He will do this because 2012 told him that race demagoguery succeeds.
So Obama will govern with minimal regard for 2016 if it comes at the expense of his personal ideology. Clever Republicans will find ways to expose what Obama will do and force Democrats to risk severe party discipline or defeat. Watch Hillary, if she can pivot the Democrat party creating a new axis away from Obama and unto herself even before she is nominated it is possible that Democrats can desert Obama with impunity. It is typical of the Clintons to attempt to triangulate and Obama might just offer her an open field.
We conservatives must as always choose between our principles or enabling Democrats to commit their ideology against America. The establishment Republicans will try to move as far left as Obama gives them space while pretending otherwise. If we do not adhere to the establishment's charade we risk losing the general election in 2016 and if we meekly submit we risk the same result as a Democrat victory but at a slower pace. The best solution for conservatives in this scenario is to find a charismatic leader who will espouse one or two universally popular conservative positions which changes the game. My suggestion, save the Republic before it is too late.
GOPe strategery: Lie low, don’t make waves, wait for 2016.
Or is that 2018? 2020?
Republicans win in 2016 if they put up a candidate that can excite the base. It doesn’t HAVE to be a perfect conservative. It has to be someone that provides a superior vision and gets everyone motivated to work, donate, campaign and vote. Short list: Walker, Cruz, Pence, Kasich (?).
Obama will go quietly into the night so as not to rock the boat for the hideous Hildabeast of Arkansas.
Bet the house on it!
Exactly.
Move on behalf of AMERICA.
Bring back jobs. Close our borders, and enact real control of our immigration.
America was a great country 25 years ago.
Bring it back.
We can get a glimpse of the GOP’s intentions here in VA. Do they let the Rats continue to profit from fraud and deceit? Or do they insist on integrity?
And remember, Alinsky wasn’t in it for the end game, himself. He just developed a shake down technique a la Frank Nitty. His technique just was not as blatantly illegal as Nitty’s. Think Jesse Jackson. There is no money to shake down if the “goals” are ever actually achieved.
He is conservative enough, he clearly has a backbone, he is photogenic, he does not make mistakes on the stump, he governs as he campaigns. More, he has not been nationally tainted as a radical right-winger as has, unfortunately, Ted Cruz. Walker stands in better odor with independents and has the advantage of running as a governor rather than as a senator and his record is one in which both conservatives and Rinos can find satisfaction.
If I were able to anoint, however, I would dab Ted Cruz's forehead with oil.
Nice job. I particularly liked the quote “...so that they retain support of The Tea Party and Rino wings of the party.”
At some point both sides (and I mean both, not just one side) should realize that the other side might have a point and start working from there.
I don't think Obama would fight very hard to defend ObamaCare except for political reasons. Heck, he has already capitulated to almost every Republican objection on his own through questionable executive orders delaying various provisions of it.
Name a couple of RINO points we should support.
He had Nineteen, on September 27, 2013, who joined him in refusing Harry Reid's cloture vote on the spending bill. This was the vote that McConnell & McCain said would 'lose the Senate in 2014' [wrong Mitch] and what prompted him and the gOpE to declare open war on the Tea Party movement and conservatism.
Sure, Senator Cruz will lose a few of these (Roberts, Portman, Paul(?)) nineteen to the Mitch Establishment. But he also gains another nine possible (Sullivan, Cotton, Gardner, Ernst, Daines, Sasse, Lankford, Rounds, Capito) to make a very formidible 25 or so coalition to challenge for the Majority Leader spot and setting the agenda to roll back what the Dem socialists have inflicted upon the Country.
I would not be opposed to Walker, Cruz, Palin, or even West.
Lukewarm on Rand Paul.
Hell no on Jeb, Christie, Romney.
Bump
I assume you are referring to elected Democrats in your first point. If so, I disagree. I think the Rats have been totally highjacked by far left liberals. They are great company for Obama. The Blue Dogs are extinct. Manchin might be the only semi-moderate Rat left in D.C.
Regarding your second point, Obama goes govern against Rat fortunes, but he has plenty of allies or he wouldn't have gotten this far. There's only so much you can do unilaterally and now that the GOP has a clear mandate, they can cut him off at the knees by refusing funding for his hare brained schemes and I truly hope they do.
After 2010 and last night, I am more convinced than ever that Obama, the persona, was the reason why the Rats won in 2008 and 2012. It had nothing to do with their policies, even though they think it did. That concept heartens me and bodes well for 2016 when the slate will be wiped clean.
Think of an effective presidential candidate as someone who can generate support among voters in three key areas:
1. Executive Leadership
2. Political Philosophy
3. Personality
The problem the Republican Party has faced since 2008 -- and it will come up again in 2016 -- is that there is a different potential candidate who grades out best in each of these areas. And none of them are very strong in more than one. My take right now is that the top contender in each of these areas is:
1. Executive Leadership -- Mitt Romney
2. Political Philosophy -- Ted Cruz
3. Personality -- Chris Christie
The challenge for the GOP is to find someone who is very strong in one area, reasonably acceptable in another, and can diminish his/her weaknesses in the third.
I would also point out that the Democrats have a much easier approach to selecting presidential candidates because in every election it seems like they are willing to completely ignore one of these three elements entirely. Barack Obama was nominated because executive leadership capacity has meant nothing to the Democrats in recent years (and it really shows). Bill Clinton was nominated in 1992 even though nobody knew what his politics were (he had as much direction as a fart in the wind).
Obama is a narcissist, an empty suit who has been advanced beyond his capabilities because of the color of his skin. All his life Obama has been reinforced in the belief that race is the matrix upon which everything should be judged, including his own performance.
I do not expect him to depart from this worldview but I do expect some Democrats to desert as they find the race card no longer trumps.
The Republicans won the seats but the Democrats will still control at a lower level so long as McConnell and Boehner and McCarthy are still in position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.