Posted on 11/18/2014 7:33:01 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Washington Post’s dystopian fantasy provides a certain amount of amusement, since anyone who follows Ted Cruz for any length of time would know that this approach would be antithetical to his concept of constitutional government and the rule of law. It’s still useful as both a way to take the temperature of the center-left as it becomes more frightened of its allies than its opponents, and a measure of the split developing on that side of the political spectrum as Barack Obama becomes unmoored from constitutional checks on power:
DEMOCRATS URGING President Obama to “go big” in his executive order on immigration might pause to consider the following scenario:
It is 2017. Newly elected President Ted Cruz (R) insists he has won a mandate to repeal Obamacare. The Senate, narrowly back in Democratic hands, disagrees. Mr. Cruz instructs the Internal Revenue Service not to collect a fine from anyone who opts out of the individual mandate to buy health insurance, thereby neutering a key element of the program. It is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Cruz explains; tax cheats are defrauding the government of billions, and he wants the IRS to concentrate on them. Of course, he is willing to modify his order as soon as Congress agrees to fix what he considers a “broken” health system.
That is not a perfect analogy to Mr. Obama’s proposed action on immigration. But it captures the unilateral spirit that Mr. Obama seems to have embraced since Republicans swept to victory in the midterm elections. He is vowing to go it alone on immigration. On Iran, he is reportedly designing an agreement that he need not bring to Congress. He already has gone that route on climate change with China.
The issue isn’t Obama’s upcoming abuse of power as much as it is that the next Republican will abuse it in the same way. The Post’s editorial board supports Obama’s position on immigration reform, as they state in the editorial, and they’re probably not all that unhappy with the agreement with China. They are not usually fans of Obama’s foreign policy and resistance to accountability, but otherwise support the current administration’s policies, and usually its approach.
That much is apparent in the rest of the editorial. It treats the lack of bipartisanship as something that is a more recent development in the Obama administration, and Barack Obama as someone naturally inclined toward bipartisanship with his statement three years ago to immigration activists that he had to work through Congress to achieve reform. That, however, was an excuse Obama gave to shrug off an uncomfortable truth: Obama could have gotten immigration reform passed easily in the first two years of his presidency. That had a significant amount of support among Republican caucuses, especially in the Senate, and Obama could have gotten that bipartisan agreement on his terms, thanks to Democratic control of Congress.
How did Obama use those two years? He rammed through three Democratic legislative projects that the GOP vehemently opposed: Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, and the stimulus bill with the supposed “shovel-ready jobs” that Obama later admitted never existed. Democrats locked the GOP out of the crafting of the stimulus bill; when Republican leaders complained to Obama, he replied, “I won.” That was in February 2009, just days after taking office. The track record of Democratic triumphalism on ObamaCare speaks for itself, except for the parts where Jonathan Gruber now speaks for it a lot more honestly than Democrats ever did. Gruber proves that the rank and file Democrats that the Post attempts to warn here are pretty comfortable with the ends-justify-the-means approach, at least until it becomes obvious.
Yes, Democrats should worry about what Republicans might do with precedents for abuse of power, but it’s doubtful that they care at this point. It would have been far more useful if the Washington Post’s editorial board had concerned itself from the beginning about precedents on executive authority and unilateralism when it came to policies the Post liked more than their concern over Republicans who opposed them.
Since Mitch is going to restore the filibuster rules to where they were, why would Dems ever have to worry about this?
I agree with you. I would love to see a President Cruz! I think he’s the real conservative deal.
And this is why impeachment may not be an option but a requirement. If 0bama is allowed to get away with this, then you can bet the farm EOs will be used again, and again. Imagine the worst possible situation, now triple it.
If the MSM did their job,we would never have gotten to this point.
Let the record show, whatever Obama gets away with, the next Republican President is duty bound to copy. Power must at minimum not be different depending on which party holds power.
I didn’t know WaPo had it in them.
He should not restore it. We cannot allow a situation where Dems in power have MORE power that Republicans in power. Republicans must not let the Democrats get away with that double standard or WE THE PEOPLE are robbed.
Impeached? He could behead a troop of girl scouts on the White House lawn during the Easter Egg roll, butcher them, barbecue them and serve them to all the participants and he still wouldn’t be impeached. And if you criticized him about it, the press would say “it’s a black thing” and accuse you of being a racist tea bagging rethuglican for bringing it up while licking their fingers and asking Michelle what kind of “awesome” spice rub they’re using and beg for more of that “delicious” macaroni & cheese and a refill of their grape Kool-aid.
If we get a GOP president in 2017, I’d want him to list the sins of the Obama Administration (using the IRS for political purposes, using the NSA as a spying post on Americans and the media, failing to prosecute administration wrongdoing, etc.) and publicly explain to America and the Democrats that since the Democrats were able to do these without punishment or consequence, the Republicans will openly do the same thing (pause while liberal heads explode) unless they turn over the Holders, Lerners, Grubers, Jarretts and others to receive jail terms of no less than four years without probation or parole.
It would amount to a huge bluff but it might call attention to the American public how lawless this administration was because the only way Democrats can express their outrage is to also admit that they were massively violating the law. Otherwise, why would they be upset if Republicans take the same liberties that the Obama Administration did?
Only Cruz would have the guts to do such a thing, take the heat for it and then make liberals think he means it.
Of course. It's why the GOP won the midterms too dontchaknow. You can always bet on the Dems using something well past it's expiration date, and that one is only working with the true believers on the left and the irrationally nervous on the right.
Republicans need to make it clear what Obama does with a stroke of a pen can and will be undone with a stroke of a pen.
Let illegals worry about getting their name on a list that can then be used to deport them.
Yes I agree. But also we need to not let the Dems have more power that everyone else. What is good for them is good for us. Everyone MUST play by the same rules.
If Dems had any concern about what they were doing being used against them, they never would have done the IRS thing. They think they are untouchable now... and making sure they stay untouchable is why they want 30 million new Dem voters as soon as possible.
ONly think is, some things you can’t undo. I don’t think once given, you can take back amnesty. So they will have to learn this lesson on some other subject.
I do not want to see a President Cruz. I want a Senate Majority leader Cruz. For the next couple of decades.
I would vote for that, too.
So, the WaPo has no problem with a lawless presidency, they just don't want a conservative president to use the same tactics. But they're wasting their breath regardless because Obama won't listen to whitey.
“Newly elected President Ted Cruz”.
Sounds good to me.
If Obama gets away with this, THERE WONT BE ANYMORE Republican presidents. That’s the whole point!
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.