Posted on 12/01/2014 6:59:40 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Via the Daily Caller, there’s a caveat here but I’m not sure why. First Jon Karl asks whether Obama would veto a single bill that funds the entire government for 12 months but specifically blocks him from carrying out executive amnesty. Yup, sure would, says Josh Earnest. Okay, says Karl, but what if Republicans pass a bill that funds the entire government for 12 months except for Homeland Security, the agency tasked with implementing amnesty, which would be funded on a short-term basis only until O rescinds his executive order? Earnest is noncommittal about that one. That idea, the so-called “CROmnibus,” is indeed being kicked around by GOP leaders. Which makes sense: Republicans want to play hardball with amnesty funding but without defunding the entire government, lest they be blamed for a new shutdown. The obvious solution is to fund most of it and instead play hardball with just DHS, on the assumption that most of the public won’t care about that. Perfectly logical for the GOP to consider that approach.
Is it logical for Obama to consider it, though? His goal is to pressure the GOP into funding his amnesty; his leverage is public perceptions that if government can’t function because it’s not getting the money it needs, it must be the damned Republicans’ fault. If he agrees to the CROmnibus plan, which would require him to sign a bill funding all of the government except DHS for 12 months, he reduces his leverage. Logically, it seems, if he’s willing to veto a single omnibus funding bill on grounds that it hurts his amnesty, he should be willing to veto two separate bills (one short-term bill for DHS and a longer-term bill for everything else) that seek to achieve the same purpose.
If Earnest is hedging here, and he is, it must be that even Democrats are nervous about the politics of this. Yes, granted, without knowing the details, many more people are reflexively inclined to blame Republicans for any government shutdown than they are to blame Obama. But O refusing to sign a bill that funded most of the government, no strings attached, because of a separate fight over immigration could be a hard sell for lefties. And not just in the short term: If, for once, it’s the left that suffers a backlash from a shutdown, it might make Democrats skittish about playing hardball again over funding in the future. That’s one of the many costs imposed by Obama’s amnesty power grab — not only does it set an alarming new precedent for executive power, but it puts both parties in seldom traveled political territory. Immigration politics are unpredictable even in normal times. What happens when you toss a crisis over separation of powers into the mix?
Good. Shut it down
The Republicans should cut off the EPA’s funding for global warming related regulations as well, but I bet that Obama would veto that as well.
Wrong. The public will know the media is full of crap.
Year after year, perusing consumer/reader comments on left-leaning MSM sites from the LA Times to Yahoo, I see a public where nearly two in three: a) despise [quote] "liberals," whatever that means in general American lexicon; b) have contempt for the leftist/liberal bias of the mainstream media; and c) despise Obama.
The public is increasingly coming to realize that the media represents a very loud, dominating minority.
DO IT....DO IT...DO IT!!!
I say “good” too. And don’t pay them (parasitic employees) back wages either.
So there is no down side?
Pray America is waking
If the Republicans won’t stand up to Obama and fight him on defunding his illegal alien amnesty moves, then they’re too cowardly to fight him on anything.
And they public would support them, even if they are too stupid to realize it, or too afraid of offending their biggest amnesty pushing donors.
Wow !!!
We get to kill amnesty AND shot down the government.
Where is the down side?
Oh Poor Barry , is Harry The Reid not around to help
The interesting part of where this is going is painted all over this administration.
The Government owns healthcare now and will soon own all aspects of public commerce.
Shutting down the government will not be a function of Congress in the not to distant future. Government will be all public commerce.
The GOP is all scared that they’ll be “blamed” for shutting down the government, when in reality it will be Obama who does so.
Boehner, McConnell and the whole lot of them need to go on
the offensive and tell the American people the plain truth.
Repeat it over and over again.
“It’s not us, it’s the president who shut down the government. We gave him a bill to keep the government running and he vetoed it. It’s his fault. He shut down the government, pure and simple. Barack Hussein Obama, there’s the man to blame. B-A-R-A-C-K O-B-A-M-A, Barack Obama! He cut off the funding and shut it down! He has the power to start it up again. Tell him you’re sick of his shifting the blame from where it belongs. The buck stops there, at the White House. It’s time the president takes responsibility for his reckless actions.”
They are bluffing. Or stupid. Or both. I’d think the Dem’s would be apt to join the R’s in overriding it. But maybe not. They are stubborn mules.
The Republicans can very clearly pass a budget with a majority vote. They can then speak out to the public and say it is the democrats who will make the final decision. One of them being named Obama, and the other being any democrat who does not vote to override Obama.
The president proposes, the Congress disposes.
Sorry Charlie, we won.
Cry.
Oh no - please don’t throw us in the briar patch......
You aren't working for the same guys they are. You don't understand.
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.