Posted on 09/15/2010 9:10:05 AM PDT by Liberty1970
O'Donnell's victory and the resulting uproar among RINOs and talking heads has gotten me thinking: What really is the risk of her losing vs. winning the general election?
The answer my logic is driving me to is, I don't really care.
Don't get me wrong. As a conservative I'm excited by her win and the trouncing of establishment Republicans and the strength of the Tea Party insurgency. I'd _like_ to see her take office at a gut level. But here's what my head is pointing out:
Scenario A: Republicans take the House and Senate in 2010. Obama remains in office. Result: Conservative legislation is passed, but consistently vetoed. End Result: Gridlock.
Scenario B: Republicans take the House but NOT the Senate (O'Donnell falls short, etc.) Result: Deadlock at the legislative level. Only a trickle of compromise legislation reaches Obama, who signs it into law. Mostly gridlock.
Scenario C leaves Democrats in control of both houses. Result: Continued liberal legislation.
So the difference for the next two years if O'Donnell wins/loses is gridlock on the one hand, versus a trickle of compromise legislation on the other hand. I believe compromise at this point is equivalent to leaving the U.S. on autopilot while it continues flying towards Mt. Everest, but with time to recover in 2012.
And that's where the real difference is apparent. I don't expect to see economic recovery due to government mismanaging so many things (don't even get me started). That means people are going to be even more mad and more anxious in 2012. The question is, who will they blame?
Scenario A: Blame will be divided between the Republican legislators and Obama the Democrat. Result: May the best-mudslinger win.
Scenario B: Democrats will try to pin blame on Republicans, but Republicans will point to Obama as well as Dems' control from 2006-2010 and their control of the Senate. Result: Advantage Republicans (or Tea Party by that point).
Scenario C: Democrats own their own mess and face oblivion. But another 2 years of their activity may plow the U.S. into Mt. Everest (pardon the metaphor) - we can't afford to wait that long.
My basic point is, taking the Senate in 2010 buys us very, very little. Letting Dems keep it leaves them vulnerable in 2012. Holding the House will be enough to castrate them until then, and holding both House and Senate won't empower conservatives since Obama can veto anything conservative anyway.
I don’t care either. I just want the RINOs gone so we get no more faux bipartisan BS.
I’d prefer NOT to win the Senate.
Let the Dems own the next two years.
A 51-49 Dem majority would be just fine.
I agree with this essay. I think it is more important to clean out the GOP of RINOs and Democrats-lite before even thinking about cleaning out Congress. It does no good to remove a pile of rubbish only to have it replaced with another pile of rubbish. Whether O’Donnell wins or not, the GOP has been served notice that the Tea Party and other Conservative Americans are going to get the cleaning done, with ot without the help of the RNC.
Yes we have to get the RHINO’s out. That includes Boehner and McConnell. With those 2 go along get alongs running the show they will be falling over themselves to compromise with the Demorats.
I like your thinking. Thing is, the idea to me is to elect as many Tea Partiers as possible. They are guaranteed to gum up the works, either for or against, and while many of them might not be particularly re-electable, their wins will have swept any number of RINOs out of power and cleared the field for credible center-right Republicans, thus ushering in a new generation of conservatives into the Federal legislature.
One factor to consider is the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. Those folks serve for 20-40 years. Obama could easily get two more picks on SCOTUS. (Compare that to just one for Bush 41, none for Carter thankfully, and only two for Bush 43 in 8 years.)
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I think that the Senate carries a tad more weight, that’s all.
I agree. GOP control of both houses means nothing if they don’t have the numbers to override an Obama veto - and they won’t. It is better by far to put the leftists of BOTH parties on alert that they are no longer safe.
This election is important because if the rats continue to hold both houses they will take it as a mandate and ram every stupid piece of their agend a thru - fillibuster be damned. So the GOP must take the House to block as much of the leftist agenda as possible. It’s the 2012 election that will determine if the government is going to actually reduce spending, regulation and reach. We must get a conservative into the White House and both houses of congress must have GOP majorities with conservatives dominating. And then we will see if the Republicans can actually act as well as talk. If they can - great. If not - time to seriously consider a 3rd party.
So I'd rather put up candidates that, if elected, will work to promote the things I care about instead of putting ones in who won't. And the argument that this idea just elects democrats, well, tell it to John McCaine. He ran as a moderate for national office and got spanked by a super liberal. Then he had to run as a conservative to stay in office.
Here’s a cool plan:
How about we take control of our government back?
I think you make good points. One victory year does not a future make. Another two years in RINO land accomplishing nothing will spur further Tea Party growth. I also think there is a vast number of Democrats, who like Reagan, believe the party has left them as it trekked leftward. What a powerhouse that would be to turn Washington around.
I tried making the very same point with people yesterday. Control of the House at this points is a virtual certainty, and that’s enough to block any further dismantling of the Republic by Obama & Co. So with that in mind, we can afford to go all out this primary season to rid ourselves of all these cursed RINOs.
You are correct. RINOs do more damage because they provide political cover to Obama.
Everytime an Arlen Specter or those two broads from Maine vote with the Dems, the media reports that it was a bi-partisan effort (see stimulous bill).
You're absolutely right, but given Castle's record, do you think he would vote against an Obama nominee, or with one of the 5 Republicans that voted for Kagan? (Collins, Maine; Graham, S.C.; Gregg, N.H.; Lugar, Ind.; Snowe, Maine)
All three scenarios seem defeatist to me. If Republicans gain control of both House and Senate with as many true conservatives as we can get in there we begin to de-fund much of the damage Obama has done. De-fund Obama care, de-fund lawsuits against Arizona etc.
With control the pressure on O about his BC will increase which could increase the chance of forcing him to resign.
Taking control of both House and Senate will empower the conservative voters to push on into 2012. A loss in both could demoralize the conservative voters thinking they have to little support.
I do care. I don’t even live in that state. But I do care.
I donated again.
Very, very good point. Problem is, Obama picks the nominees. He might be forced to shift to a slightly less leftist nominee. But it would be a slight matter of degree, not a major change, whether Republicans have 49 or 51 seats or whatever, for Obama's pick to garner 50 votes. And if Castle was the senator I doubt Obama would have needed to shift one bit if he was the 51st Republican. So I don't think O'Donnell winning the primary hurts us one bit on this count.
Like you I would prefer an outright win but regardless Obama will have a much more difficult time with the next Congress and will have to moderate if he is to get any legislation through. The big loss would be the continued ability to approve flaming libs to the Supreme Court.
If the Dems hold the Senate their problems passing legislation will be considerably tougher - especially with a Republican House. The center of compromise shifts to the right - so instead of having to pick off Snowe or Collins, they would have to reach further right to people like Lugar in order to shut off debate.
Furthermore, in 2012 the Dems have a bigger issue in that they have to 23 incumbents whereas there are only 12 Republicans up for re-election. So, the numbers work against them in the next cycle and you can bet that some of their members up for re-election then - especially in conservative states like Montana, North Dakota, NM and Virginia will be moderating their votes.
This is where the "quality over quantity" principle really has the best effect.
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.