Posted on 05/03/2014 6:38:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
There are precious few sure bets in American politics, but if Nate Silver starts giving you a 60% chance at something you generally pay attention. And that’s the odds Nate is laying out for the GOP to retake the Senate. But for a group of people who seem so entirely hell bent for leather on getting this done, we don’t really know what they plan to do with it if they get it. Over at Outside the Beltway, Doug shares some predictions from Michael Tomasky, who is not particularly optimistic.
Let’s start with the bleak view. “If the Republicans win the Senate,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, “the conclusion they’re going to draw is ‘obstruction works,’ and they’re going to double down on it. So they’ll be thinking, ‘Why go out of our way to do stuff and why compromise when in two years we can win it all?’”
Ornstein’s frequent collaborator, Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, thinks that while it should make sense that Republicans eyeing a 2016 White House win would want to have some accomplishments to point to, we shouldn’t bet on it. “The interests of the party in ’16 are clear, but whether that proves sufficient to produce something positive out of the Republicans in Congress is a big reach,” says Mann. “They almost have an incentive to keep the economy going at a more tepid rate.”
Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, agrees. “A GOP Senate takeover would be terrible for Obama’s presidency,” Tanden says. “It would spell the end of any progress on any legislative action and with GOP control of both houses of Congress, Republicans would set up debates to help their presidential candidates in 2016. And of course, investigations of the administration would double.”
What about the senators themselves? New York’s Chuck Schumer predicts: “It would let loose six years of right-wing frustration. The potential for gridlock is enormous.”
Doug doesn’t have much more of a chipper outlook, but I have to wonder if some of these folks are relying a bit too heavily on recent history repeating itself. It’s easy to look at the current lay of the land and assume that with Barack Obama in office for the next two years, nothing much will change. But the ability to get bills out of committee in both chambers and send a finished piece of legislation to the President’s desk has a particular value all of its own. In the current configuration, Democrats can simply point to the divided nature of government as a reason for a lack of progress. But if Congress can begin shoveling finished legislation, approved by the elected representatives of the people, the picture changes.
It would be worth drafting up a number of bills and sending them to Barack Obama’s desk. If he simply vetoes them all, then he is the bottleneck for the next two years. And if he somehow manages to sign something in the spirit of bipartisanship? Bonus.
NOT spend like drunk sailors the way they did the last time the pubbies controlled both houses of congress, Right there Mr. Gingrich???
>> They’d have a dinner party, pat themselves on the back and round-table discussions on how to further discredit the ‘Tea Party’.
Yup, still many a-holes in the GOP. Better they’re voted out of office in my opinion.
If the GOP gets the Senate we will have to go down there physically and pressure McConnel and Boener to do what is necessary. They won’t do it without pressure
Spend like DemocRats?
Now, if we're talking about singular races, fine. There are good individuals out there and some races are worth supporting. However, supporting “Republicans” because they are some kind of firewall is naive and is part of the Punch and Judy show we've been trained to play. The real polarity is anarchy or dictatorship and pubbies have been just as comfortable with maintaining power as the Marxists, er, Democrats for decades.
IMO, being on the cusp of great change also allows for chaos in planned transition. Our final options might include formation of another party, candidates that are independent or . . . who knows. The point is that the D/R, right vs. left continuum is patently bunk and has done little to nothing to change or arrest our slide (”slouching” as Bork put it) toward destruction.
There is no rescue in politics - only compromise. Revolution is what we're facing and it may, or may not, go as planned. Either way, too much of the GOP is invested in keeping the status quo to be our salvation.
Personally, I don't believe in salvation from the hand of man so, for me, this question takes a back seat to more important choices in the home, family and social spheres because our binding culture is dead. Renewal begins at home.
Just my $0.02.
As regards your last point, Garner Ted Armstrong (lousy messenger, correct message) had it right in his tract entitled the Modern Romans. We’ve got a situation where the decent are belittled, degenerates and degeneracy are celebrated, the young males largely feel themselves too good to serve in uniform (look at the ‘leaders’), hard work is diminished and indolence is subsidized. This cannot last.
My mantra from 2008 still stands:
“Vote non-incumbent”
Yeats hit the nail on the head:
http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html
‘. . . the center cannot hold . . .’
No, the Republican's won't do JACK SCHITT if they win the Senate. Especially if McConnell is in charge.
Elections? Feh, you can have 'em.
Act like Democrats.
NEVER HAPPEN.
Veto override has happened as recently as Bushes 41 & 43, and also with Clinton.
List of United States presidential vetoes
But I agree that it's not going to happen because of "blind leading the blind" conservative "leadership" and because of Doubting Thomases like you.
You and I both know that.
Unless conservatives ran it, not a damn thing.
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.