Posted on 07/20/2014 5:52:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
>>Nothing will get done until after January. And even then Obama will just veto everything that comes his way.<<
I know people in here have a pretty low opinion of Representative Boehner and Senator McConnell, but one thing they do have is a good grasp of the mechanics of their offices.
As I said in the extended post above, it will be possible to structure spending bills in such a way that it will put both President Obama and Congressional Democrats in a very uncomfortable position should he consider vetoing them. And with control of both the House and Senate, they could do it.
With one caveat: The Senate GOP should follow Reid’s lead and scrap the current filibuster rule altogether. Australia just dropped its carbon tax, a tremendous turnaround of policy, but only 55% of its Senate voted to do so. If they’d have had our Senate filibuster policy, the turnaround wouldn’t have been possible.
The only good to come from all of this is that the battle between the Tea Party and the GOP-e is now out in the open.
No way - all the Dims need to do is put $1 dollar of worthwhile/needed funding request into a $100 billion bill and the Repubs will wet all over themselves passing it instead of insisting that necessary spending be put in its own bill instead of riding a monstrosity to the taxpayers’ pockets.
>>The question being clarified is whether the House can act unilaterally. It can’t as regards spending, which is contrary to what the author of the article seems to imply.<<
But the House can act unilaterally in the sense the author of the article proposes. If they don’t pass a spending bill, the government shuts down. However, the House did pass such a bill, and the current CR now extends past the election, so the only sensible discussion of his proposal would assume a post-election scenario, which is what I did.
He also stated: “Boehner seems … chilly to that idea. Any theories why? Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why, four months before an election, he doesn’t want to commit to a new, protracted government shutdown..”
In stating that, he was apparently unaware that a budget has already been passed. As for the guess on a theory as to why Boehner doesn’t want to risk a shutdown, the answer is two-part: 1) He can’t; the budget is already in effect, and 2) We’ve seen how the GOP gets beat up when they threaten a shutdown under current circumstances. At least the last time around they got the sequester, but only by being willing to temporarily gut the military budget. (At least I hope it’s temporary.)
I think you have a correct take on the author’s proposal. Not everyone, including those supposedly in the know, does understand the situation.
Note my first comment in post #4.
And with control of both the House and Senate, they [Republicans] could do it.
**********
They COULD, but will they? I’m not sure they have the resolve. The Republican “leadership” is long on talk but very short on action.
I am assuming that means "all his funding" and an excellent idea....wonder if the is an Obama EO preventing that very act...
This would be akin to asking a total PACIFIST if he were going to use an AK-47 to bring about peace.
Bonehead will do his usual posturing number then NOTHING.
To clarify your remark, do you mean the "Karl Roves" of the GOP? The Elitists and talking heads like O'Reilly or Bernie Goldberg? Many real conservatives belong to the Republican Party as well as supporters of the Tea Party....what makes you think all are in a battle? You sound like you believe all the MSM has been dishing out.
-— To clarify your remark, do you mean the “Karl Roves” of the GOP? The Elitists and talking heads like O’Reilly or Bernie Goldberg? -—
Yes. Basically, I divide the Republicans into the Tea Party and the Establishment.
Joe Insurance Policy? Qualified? Wash your mouth out with soap! Joe and qualified should never ever be used in the same sentence.
>>The Republican “leadership” is long on talk but very short on action.<<
While I know what you mean by that cliche, and it sounds reasonable, I disagree with it being applied in these circumstances.
I think the GOP leadership, particularly McConnell and Boehner, are really lacking in the “talk” department. Because of that it’s fallen to people like Cruz, Rubio, and Rand Paul to make the case for GOP principles, principles that I consider the same as tea party principles, which is why there isn’t a splintered Tea Party like there was a Ross Perot movement in the 90’s.
The problem with taking action is that there isn’t much that can actually be done until the GOP takes the Senate, and/or the Presidency, other than investigate the obvious scandals of this administration. Which means that the best weapon is talk, i.e., attempting to convince the public that the nation is on the wrong trajectory. As hard as that is to do with the MSM firmly aligned with the Left, it’s much harder when your two most powerful leaders are such marginal speakers.
I’m convinced, for instance, that without his stellar speaking ability we’d never have had a President Obama. His voice and manner of speaking was a key part of getting the job, just as Clinton’s is a key part of the hold he has over much of the American public. Boehner and McConnell don’t have that in them, unfortunately, nor, by the way, did Dole, McCain, or Romney.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
While I understand that talk can be used to make a case for GOP principles and/or convince the public, and its essential to publicize your position, talk that’s not backed up by any action becomes mere empty rhetoric and is perceived as such. Too often, the GOP message is weak. Some of this is, as you say , attributable to the GOP’s lack of powerful speakers. And to your second point, there’s also the problem of the message getting ignored or drowned out by a liberal media “headwind”. However, IMHO the GOP message isn’t always taken seriously because it often gives in without a real fight. It doesn’t always walk the talk.
In order to win in any contest, you have to put points up on the board. You do that by offense, by scoring against the other team. As an example, I think the House controlled GOP could have scored points by doing a better job of using the power of the purse when they had the opportunity. Even little victories build momentum. Just my opinion.
The GOP needs to adopt a more aggressive, winning attitude and not appear so comfortable with maintaining the status quo. If I was a Democrat, I would be thankful everyday that the Republican Party is as docile as it is. There’s nothing better than having a weak opponent.
There are lots of issues the GOP could win on IMO, especially in a political environment that is not so favorable to Dems. I think Reagan set a fine example of how to score points and win. The GOP needs to follow his example.
Regards.
>>I think Reagan set a fine example of how to score points and win. The GOP needs to follow his example.<<
While I agree that it would be nice to win a few in the House, playing the “power of the purse” game seemed to backfire on the GOP. Recall the beating the party took in polling during the last shutdown, even as Obama kept people out of national parks. The media is a tough opponent when it’s so soundly on the side of the opposition.
I think the game changes completely if Reid no longer controls the Senate’s agenda in 2015. The GOP will be able to send up individual funding bills that are overwhelmingly approved by the voters and it will be almost impossible for Obama to veto them and still claim it’s the GOP shutting down the government. And even if he does, Dem Senators up for re-election will almost be forced to vote to override early vetoes.
As for Reagan, I think there are some parallels to the current situation. Reagan wasn’t loved by the establishment; he had to fight for the nomination and he based his fight on conservative (actually, old-time liberal) principles of individual freedoms and responsibilities, coupled with a warning about big government run amuck. Once he secured the nomination he didn’t have to change his message (unlike Romney, for example, who first felt he had to tack right, then back left during the general election). Reagan just kept campaigning on the same principles because they resonate with all but devout leftists and he won.
I think that’s what’s now happening with respectable tea party supported candidates finally rising to the top of the candidate pool. If one of them wins the nominations he or she will be able to campaign in the general on the same principles. And if successful, a lot will begin to happen, starting with reversing most of Obama’s inane policies and replacing them with policies that emphasize personal responsibility and individual liberty while warning about the dangers of big government.
The recent poll (Pew, I believe) was illuminating in that regard. Younger voters are now primed for just such an appeal by the GOP, whether they realize it yet or not.
Reagan stood for things, and we all had a clear understanding of what they were. Not so much with today’s Republican Party. What do they really stand for? What convictions are they not willing to compromise on? Nobody expects them to fight every battle, but they do have to fight those that are winnable.
I sincerely hope the GOP takes back the senate; and I hope they press that advantage. Unfortunately, there’s precious little evidence to indicate that a victorious GOP will reduce the size of government or cut back on spending. Just my take on their recent history.
Frankly, I think Reagan would be disappointed in the GOP in its current incarnation. The GOP needs to show some heart. People respect the courage of convictions and dedication to your principles.
Regards and it was enjoyable exchanging “thoughtful thoughts” with you. Lets hope the GOP gets back to its Reagan roots.
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.