Panic Inside the Beltway

RUSH: There is panic inside the Beltway. There is panic over the "cromnibus" bill, the cromnibus spending bill, ladies and gentlemen. It appears that the Republican leadership pretty much gave Obama and the Democrats everything they want except for one thing. They are making some tweaks, and I'm gonna get into this in greater detail. Just setting the table now. They made some tweaks in the cromnibus bill to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, and Elizabeth Warren is fit to be tied. She's livid.

Now, she's in the Senate, and she's out there saying that the Republicans in the House (laughing) want to shut down the government over their tweaks to the Dodd-Frank bill. No, it's Elizabeth Warren that will shut down the government if she objects to this. But, see, this is how it works, and this is why we all have bent over backwards to tell the Republicans will you stop worrying about what's gonna be said about you.

Even if you give the Democrats everything they want and if you give Obama everything he wants, and then at the last minute they pull a whammy on you and say, "You know what, we don't like this thing" and accuse you of shutting down the government when they are doing it, it doesn't matter. Elizabeth Warren could succeed in shutting down the government and the Republicans are gonna get blamed for it. It's written in the commandments of media, and it doesn't matter what the truth is.

If there is a government shutdown, the Republicans are gonna get blamed for it. It's the same old thing. Whatever happens on anything, the Republicans are gonna get blamed. So the argument's always been, just do the right thing. You've got an electorate behind you in massive numbers.

The latest poll on Obamacare, there is a record high, as expressed in polling data, opposed to Obamacare. Fifty-eight percent. It is an all-time high.

Now, there have been some outlier polls that have shown 60%, 62%, but this is what I call a Drive-By mainstream poll, 58% opposed to Obamacare. And the same kind of numbers opposed to amnesty, and yet the Republicans still sit there and maintain, "Oh, we can't do a government shutdown, we'll get blamed for it" and so forth. It's just, again, when it comes to amnesty, the Republicans want it. The Chamber of Commerce wants it, and we know that.

But it's fascinating to watch Elizabeth Warren, and of course in doing this, Elizabeth Warren is going out and launching a full-fledged attack on capitalism, which is really going to help her if she does decide to seek the Democrat presidential nomination. I mentioned a poll on Hillary Clinton yesterday, that I'd never seen a poll like this. It showed her in the 70 or 80% approval range. These polls always surprise me. I've never bought into this idea that Hillary is unbeatable, and I've never bought into the idea that Hillary is preordained to be president. I've never bought into the idea that it's hers for the asking or taking. I've never bought into the idea that it's senseless to oppose her if she wants it, and if she runs she'll win.

And we have evidence on my side. She did run in 2008 and she lost, despite our best efforts to help her here with Operation Chaos. Anyway, it turns out we had some in-depth analysis of that poll, and it's totally flawed. The poll showing Hillary at 70, 80, whatever percent approval, it doesn't jibe with real-world experience. She can't sell a book, folks. Nobody bought that book, and when she makes appearances, makes speeches, half the room is empty.

Now, I know a little bit about drawing a crowd. I know a little bit about connecting with an audience, and I know that she doesn't have an audience connection. Maybe with a few Democrats, but in terms of the kind of connection, a deep connection with an audience, voters, whatever you want to call it, she just doesn't have it. I don't think she ever has had it, to tell you the truth. I think it's one of the greatest myths that has been pulled over on a country, a society, by the media -- so far harmless -- well, other than for those in Benghazi.

I really think Hillary Clinton is mostly hype. It doesn't mitigate the fact that she's there and she's been in positions of power, but it does provide some confidence. There's no reason to be afraid of her. Anyway, I'll get into details of that poll as the program unfolds.

We got this from A.B. Stoddard at TheHill.com: "Dems sick of Obamacare." You have Kathleen Sebelius running around say, well, you know, there is a problem with Obamacare. It's the name. It's a branding problem, she says. But, folks, Democrats are running away from Obamacare in droves. First up was Chuck Schumer wanting no part of it anymore, and then Tom "Dung Heap" Harkin in Iowa saying he wanted no part of it anymore, and saying it shouldn't have been voted on. They should have done it last or shouldn't have done it first. They should have done other things first, like focus on jobs and the economy.

A.B. Stoddard's piece here with a couple of pull quotes: "Four years after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed by only Democrats, the law has contributed to giving Republicans their strongest hold on Congress in more than half a century." Fifty years, for those of you in Rio Linda.

And another pull quote: "Now Democrats hope a better website, more enrollees, some bipartisan fixes and a second affirmative Supreme Court decision can save the law before Hillary Clinton or another Democratic nominee has to finesse a position on it two years from now. If not, these four years are just the first in what could be decades before the Democratic Party is cured of its healthcare ills."

Her whole point here is how Obamacare has destroyed the Democrat Party. Now, you may not see that written in such terms because the media of course is not going to do that, but it is one of these things that has to be true. The Democrat Party is in total trouble. They're being shellacked in elections left and right. The 2012 presidential race argues against that. Obama was reelected, I understand that, presidential turnout being what it is. But the last two midterms that we've had, I mean, you can't deny Democrats have gotten creamed.

The Democrat senators that voted for Obamacare are gone. It has been devastating. They are on the ropes. They have done great damage to their party. Obama has succeeded in doing great damage, which we forecast, by the way, while pointing out that Obama didn't care about whatever damage might occur to the Democrat Party.

But here's how A.B. Stoddard opens her piece. "Watching Jonathan Gruber testify before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on Tuesday was likely too much for most Democrats to take, as he characterized his remarks describing Congress as tricking Americans into approving a new tax as 'thoughtless,' as well as 'mean,' 'glib,' 'uncalled for' and 'embarrassing.' It's the very definition of the door hitting them on the way out. Four years after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed by only Democrats, the law has contributed to giving Republicans their strongest hold on Congress in more than half a century." Harry Truman, to be precise.

"What's even more frightening than the law's unpopularity is the prospect of Obamacare being dismantled by a coming Supreme Court review. ... The cumulative damage the Democratic Party has suffered, as well as the casualty rate ... has brought its leaders to an unhappy inflection and reflection point. Two years ago, President Obama was reelected to the surprise and delight of Democrats who believed that, not only would his unique coalition provide them with," cover, but a permanent, ongoing majority. And now look at what has happened.

I only bring this up because I'm trying to reinforce for everybody what a strong position the Republicans have, for some reason, they simply refuse to accept that, to understand it, to know it with confidence and to act on it. They simply don't know how to act as winners for some reason. It's understandable if you've never been a winner in your mind and one day you are. It's hard to do a 180. But it's not that they're just recent winners. They've been winning a lot of elections. So it's curious and we will delve further into it as the program unfolds.

If there is a government shutdown, the Republicans are gonna get blamed for it. It's the same old thing. Whatever happens on anything, the Republicans are gonna get blamed.

The reason the congresscritters are so afraid of a government shutdown? If the People saw that the shutdown made no difference in their lives, selling the People on more government would never work again.

We could eliminate all the three letter alphabet soup agencies and the country would be better, not worse. That is what the politicians fear.

Regarding the constitutionally indefensible Dodd-Frank law, not only did Thomas Jefferson officially note that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate either banking or intrastate commerce, but the Supreme Court has also historically clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively [emphases added] with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So if Elizabeth Warren really wants to protect the Dodd-Frank law then she needs to do the following. She needs to rally Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states which would grant Congress the speciifc powers to regulate both intrastate banking and intrastate commerce. And if the states choose to ratify Ms Warren’s amendment then Congress will have the power to regulate such issus and Ms Warren will be a hero.

The only permanent solution would be to hang the Dems, the Republican "leadership" and their media lackeys on the Capitol steps and restore the limits on Federal power and spending envisaged in the Constitution.

After 30+yrs as a carpenter/cabinetmaker, it'd be an honor to help build a few dozen 'Liberty Trees' for said purpose.
T'would be an infinitely better retirement legacy than any mere gold watch could ever hope !

So people have some idea of what it is Warren/Durbin are talking about:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/wall-street-seeks-to-tuck-dodd-frank-changes-in-budget-bill/?_r=0

Here is a rundown of the main Dodd-Frank issues that may be in play over the next day or so. The list is based on information learned from people briefed on the legislative negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

¶ The bill that Citigroup helped draft: This bill would repeal one of the more contentious provisions in Dodd Frank, a requirement that banks “push out” some derivatives trading into separate units that are not backed by the government’s deposit insurance fund. The proponents of the push-out rule argued that it would isolate risky trading from parts of a bank eligible for a government bailout.

The provision exempted many derivatives from the push-out requirement, but some Republicans have long proposed eliminating the provision altogether.

In late 2011, Citigroup floated a compromise. The bank’s lobbyists sent around a proposal that simply exempted a wider array of derivatives from the push-out plan.

As The New York Times reported last year, lawmakers adopted nearly every word of Citigroup’s plan in drafting a bill. The bank’s recommendations are reflected in more than 70 of the 85 lines of that bill.

Remember Citi is in the pockets of liberals a la Rubin and Lew:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/09/us-citigroup-rubin-idUSN0930738020090109

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/jack-lew-rubin-citigroup_n_2458142.html

[Rush]
It's just, again, when it comes to amnesty, the Republicans want it. The Chamber of Commerce wants it, and we know that.

The Republican leadership/Chamber of Commerce henchcritters want both unlimited immigration (the Wall Street Journal once put that in an editorial, carved in letters four feet tall, just before 9/11, and I won't let them forget it) and Obamacare, and Boehner is working like hell to get it for them, and to make sure no GOP fingerprints are left behind on the deed.

Obamacare lets Chamber members (and I use that word in both senses, i.e. sensu non stricto) dump their employee health plans (not including the executive plans, of course) and throw people on the mercy of the 'Rat Party and its medical orc-ocrats. The old plans' premiums will be flowed through to the bottom line very bonusably, after a seemly-exclusive boardroom orgy, er, party), and the employees will be stiffed across the board. Big-shot CEO's used to come on Lou Rukeyser's show 10 years ago and fulminate and swear up and down that they were going to get rid of employee health care and they didn't care what happened to the employees -- and now they've made good on their blood vows and are partying like it's 1999.

The object of illimitable mass-immigration, since the mid-1800's, has been to crush wages -- which implies that people will be even less able to afford their own health care. But who cares? Screw them. Let them eat Obamacare forms.

I don't necessarily hate Republicans.

I hate the Republican'ts.

"We can't challenge the president

"There is nothing we can do about it"

"We can't pass that law. It won't hold up in court."

"We can't pass that law. The president will veto it"

"Our hands are tied"

"The media will have a field day if we do that."

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.