Would the GOP Actually Benefit from Winning Majorities in 2010?
In reading some recent political percolations in the starboard half of the blogosphere, a conservative need not worry … right? The president and his statist lieutenants in the House and Senate are racing to the left faster than Jimmie Johnson at Talladega. What could go wrong? It’s a matter of time before conservatives take back the House and filibuster Senator Dick Durbin’s ferocious whip. Time to cheer!
Moreover, with Senator Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusettes leaving the left reeling, it is beyond a doubt that 2010 will be a good year for Republicans and, ostensibly, conservatives.
Some campaign handicappers have even started musing that majorities in the House and Senate may be quickly turning purple-red.
As an attorney who has studied the concept of the separation of powers and proper governmental equilibriums, I am certain that one political party (especially one run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) in complete power and overtly dictating the agenda of a neophyte president will always end poorly. It was an empirical certainty that the public would respond negatively to the type of backroom deals and political payoffs (with our tax dollars!) included in the closely watched Democrat health care bill.
Fast-forward to the present day or A.B. (After Brown), and most sane Americans can take solace in knowing that congressional realignment is a foregone conclusion. And it is here that I posit this article’s thesis: conservatives should root against elected Republican majorities in the 112th United States Congress.
Should the Republicans control one or both ends of the Capitol building, gridlock will be the buzzword in 2011 for a variety of reasons.
First, if the Republicans were to miraculously win a majority in the Senate, Democrats would all put on their best Joe Lieberman masks and filibuster every proposal Leader McConnell proposes. And with this threat of perpetual obstruction, I believe wholeheartedly that every Republican senator sans Messrs. Coburn and DeMint will acquiesce and pass weak legislation with Democrats, wrongly reading their new majorities as a mandate to “work across the aisle.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if republicans could take control and somehow keep their powder dry until 2012?
You’ve got a point, but it’s too late. There’s no way to stop the vote going Republican in 2012.
But we don’t need more legislation, we need less. The best thing Republicans can do is to prevent the spending and the horrific legislation.
So it’s best to just keep repeating that “gridlock is good” all the way to 2016.
What is wrong with distinctiveness when it comes to the political arena? The Republicans, under the watchfulness of the Tea Party brigades, can communicate an alternative narrative than what comes from the deformed souls, reprobates, scalawags, scoundrels, and similar ilk on the other side.
Because, there are people ticked off at Washington, when before they defended Washington in the teeth of those who cannot resist playing God.
“I contend that the extent of the president’s disapproval originates in his ties to the Washington establishment.”
Interesting point of view, Mr. Marks. The statement above is an assumption, though, not a foregone conclusion, perhaps not the main reason, perhaps the wrong reason, and it tends to discount other possibilities. After all, as AQUA points out, the legislation is the problem. The key to having a conservative majority, but not a super-majority will be PR.. showing the president as the obstructionist to conservative policies, and the desire on the part of the public for conservative policies will be the determining factor in the 2010 elections. We have sen ever increasing arrogance and condescension on Obama’s part. He has placed his agenda above the needs of the people. He shows no signs of changing and keeps insisting that the American people should not have to wait for bad legislation. If we come to the 112th Congress and he blocks free market solutions to lower health care costs, who will be seen as the obstructionist? I can hear the calls for impeachment now.
Cray-zee, mixed-up reasoning by this author.
By his löogic, it’s best for Republicans NEVER to become a majority…not even thinking about what a Democrat majority would do TO America in the next 6-8 years.
GOD SAVE US.
Correction: 2012 should have been 2010, and 2016 should have been 2012.
Mr. Marks you are young and a product of our fantastic public school system. What you fail to realize is the fiscal time bomb that awaits us. If the GOP does not stop or curtail the current spending(2010) we will be doomed by 2012! We are not that far behind Greece.
“Would the GOP Actually Benefit from Winning Majorities in 2010?”
Winning majorities? Keep dreaming.
Mitch McConnel is a Howdy Doodie – Charlie McCarthy – Mortimer Snerd look-alike and act-alike — with the caveat that his mouth string is pulled by a random bureancratese generator.
You call that “LEADER” McConnel.
Ditto for pretty boy Beaner (sic), Bozo McCain and the whole dam bunch. Time to grow a pair and take over their party with 100% copies of Joe the Plumber.
Gad! Just imagine. Someone who can shoot straight with his mouth and take care of the American individual first, not their own power and money through their anecdotal pity pals.
Indeed, a win for conservatives in Congress could mean disaster in the long run. Obama and the Democrat congress have set this country on the road to economic disaster and absolute government control over the lives of the American people. Pulling the country back from the brink of disaster will be difficult, if not near impossible, at this point. Obama and the Democrats know that and they’re trying to push the country beyond the point of no return before conservatives win back Congress. Correcting the mess that Obama is creating will be painful, and the blame for that will be placed on the shoulders of conservatives. And the main stream media will be glad to give Obama and the Democratic minority full coverage. We will go back to pre-Obama times when the Democrats and the media blamed conservatives for everything, up to and including acts of nature.
How stupid. Better to have control of the agenda and force the minority to filibuster and vote.
What needs to be done is to make bills about two or three pages long including the spending bills and simply not use the “omnibus” route. Make the little Dem SOBs and Obama-nauts either vote against them or veto them. The only down side is Obama may have to stay in Washington to sign all them. With this in mind, if the GOP retakes both houses they should send Obama a semi-truckload of pens to use.
Mr. Marks:
“Second, regardless of who is in the majority in the House next year, no meaningful legislation will get passed. Period.”
You say that as though it’s a BAD thing.
“Future Republican majorities would only help improve President Obama’s fading reelection chances.”
I understand what you’re saying. The GOP majority Congress,(which is NOT a “done deal” at all yet), might rescue the Alleged Hawaiian.
Or the nation, through its’ usual combination of hard work and luck, muddles through to some acceptable level of growth and prosperity before 2012, and “Booger” Obama gets the credit.
This assumes that he’ll even WANT to run for re-election. I am not so sure that he will. He’s already in the history books for the skin color thing, why should he risk a second term,(which have not historically been kind to Presidents), when he can instead retire and play “elder statesman” to the Dems?
There’s also the possibility that the Dems will be so desperate to see the back of him that they urge someone sane over there to primary against him.
“Obama’s ideological principles will never allow him to vote with a conservative Congress. Thus, any compromise bill will help compound our country’s problems rather then fix them.”
Obama has principles? You haven’t been paying very close attention. We are still in Iraq, we are still in Afghanistan, Guantanamo is still open, and PATRIOT Act is still the law of the land,(in fact, Pugsley and her Orcs over in the House just reauthorized it!).
Obama’s principles begin and end at Obama’s career.
That said, the hypothetical GOP Congress must pass legislation that is popular with the electorate,(as opposed to the living fossils in the MSM), and which they KNOW Obama will veto.
They need to attack Obama’s and the Dems base; banning, or de-funding Civil Service unions and academia subsidies for worthless majors would be a great place to start.
Let Obama veto these, and then rub his nosee in the vetos right up until he either LBJ’s or is Cartered.
Yeah, let’s not get ahead of ourselves and actually throw the corrupt socialist elitists out, let’s worry about whether or not the electorate clam will produce a pearl somewhere down the road.
If conservatives can’t get over listening to the timid voices they’ll never roll back the socialist web of corruption that’s taken forty years of gradualism to build. Gradualism in our approach to overthrowing the Crown didn’t work back in 1776 and it won’t work to repeal the unconstitutional infrastructure that has taken over the federal government. Besides, Barry isn’t Bill, he’s not going to be “dragged back to the political center” and no matter how much he may want to pretend that he’s headed that way no one is going to believe him. Think attack and counter-attack, not defense and how to be sure you can hold on to the cozy trenches you’re used to.
Republicans need not just a majority, but a supermajority even more bulletproof than the democrats now enjoy. Republicans need to take over and actually take over rather than worrying about the next time they’re a minority. Investigate the corrupt crap, face up to the corruption built into the system and actually indict people over it. Go after the entrenched people in the government that don’t change at each election but always work towards the same leftist ideals that democrat lefties do. Shed agencies, streamline the delivery of services, when heads of various things say they can’t change, pass a law that alters the Civil Service regulations and fire the foot draggers. Get people who want to return to the Constitutional form of government and shed those who believe in the corrupt and socialist system they built for themselves. Do that and if democrats take over again down the road, they’ll have at least been set back a few decades by the impact made while Constitutionalists are in charge.
Dammit, act like we the people run the government for a change instead of acting like we’re trying to alter a basic principal of physics. Either you believe the people are in charge or you don’t, and angst over the problems associated with winning is just another symptom of the Republicans having spent too many years with their heads up their RINO nether regions. Unless Americans get their hearts in the game, this Barry or the next will simply end elections and be done with it.
have a nice day
Go play in the street Jeremy. It’s better if the government does nothing. We should pay them to stay home !!
#5
I agree with the Czar of Window Expulsion, conservatism in defense of liberty requires a basically do-nothing government. In this I must part company with the excellent Pelaut, who wrote at #9: “…Time to grow a pair and take over their party with 100% copies of Joe the Plumber.
Gad! Just imagine. Someone who can shoot straight with his mouth and take care of the American individual first…”
American government was not formed to take care of American individuals. It was formed to leave American individuals alone as much as possible. However I loved Pelaut’s shot at the libruls with this: “…their anecdotal pity pals.” That is indeed the very bread and butter of all the corrupt libs in government. Thanks for that one, Pelaut. I’m sure we will see that phrase again and again.
I have had my doubts as to whether it is a good thing for the Republicans to take majority control of Congress in the coming elections. I continue to bounce from one side to the other with visions of how Clinton and the press were able to sway public opinion against the Republicans in 1995 and ’96 to make them look evil trying to make the federal gov’t. live within its means. And, the Repubicans eventually became indistinguishable from the Democrats when it came to spending during the Bush years. Better to spend and be liked than to actually make tough decisions and be vilified. I really want to come down on the side of yes, we do need to win control of Congress and let the fights begin, but in the end will anything really get done when all that is done is the Republicans pass bills, the President vetoes the legislation and there is not the 2/3 vote to override the vetoes. But, then again, gridlock is good…….see what I mean………
Uh, Clinton was re-elected because of Ross Perot. Not his triangulation.
This country and every real American in it want less government. I would hope that when the conservatives are back in control of Congress they cut spending and if Dear Reader shuts down the government like Slick Willie did then they ignore the ranting of the leftist democrat media and embrace no government for awhile. With , of course , only emergency funding of the military and SS/mediscam recipients. They do not need to worry about welfare leeches as those are democrats.
What an idiotic concept. Some fool can always rationalize a reason to lose.
But here is a thought — maybe it’s not all about the GOP? Maybe it’s the fate of the nation that is at stake?
Screw this political gamesmanship and quite worrying about party — just do the right thing!
Jeremy, what kind of upside down world do you live in?
As an attorney who has studied the concept of the separation of powers and proper governmental equilibriums, I am certain . . .
Jeremy Marks is a third-year law student.
You know, you might want to re-read those rules on professional responsibility because it is a gross violation of legal ethics — enough to have you prevented from being admitted to the bar — to represent yourself as “an attorney” when you are not.
You are not an attorney, you are a law student.
Such a gross misrepresentation raises questions regarding your basic honesty and fitness to practice law.
Hard to call retaking the Congress and stopping the theft a win.
As mentioned above, the measures necessary to restore the nation to any semblance of its former state will have to be extremely austere (that’s DRACONIAN from the Left).
Face it. Gov’t and gov’t programs at all levels (excepting military) must be cut by half immediately; thereby introducing 2-3 million more into a “jobless market” already occupied by 15+ million. And the employment prospects for paper-pushers are what? A thankless task writ large.
President Obama will not move to the center, although he will talk about working with Republicans, when ot if the Republicans take over eaither chamber of Congress. President Obama lacks the maturity, leadership, & guile to shift; he is a Leftist ideologue who wants to remake America into a Socialist State. That is his goal. It will remain his goal until he is out of office in 2013.
Obama does not live in the real world; he lives in a fantasy land of his own making, ObamaLand. This is where the magical thinking comes in. Obama will put any other Democrat under the bus to fulfill his agenda; however, things have not gone as planned. Much of his agenda has backfired. Obama is oblivious his agenda & himself has backfired on the public.
Fantom @ 17:
You’re confusing 1992 with 1996.
Let us remember, we elect Presidents with the electoral vote, not the popular vote, first.
Clinton got 379 electoral votes.
Dole got 159.
Perot got 0.
And, if you wanna look at the popular vote, the picture is the same.
Clinton got 49.24%
Dole got 40.71%.
Perot got 8.40%.
Do the math. Even if every single Perot voter voted for Dole (highly unlikely), that would have only given Dole 49.11%, still losing to Clinton.
Quod erat demonstrandum
A possible Republican majority in either or both chambers of Congress could trump the ‘compromise with Obama’ trap by working to pass repeal of liberal legislation, sending responsibility and authority back to the states and refusing to pass bloated budgets.
Republicans, hell! The entire country would benefit from a Republican take over in 2010! It is the objective of the Kenyan and those who own him, to destroy the middle class in America. The point of obamacare, cap&trade and stimulus is only to put the US so far in debt that reducing the military budget to a point approaching zero is our only alternative (at least, the only alternative considered by the Kenyan and his owners).
A Republican congress will hold them at bay and, maybe, bring some of his corrupt, anti-American employees to justice.
Jeremy Marks; the problem with your hypothesis that all probable outcomes to the 2010 midterms create the same dangers. It is safe to assume that Republicans, hopefully conservative Republicans will make substantial gains in November. The pitfall they must avoid whether they have a majority or not is compromise. They must resist the urge to not just stand there but do something. Passing bad legislation in the mistaken belief something is better than nothing is destroying our country. Since the main plank/theme/slogan for conservative candidates in 2010 should be repeal the 111th congress avoiding the do anything as long as we do something trap shouldn’t be that hard. Whether the Social Democrats hold on to a majority or not gridlock is still the best outcome we can hope for until 2012. We needn’t worry about President Obama moving to the center ala Bill Clinton he actually thinks he’s there now. Your concern about the Republican’s treasons proclivity to “work with the other side” is indeed the greatest danger to us since, oh I don’t know, the beginning of time? It is up to “We the People” to make certain that those we elect to represent us aren’t suffering from the delusion that we want them to work with the Social Democrats.
“23. ConservativeWanderer:”.
That is a fine analysis as far as it goes Wanderer. However electoral votes are awarded state by state , usually in a winner(if even by plurality) takes all. As such your total national popular vote is a non sequitur.. it is irrelevant and leads to a flawed proof.
Rather it is the various States and the vote within each, which must be accounted for. By my count there are 11 States where Perot on the ballet may well have thrown the state to Slick Willie. Those States accounted for 133 electoral votes. Had they all flipped then it would have produced a 292 – 246 electoral win for Dole. Likely not all would have flipped, but then there was room for Dole to lose a few of those.
We can debate just how many of Perots voters would have voted for Dole. But I seriously doubt very many would have voted for Mr what “is’ is. Perot voters had more honor than a democrat voter.
Also not to be denigrated, and also mostly unquantifiable, is the dynamic of Perot running again. Certainly, by the numbers Perot’s effect was greater in 92, but it would be hard to say how many stayed home because they saw the vote being split again.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996
ConservativeWanderer: Well said (and documented). With Obama’s complete inability to consider that he might be on the wrong course, and lacking Clinton’s craftiness and ability to take credit for the work of others, 2010 will be good, 2012 will be even better.
No disrespect intended, but in 1994 you were probably about nine years old. That being the case, most of your info about that year comes not from practical experience, but rather from what you have read (which of course is the writer’s own opinion of the times as it is now mine).
As I recollect, the Republicans were so elated over their finally being in control of the situation that they acted like small kids at a party wanting all the candy and the liberals started out on a real campaign to get rid of the man who started it all (Newt Gingrich). The Republicans did not know how to handle such a position of “authority” if you will, and got the public so annoyed that it went back to the Democrats. BUT, there is one big lesson that the Republicans have learned the Hard Way and that is that the American People do not want big government and big government programs and if they are once more in that position, they would not dare let it happen again. We are so close to becoming a Socialist Country that all true Americans are way up in arms and fighting to preserve the Republic we once thought we had.
We are not going to allow another candidate that runs say he is a conservative if he is not a true conservative. And that will make a difference. Americans are a strange lot. All of us, no matter what the party we think we belong to, do not want to be led around by the nose and have the government tell us how, what, why, and when we can do anything. We are too proud as Americans.
Try talking to someone as I am that comes from the Great Depression era (what is happening now is nothing compared to that) and the World War II era and you will find that we are a hardy, but old group who would rather die than let that happen and we will fight to the death to prevent it.
They can reach across the isle. They just have to start the reaching from from a point further to the right.
Republicans should stop trying to gauge the american people and make proposals that start from the middle and then negotiate with a democrat party that is way over to the extreme left.
The republicans starting point should be way more fiscally conservative. They should make preposterous proposals of massive spending cuts, way bigger cuts than is actually achievable. So when they meet in the middle the result is smaller spending cuts than the starting point but cuts none the less.
Bender,
I am an attorney. I submitted to Pajamasmedia a request to change my bio information. They must have over looked this and I have resubmitted my request. This is my second article posted here, the first article was posted when I was a law student. Since then, I have graduated law school, passed the bar exam, and received my license to practice.
Fanton @ 27:
Don’t fall prey to the same sort of inability to admit that you’re wrong that The One True Obama suffers from.
CNN’s poll tracking clearly shows that if Perot had dropped out, Clinton would have received more than half the “Perot vote.”
As of the poll of 11/2-3, Clinton was winning that question 54% to 38%.
Therefore, Perot being in hurt Clinton more than Dole, and if he’d dropped out it would have benefited Clinton more than Dole.
Oops, forgot to close the hyperlink tag.
My apologies.
I agree. If the GOP wins COngress Obama can easily ‘pivot’ tpo blaming the GOP for all of our woes even as he vetoes all GOP legislation. Better to remain in the minority albeit a large enough one to guarantee gridlock and a halt to socialist expansion.
This article was written by someone who has no idea about American conservatism.
“Gridlock” means that the government stops growing. If the author could please point to the last time that Congressional action led to a reduction in government, I would appreciate a reference. Furthermore, find Congressional action that led to a reduction in government that was initiated by a democrat majority.
Thanks for correcting the record.
Any aspersions on your character I withdraw. But your idea is still a bad idea.
I disagree that a Republican majority would be bad, they would reverse and or stop Obama’s agenda and possibly reverse the poor decisions already put into action from the current congress. This is what started the Tea Party (the fact that the current congress spent to much with no real accountability) to fast with little to no positive result(s) to show for it!
A new conservative congress could stop Obama in his tracks and possibly remove him from office as well as investigate and possibly remove people from office (including czars or tsars) and defund at will to render some regulatory agencies harmless due to lack of funds.
Yes indeed and when things start getting better just from the psychological impact then businesses will again start borrowing and hiring and we can go back to being prosperous instead of worried about what new laws or regulations might be coming down the road!
“32. ConservativeWanderer:
Fanton @ 27:
Don’t fall prey to the same sort of inability to admit that you’re wrong that The One True Obama suffers from.”
First you do admit you are wrong about the national vote being valid in your self called proof, do you not.
Second you actually conjure up a cnn exit poll as any kind of backup. That is so weak only from a liberal would I expect it.
Well I can actually do better than that.
1988 George Bush J. Danforth Quayle Republican 48,886,597
Michael Dukakis Lloyd Bentsen Democratic 41,809,476
90 million voters
1992 liam Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 44,909,806
George Bush J. Danforth Quayle Republican 39,104,550
H. Ross Perot James Stockdale Independent 19,743,821
104 million voters.
What do we have here. Democrats add 3 million, Perot pulls ten million from the R’s + any addition like the Dems did. So Perot added 7 or so million Perot voters perhaps.
Lets keep looking.
1996 William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 47,400,125
Robert Dole Jack Kemp Republican 39,198,755
H. Ross Perot Pat Choate Reform 8,085,402
96 million voted
Dems add thier usual 2-3 million , low and behold the Republicans are at the same level as before. The one time Perot voters are gone….. or are they.
2000 George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,460,110
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 51,003,926
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 2,883,105
104 million voted.
No perot and the republican voters are back and then some. Democrats add their usual ACORN gains. This certainly puts the lie to the Perot siphoned votes from Repubs and Dems equally meme you are trying to defect your false proof with.
Speakin’ of which. Did I just see someone who did not win the national popular vote become President in 2000? Nah, can’t be. That would mean you are wrong about something now wouldn’t it Wanderer.
Once again, it is where Perot siphoned off and or depressed the conservative vote Wander. The above data pretty much blows the cnn propaganda out of here would you not agree?
Next time Wanderer, do not project your obama like inability to admit you are wrong onto someone else.
#20 Bender:
“Such a gross misrepresentation raises questions regarding your basic honesty and fitness to practice law.”
If that is so, he’ll go FAR.
#31 Jeremy:
“I am an attorney. I submitted to Pajamasmedia a request to change my bio information. They must have over looked this and I have resubmitted my request. This is my second article posted here, the first article was posted when I was a law student. Since then, I have graduated law school, passed the bar exam, and received my license to practice.”
Congratulations. Have you been “adopted out of the pound” by a firm yet, or are you “ham n’ egging” with the PD’s office?
”As I recollect, the Republicans were so elated over their finally being in control of the situation that they acted like small kids at a party wanting all the candy and the liberals started out on a real campaign to get rid of the man who started it all (Newt Gingrich). The Republicans did not know how to handle such a position of “authority” if you will, and got the public so annoyed that it went back to the Democrats.”
Actually, the Republicans were so careful not to be as nasty to the minority as the democrats had been to them that they looked like and thereafter acted like complete wimps. I think a lot of people voted against them thinking that the Republicans were afraid to act like conservatives and that maybe the democrats had learned their lesson. And, of course, the democrats did learn their lesson which is why they want to ram socialism down the throats of the public no matter what. They know how to fight holding actions and they know that once in place timid Republicans will have a tough time rolling it back. What they don’t know is that the public won’t take it any more.
Regards
Mr. Marks, you seem to think that if nothing gets done in Washington that would be a bad thing. I have gotten so cynical that I think it would be better that the politicians were so divided nothing gets done. Other than tax cuts and increased defense spending when needed, very, very rarely does anything good come out of Washington. Government grew least in recent years from 1994-2000 under Bill Clinton when Republicans in congress opposed him largely out of spite. Once Republicans took power they started spending like Democrats only on somewhat different programs.
Also, Barack Obama has shown none of the political savvy of Bill Clinton and if faced with a Republican congress he may very well turn to an even more suicidal hard left agenda guaranteeing his defeat in 2012.
36. Dole lost because Dole was a loser. He wasn’t an aggressive conservative.
Actually, Fantom, I am as skeptical about polls as the next guy, but at least they’re actual evidence, as opposed to your pie-in-the-sky theories.
The Perot voters… the actual people casting the votes, told CNN that more of them would vote for Clinton than for Dole, and there’s a very good reason for that.
The electorate is not–contrary to your apparent belief–divided into Democrats and Republicans. There’s probably 15-20% rock-solid Democrats, 15-20% rock-solid Republicans, and the rest are generally termed “independents.”
What happened in 1996 was that Dole was such a lackluster candidate that millions of these independents turned to either Perot or Clinton. I dunno about you, but I was alive and old enough to comprehend politics in 1996, and Dole’s “it’s my turn” campaign was one of the weakest I have ever seen; it’s hardly surprising that people would prefer to vote for one of the other candidates.
See, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense… Dole doesn’t give people any real reason to vote for him, so people outside the GOP base look for other candidates. They have two choices, Clinton and Perot. Most of them end up supporting Clinton, and those that don’t support Perot; yet when asked by CNN who they’d support if Perot wasn’t on the ballot, most of them said Clinton.
Ya gotta remember, John Nine-To-Five doesn’t pay attention to politics the way you or I do; typically they’re barely engaged before around Labor Day of an election year. What they saw was Dole running a very mediocre campaign, Clinton doing fairly well, since he was willing to work with the GOP Congress (something His Great Obamaness is probably incapable of doing), and they liked what they saw, so they voted for him.
Also remember that this was mostly before Fox News Channel debuted (they began broadcasting 7 Oct 1996, about a month before the election) and well before FNC became the powerhouse it is today… at debut, they served about 17 million households. So the non-political-wonkish public (including those who can’t listen to Rush at work) had to depend on ABCCBSCNNNBCPBS for their news. Would you, perchance, like to argue that one of those media outlets was fair enough to give Dole a fair shake in their coverage?
The evidence is clear; Remove Perot, Clinton still wins, because of several factors. However, this discussion is distracting from the main point, so I shall waste no more time nor bandwidth on it.
(P.S. Feel free to claim that my “retreat” shows that I can’t defend my position. Doing so will just confirm my suspicions about you, however.)
i once knew a very fine old southern legislator who was asked what the job of a lawmaker was…his response, “kill bills, kill bills, and kill bills”. Gridlock is a good thing…there has never been a bill introduced in modern times that returned us to constitutional government. inaction is far preferable to the passage of any proposed legislation from contemporary senators and representatives.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. “If” Republicans gain majorities whether in one or both houses, their actions had better match what the public wants. Less spending, smaller government, less intrusion into our lives, lower taxes & tax programs that encourage businesses to increase their activity so we can get people back to work. And, we want government out of the business of business.
Regulations have their place. However, we need well written, smart, effective regulations, not the crap that permitted, even facilitated what we have been going through. We also need regulators who accept their responsibility & do their jobs. Madoff should never have been allowed to get away w/ his scam. The regulators were warned multiple times. Those who graded credit derivatives actually gave them a triple AAA rating. Why? What jerk would give a 3-A rating to junk mortgages?
Its not government that scares us, its BAD government. Its not taxes that bother us, its poorly spent taxes. Its not pork that bugs us, its outrageous pork for outrageous projects.
We need politicians to act responsibly & to act in the best interests of America, even if there are some who think America is bad. Most of us do not & we reject such despicable attacks on her character.
We also need people in Washington who do not go around the world apologizing for America. Americans, do NOT feel we have anything to apologize for. In fact, we feel there are many who may just owe us apologies.
Honor, American exceptionalism, are not bad words or bad idea’s.
The absolutely best time the country was experiencing in last 20 years or so was when Clinton’s impeachment. Whatever were merits of the case, all 3 branches of government were engaged in impeachment proceedings. No new legislation or SC rulings were to be had. Oh, the bliss of a complete gridlock!
I would concur with this thesis although a strong showing to bring the Republican body in the Senate up to 47 or 48 seats would be an excellent start toward 2012. If we could bring the House to within 20 or 30 seats or so would do likewise. The objective should be the White House in 2012 with at least control of the Senate followed by a super majority in 2014. Bold, yes but attainable with a proper vision and focus.
#41
“Once Republicans took power they started spending like Democrats only on somewhat different programs.”
True. And don’t forget the “earmarks.”
It looks like they’ve learned their lesson — and the public is awake, alert and vigilant now.
Democrats and their MSM have set up that the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Liberals spend on the poor and needy, and Conservatives spend on the rich.
The public is more and more getting it — that Government Spending and control of whatever type — and let’s not neglect Crony Capitalism — isn’t the answer — that genuine Conservative free-market principles benefit everyone — not just the “rich.” It will be up to Republicans and, I guess, the blogosphere, or whatever media is available — to change perceptions more and more. Many, many more than a shakey 51% is needed — the understanding needs to become almost universal, that
Whenever truly free market principles have been operative, there has been more growth and prosperity — for all.
Whenever regulatory, government controlling principles have been operative, there has been more shrinkage of growth and poverty — for all.
Gridlock to stop the spending and legislation followed by determined efforts to shrink the government — is the message that’s been getting to the people — they’re beginning to “get” it and understand the current urgency for real “change.”
I don’t believe public vigilance will fade for a long, long time.
LawHawkSF, you mentioned, “…Obama’s complete inability to consider that he might be on the wrong course..”
Would you augment that statement, so that it looks like this: “…Obama’s complete inability, plus unwillingness, to consider that
he might be on the wrong course..”.
Thanks,
I have to strongly disagree with you on your first point that it would be a bad thing for Republicans to pass compromise legislation with Democratic help. If the GOP doesn’t have enough votes to get anything passed themselves, they should explore what it would take to still get a good bill passed. Good bills help the country by reducing debt or doing other good things, and a few Democrats would agree to that in most cases. Baucus or Nelson or one of the other red staters needing to win reelection would be potential votes for a GOP bill. Most bills have had support from both sides.
One would hope that the Republicans are taking notes, right now, so they know how to deal with these Democrats. First of all, if the Democrats lose, in November, it should be them who reassesses their situation. Why is it always the Republicans that have to work across the aisle? Trust me, if the voters throw out the Democrats it will be because of what they proposed, not how they proposed it. The secondary reason they will be thrown out is how they did it, by completely shutting out the Republicans because of their new “We won. You lost. Deal with it.” attitude. I would hope they receive the message and deal with it correctly. I would hope the President hears the message and deals with it appropriately because he is the one mainly responsible for what’s happening, because of his lack of leadership. Of course, what can you expect from a community organizer?
This article is a big bite of ridiculous strategic crappola. As if we are going to not vote in 2010, or even more ridiculous, vote for Democrats. Of course, I am just a boob reactionary voter. I can’t see the big picture like the intellectual life guards. But I would like to point something out. People are not angry primarily with Obama’s ties to the Washington establishment, but with his un-Godly approach to American politics. People who stand against Obama have a small but similar cache of complaints, but it is dominatingly that we know in our guts that Obama is not an American (not Birtherwise). He is a globalist, and that bodes poor for freedom of speech, religion, the press, gun ownership, and peaceful assembly. The things that made America strong are the things this president sees as impediments to a One-Minded utopia.
Barack Obama is a liberal theory-chasing atheist-sympathizing narcissist lying snob. And the people in Congress and the House of Representatives are how much more the children of satan for supporting this president’s anti-American baby-killing agenda?
Ok, so I didn’t read a single word of the article.
Still, here is my response to the question posed in the article’s title:
Who the flying f^(& gives a hairy rat’s @$$ ?
The question (I pray) requires the presumption that what’s good for the GOP benefits the Nation. Not that it harms the nation less than Democrats would; but that there’s actually a NET benefit from having Republican control of the Congress.
#52 Kevin Butterfield:
“Barack Obama is a liberal theory-chasing atheist-sympathizing narcissist lying snob.”
Y’know, I just realized this minute that Obama’s first name is an anagram for “Ackbar”…as in “Obama Ackbar!!!!”
Weird, man…wee-yurd.
The Democratic Party needs to be punished. The Republican Party is the only club available to punish it. I have never heard of the club expressing dismay that it might get a little damaged during the beating. If I did, I still would not care.
This is full of win.
13. rashputin:
Yeah, let’s not get ahead of ourselves and actually throw the corrupt socialist elitists out, let’s worry about whether or not the electorate clam will produce a pearl somewhere down the road.
If conservatives can’t get over listening to the timid voices they’ll never roll back the socialist web of corruption that’s taken forty years of gradualism to build. Gradualism in our approach to overthrowing the Crown didn’t work back in 1776 and it won’t work to repeal the unconstitutional infrastructure that has taken over the federal government. Besides, Barry isn’t Bill, he’s not going to be “dragged back to the political center” and no matter how much he may want to pretend that he’s headed that way no one is going to believe him. Think attack and counter-attack, not defense and how to be sure you can hold on to the cozy trenches you’re used to.
Republicans need not just a majority, but a supermajority even more bulletproof than the democrats now enjoy. Republicans need to take over and actually take over rather than worrying about the next time they’re a minority. Investigate the corrupt crap, face up to the corruption built into the system and actually indict people over it. Go after the entrenched people in the government that don’t change at each election but always work towards the same leftist ideals that democrat lefties do. Shed agencies, streamline the delivery of services, when heads of various things say they can’t change, pass a law that alters the Civil Service regulations and fire the foot draggers. Get people who want to return to the Constitutional form of government and shed those who believe in the corrupt and socialist system they built for themselves. Do that and if democrats take over again down the road, they’ll have at least been set back a few decades by the impact made while Constitutionalists are in charge.
Dammit, act like we the people run the government for a change instead of acting like we’re trying to alter a basic principal of physics. Either you believe the people are in charge or you don’t, and angst over the problems associated with winning is just another symptom of the Republicans having spent too many years with their heads up their RINO nether regions. Unless Americans get their hearts in the game, this Barry or the next will simply end elections and be done with it.
have a nice day
Feb 28, 2010 – 6:37 am
Good article, Mr. Marks. Very well-written.
That said…
I would call the tea party more than “mildly” successful; I believe it single-handedly, with little to no support from politicians or “bigwigs”, stopped the health care debacle from going through this summer.
I’ve never seen anything like this President and his administration. Do not underestimate the populace’s patience in tolerating a gridlocked Washington until 2012. From what we’ve seen in the last year, gridlock sounds like heaven on earth.
Gridlock does not mean that the government stops growing. In fact, it means the opposite. We have to actually DO something to get it to stop.
The problem is the “entitlements”: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, primarily. They are on autopilot, and growing to where they will eat up all federal revenue in about 10 years.
As to the content of the article, we are probably doomed no matter what. Either side has to have 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. That means nothing meaningful will get done. That means the entitlements will continue to grow, along with interest payments, and deficits and debt with grow without bound.
I’m afraid it’s cannibalism by 2020, folks. But by that time, a few mushroom clouds will distract us from our debt problems. Good times.
This doesn’t make sense:
“…with an ever-increasing polarized House, hypothetical Republican-lead legislation would not even receive a passing glance from the White House.”
“…the 1994 congressional electorate promoted Rep. Gingrich and Sen. Dole to leaders and dragged President Clinton back to the political center. Many conservative pundits long for this to again occur.”
So which is it? Obama will ignore a GOP led Congress yet somehow could be “dragged” to the political center? How? By whom?
And this:
“I contend that the extent of the president’s disapproval originates in his ties to the Washington establishment.”
The President is necessarily “tied” to the “Washington establishment” because… he’s the President.
After watching Republicans fail to serve the people for years, and the Dems indicating that they don’t know there are any people other than themselves to serve, warnings to those who might want to run for office are fitting. But this article seems a bit muddled to me.
Ah, the old “winning by losing” argument. “You don’t win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the OTHER dumb SOB die for HIS country.” (Gen. George S. Patton, USA) Sorry, Dude. I HATE losing and I HATE Pelosi. I’ll take my chances every day with the “dangers” of victory.
Well said! If Republicans regain congress, Obama gets re-elected in 2012. We need Pelosi and the Dems to have much smaller majorities in 2010, the we can set our sights on the big prize in 2012. I wish more people would realize this…
43. ConservativeWanderer:
Actually, Fantom, I am as skeptical about polls as the next guy, but at least they’re actual evidence, as opposed to your pie-in-the-sky theories.
(P.S. Feel free to claim that my “retreat” shows that I can’t defend my position. Doing so will just confirm my suspicions about you, however.)
Whatever, you brought no facts I however did. And they showed where, conclusively showed where Perot drew his voters from.
You have confirmed my suspicions about you. You would be right at home as Bob Gibbs replacement.
A.M. Nallet@47,
And with that super-majority you’d do what? Should we use it as the Dems did, except to perform the necessary “slash and burn”?
Should we not prosecute the perps for theft? If we don’t we’re just fooling ourselves.
Mitch@50,
Well that stance might get you labeled as a “fellow traveler.” On the road to serfdom, bi-partizenship/compromise is colluding in your enslavement. Both parties are addicted to the slave trade. Welfare state + corporatism/crony capitalism. Congress is on schedule to pass 60,000+ new Laws this year, after passing 60,000 new Laws last year. Can you name five? To the benefit of which constituencies, business or labor, or enviros, or the under priviledged, et al? Who is speaking for the taxpayer?
No new bills is the objective.
Don’t fear victory. Win at every opportunity. In the last two years of Obama’s term, even a Congress paralyzed into inaction would be better than one that contiunues to actively damage the nation.
Jeremy, while I don’t share Mr. Hoven’s despair, his analysis is always nigh on bulletproof. This time – maybe not so much. Either way, he notes a key valid point you made that distracts from the rest of what looks – to me – like way over-thinking this issue.
Ultimately, you seem unclear on what you’re actually suggesting here. Should we just be tempering what we wish for or actively working to defeat Republican candidates later this year? That lack of clarity leads to this: either intent is effectively meaningless – essentially an attorney’s argument made solely for the sake of argument, not for the sake of a socially positive outcome.
The Democrat party is currently the architect of its own impending judgment day. However that day ultimately turns out, even if there were some rational action conservatives could take to change it, why should they?
Anyone interested in preserving this Republic should make dragging BHO back to the center a top priority. This isn’t about “who wins”, this is about triage – stopping the arterial bleed that is propelling this Republic to the left on a runaway gurney. Obama is no Clinton, who was re-elected partly because of the work done by the Republican Congress, but mostly because the Republicans ran the 1996 equivalent of Walter Mondale. BHO is not about to veto anything at this point that can be sold as a real benefit to the economy. Americans, as you’ve clearly noted, have Congress’ number regarding idiocy like the Cash for Clunkers debacle, the TARP charade and the wasted Spendulu$. They’re not going to buy into any more Keynesian nonsense and a Republican majority has a stick to prevent it: Congressional investigations into Geithner’s laundry list of excesses, the shredding of contracts in the Chrysler fiasco and, of course, the unconstitutional takeover of GM.
A new Congress – especially one highly motivated by the newly engaged and very p!ssed off American Electorate – which can perform even a few of the same feats achieved by the 104th and 105th, like welfare reform, capital gains tax reduction and, later, actual tax cuts, is precisely what we need leading up to 2012, not more socialist usurpation that we’ll only have to walk back later – some of which, like bogus health care “reform” would not be repealable. Gridlock, if it happens, will be bad, but it’s not the worst case scenario. IMHO, the new mood in America is not going to stand for it, and they’re not going to buy into the spend-spend-spend B.S. that hasn’t worked for the last two years.
One tactic has the potential to turn this around: illustrate ad nauseam to every American how the federal deficit has been exploded by the Democrat majority by a factor of TEN TIMES in only three years. Point to GWB’s “compassionate conservative” hand in that process as a PART of what’s wrong with the federal government. Make clear that this is not about “Republicans” and “Democrats”. Push this government to STOP spending our money like drunken commissars and START obeying the Constitution. We should be doing this every damned day, not dreaming up pseudo-intellectual arguments for slitting our own throats.
Would the GOP Actually Benefit from Winning Majorities in 2010? =======
I don’t care if the GOP does. I care about the end to this mindless spending. Many people would like to see Obama impeached, but it would be enough to simply block his programs. Of course there is the downside that Michelle might not be proud of her country.
Would the GOP Actually Benefit from Winning Majorities in 2010? Not sure, but the republic will.
We need to check him in 2010. And we need to rout him in 2012. I certainly care more about the USA then the GOP.
Right now the people him powere are pursuing policies that are harmful to our country over the longterm. It did not start in 2009, but in needs to be checked in with a new congress in January 2011.