Massive GOP Win; So, Now What?

First and foremost, boys and girls: be realistic.

No, there won’t be an impeachment of Obama (and, anyways, even if we could, do you really think we’d want to relieve the Democrats of the Obama albatross at this point?).

No, there won’t be a repeal of ObamaCare: Obama would veto any such proposal (or anything which defunds or otherwise guts the legislation) and we would not have the votes to over-ride.

Just forget about things like that. Obama is still President and still wields awesome authority and influence – that is a problem for another day: we GOPers also let the President get too powerful and that power has to be reduced…but we can’t get there right now. All we can do for the present is remember that Obama is a committed leftist, doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about what the American people think, is more than willing to break the law to get his way and believes that it is his bound duty to destroy anything non-left. We have to work with this, or around this – we can’t get rid of it or destroy it right now. And the MSM will still form a praetorian guard around him, with the only caveat being that they’ll jump on a grenade for Hillary in preference to Obama; they gotta think about the future and Obama is old news.

But there is still plenty the GOP can do. Always keeping in mind that the real purpose is to set the stage for a complete GOP victory in 2016, of course. We’re not necessarily going for enacted reforms – if we get some, great: but the real purpose is to set a reform agenda comprehensible to the American people as a platform for defeating the Democrats in 2016. The best means to do this is to pick about 10 issues which are very popular with the American people and over time pass them out of Congress and send them to Obama. Passing popular reform legislation will give GOPers things to brag about in 2016 and will show our party as being the party of “getting things done”. It will also put Obama in quite a pickle – reforms such as approving the Keystone Pipeline or allowing people to recover their cancelled health care plans will be popular, but Obama will be in a bad position on them. He’ll either have to veto them and anger the American people, or sign them and tick off the liberal base he needs to ensure his agenda is protected in 2016 (and Obama does want a Democrat to win in 2016 – he knows a GOP President in 2016 will undo all or most of what he’s accomplished). To us, it doesn’t matter what he does – if he signs it, then we’ve got good stuff to talk about; if he vetoes it, then we get to campaign on getting a Republican into the White House to move forward with reform.

To be sure, Obama will try to short-circuit such actions. His Presser on Wednesday is enough to confirm that. He will try to do things to outrage Republicans and, in his hopes, provoke a heavy counter attack which he hopes can be used to cast him as the long-suffering reformer stymied by an obstructionist Congress. Hillary wants this, too – she’d like nothing better than to campaign on the concept that she can get Congress to work. We dare not let Obama do this. In fact, its much better at this point that we ignore what Obama wants to do. Let him propose away – just go ahead and pass what we believe is best and let it land on his desk. Once the reforms are there, he’ll have to do something. For the first time in his life he’ll have to take concrete action that he can’t blame on anyone else. He’ll hate it. It will be wonderful

We did very well in 2014. The 2016 electorate will be different – it will be more Democrat friendly, no matter how bad things are going for Obama and the Democrats by then. But it will not be insurmountably Democrat. A program of clear, easy to understand reforms which will directly benefit the American people will show us as the party of the people – and allow our 2016 nominee to campaign on a reform platform against eight years of Obama failure, and the prospect of an Obama Third Term if the Democrats win. This is not the sure path to victory, but it is the path to victory. Let’s go ahead and take it.

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Massive GOP Win; So, Now What?

  1. Retired Spook November 6, 2014 / 9:33 am

    No, there won’t be a repeal of ObamaCare: Obama would veto any such proposal (or anything which defunds or otherwise guts the legislation) and we would not have the votes to over-ride.

    There’s close to veto-proof support in both houses of Congress to repeal the medical device tax, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen. It’s a gross tax, meaning a manufacturer pays it even if they had little or no profit. If ever there was a situation where “fairness” could be invoked, that’s it.

    • M. Noonan November 6, 2014 / 12:46 pm

      Bits and pieces can be done – but if we pass anything that would fundamentally halt ObamaCare, then Obama will veto it. And in the bits and pieces we can show ourselves the reformers…let Obama be seen as the obstructionist!

  2. Cluster November 6, 2014 / 9:35 am

    Now what? Now they lay out a plan to get some things done and pave the ground for 2016. Keystone Pipeline, corporate tax reform, trade agreements, and a new authorization of force against ISIS would be a good start and positions of which I think Obama would go along with.

    Immigration reform and Obamacare will be very contentious and those are battles that may be best fought AFTER they pass other legislation. Conservatives have to stay focused on the real prize that is still out there – 2016. We just won the semi finals on Tuesday. 2016 is the Super Bowl.

    • M. Noonan November 6, 2014 / 12:47 pm

      We have to be careful on corporate tax reform – we don’t want Obama to be able to cast as the party of Big Corporation. If we are to move on it, it would have to be coupled with something that is very clearly to the benefit of the middle class and the working poor.

      • Cluster November 6, 2014 / 5:06 pm

        Agreed. I think the short term should be a deal cut to repatriate the $2 trillion off shore funds. Lower the tax on that to a one time rate of 10%. Couple that with regulatory reform and stability and then work on a tax code reform that benefits everyone, and you will see an economy unleashed.

  3. Cluster November 6, 2014 / 9:53 am

    Howard Fineman, MSNBC – The Dems have to reinvent themselves all over again. The Obama era is over.

    Music to our ears.

  4. Amazona November 6, 2014 / 10:21 am

    Forget about “tax REFORM”. Take the big step necessary, abolish the IRS as we know it and strip it down to the barest of essential jobs necessary to deal with a new tax structure, whether it be the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax.

    That will cut Obamacare off at the knees as well as save many billions in tax administrative costs, remove the massive political Gestapo now used to reward political allies and pursue opponents, and insert a little sanity into revenue collection.

    • Cluster November 6, 2014 / 4:58 pm

      While a noble and worthwhile effort, abolishing the IRS is a huge undertaking that will take years if not decades. I think there are more pressing short term issues that need to be dealt with and a reform of the tax code is one that is achievable. Not to mention, if it is done right, it could be the first step in the eventual dismantling of the IRS.

      • Amazona November 7, 2014 / 8:08 pm

        “…a reform of the tax code is one that is achievable…”

        Really? How do you REFORM 20,000 pages plus of tax code that no one understands, which has so many internal conflicts and ambiguities?

        This is what we do in this country. We have a bad law and instead of scraping it off and replacing it with something that works, we slap a bandaid on it and call it “reform”. And then when that “reform” shows problems and Unintended Consequences, we slap another bandaid on that. And so on.

        The Fair Tax is a consumption tax, collected at point of sale. Right this minute, nearly every vendor of every product or service already collects taxes. The shift to adding 15% or 17% to every sale would be a fairly easy thing to accomplish, and would remove the need for nearly all of the massive, bloated, inefficient IRS system.

        I would much rather reform a brand new tax code, one without decades of accumulated confusion and contradiction, than waste a single moment on dealing with superficial problems with our current mess and then find that we only solved the surface problems but ended up creating others.

        “…abolishing the IRS is a huge undertaking that will take years if not decades..” I just do not agree. I think it is faster, and easier, and in the end far more productive, than tinkering with the fatally flawed system we now have.

      • Cluster November 8, 2014 / 9:57 am

        Reforming the tax code is in all reality the first step to abolishing the IRS and I think that is best accomplished in small steps rather than decisive chunks. The first step would be to flatten the tax code for both personal and business tax filings, eliminate the numerous loop holes and shelters, and make everyone pay something, however small. Everyone needs skin in the game. A simplified tax code would require less enforcement and would be more difficult to use as a political weapon.

      • Amazona November 8, 2014 / 4:17 pm

        Your ideas make complete sense and also offer a platform for the class warfare strategy of the Left to gear up again. One of your earlier recommendations, the one-time tax break on overseas money, might not be too much of a poison pill because it would have such immediate results, as would slashing of the capital gains tax.

        The thing is, although we have missed the best time to strike, while the iron was still really hot (the middle of the IRS scandal and proof of its abuses of American citizens based on politics) it still happened, it is documented, it can easily be reopened along with the newer information about the coverup efforts, and the abolishment of the IRS in general would, I think, resonate better with the LIV crowd than “tax breaks for the rich” and “corporate welfare” and the whole “1%” BS they have been able to use so well to gain traction in the past.

        “……make everyone pay something, however small” talk about hysteria !!!! However that is what a consumption tax does, without coming right out and saying so, and furthermore it gets revenue from illegal money, which no amount of tax “reform” can do. The Fair Tax does not tax food or medicine, so the truly poor have some protection from taxes, but it does tax cell phones and fancy manicures and gold teeth and tattoos, and liquor. The truly poor would pay a little, in the purchase of some things, but I think there is even a small rebate built in to cover that. Luxury items would all be taxed, which would address the welfare fraud we see now.

  5. Retired Spook November 6, 2014 / 1:42 pm

    The 114th Congress could take some cues from what the Gingrich-led Congress did in 1995. The Republican majority, with very little fanfare, started cutting spending resulting in as close to a balanced budget as we had seen since the late 60’s. Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to the point where Limbaugh did a montage of Clinton sound bites about how “we can balance the budget in 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7 years” — well, you get the picture. Republicans said, fine — we’ll just do it without you, Mr. President. We’ll even let you take credit for the result — and they did, and he did. Der Scleickmeister was also dragged kicking and screaming to sign welfare reform and a capital gains tax reduction. These were all pretty basic things that had bi-partisan support and yielded positive results to society.

    • Amazona November 8, 2014 / 4:26 pm

      The difference is that Clinton was pragmatic, while Obama is a narcissist and I doubt he could come around to anything that was contrary to his rigid anti-American, anti-capitalist, ideology much less anything that was not in line with his prior comments. We would have to find a way to let him save face, and even then I don’t think he is sane enough to go along.

      What I would like to know is what legal avenues are available to block executive orders during the next two years. Do we have the backbone and muscle to convince Dems that they face serious repercussions if they don’t vote to block Obama’s unconstitutional power grabs? Every Dem Representative and several Dem Senators are up for reelection in 2016—–do we have the ability to convince them that they have to act with courage and integrity to protect the Constitution, no matter what letter is after their names? Lame ducks might not care—-is there a legal penalty for malfeasance even after they have left office?

      • Cluster November 8, 2014 / 10:30 pm

        I like the idea of a national sales tax to replace the income tax if the numbers work. And is asking everyone to pay in, no matter how small being racist?

    • Retired Spook November 8, 2014 / 5:27 pm

      The difference is that Clinton was pragmatic

      And you can bet that, if Hillary is well enough to run, her supporters will remind us just how pragmatic Bill was, and how Hillary will be the same. Except that she isn’t. She’s much farther to the left than Bill, and much more of an ideologue.

  6. Retired Spook November 6, 2014 / 2:43 pm

    A couple really excellent points on Rush’s show today; one by a caller and one by Rush. The caller said, in response to those calling for Republicans to work with Obama, if the people had wanted Republicans to work with Obama, they would have elected Democrats. And Rush added, to those who are saying the only way to get anything done is to compromise, that Republicans were elected to stop what’s been getting done, not to compromise to get more of it.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) November 6, 2014 / 7:11 pm

      the only way to get anything done is to compromise

      You mean like the way Democrats compromised with Republicans the last 6 years to move their agenda along?

  7. Cluster November 6, 2014 / 6:32 pm

    Measure 88 is an issue you will not hear of on the MSM. Measure 88 won more Oregon votes than any other issue, and Oregon is a deep blue state. Courtesy of Ann Coulter:

    Measure 88 won more votes than anything else on the Oregon ballot. More votes than pot legalization. More than the incumbent governor, the incumbent senator or any of the six other ballot measures. The widely popular, landslide vote on Measure 88 prohibits illegal immigrants from getting drivers licenses.

  8. Cluster November 7, 2014 / 10:06 am

    “We spent six years dancing in the middle and not providing an assertive contrast to the Republicans, and we’re paying the price for it,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said

    Everybody got that? The Democrats have spent the last six years working too closely with Republicans and “dancing in the middle” and that is why they lost. So, passing legislation without a single republican vote and not even debating republican passed legislation is “dancing in the middle”?

    Sometimes I think Democrats and Republicans live in completely different universes.

    • Retired Spook November 7, 2014 / 10:34 am

      Cluster,

      Ben Crystal, in his column in “Personal Liberty” newsletter, has a different take (surprise):

      http://personalliberty.com/friday-morning-quarterbacking/

      His last paragraph nails it:

      The Democrats’ six-year-old strategy of lying to Americans and then calling them stupid, racist or some combination of the two for noticing has borne seriously bitter electoral fruit. If they hope to return to the majority, they might consider ending their war on liberty. At the very least, they might want to think about the quality of the candidates they recruit.

      Can you imagine how much worse thumping the Donks could have taken if the national GOP campaign motto had been, “We’re going to end the Democrat war on liberty”?

      • Cluster November 7, 2014 / 10:43 am

        Absent any GOP agenda, this was absolutely a vote of disapproval of the Obama lies and agenda, and nearly every representative who supported him. And now they want to compromise? How convenient. Do you not think it a little odd that after six years of doing nothing, Obama wants to resolve immigration in the next 6 weeks??

    • M. Noonan November 7, 2014 / 3:16 pm

      But they really do believe it – they will re-elect Pelosi and Reid as their Congressional leaders and the kook liberal groups are already signaling that through 2016 they will still be going after the Koch brothers. They’ve learned nothing and forgotten nothing. On the other hand, their failure to learn is one of our strongest assets going into 2016. They are assuming that liberalism still wins and Obama’s 2012 coalition will, in a sense, just automatically return in 2016, thus handing them back the Senate and allowing them to retain the White House. They may be right! But I’m starting to think that somehow or another after 8 years of Obama that a worn-out, 70 year old retread won’t work so well against the bright, youthful and energetic GOPer – whomever he or she is – that will emerge from our primaries.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) November 7, 2014 / 3:35 pm

        a worn-out, 70 year old retread

        Have you seen Hillary lately? She does not look well. And the fact that every single Democrat that she campaigned for lost should not be forgotten.

  9. Retired Spook November 7, 2014 / 11:07 am

    The agenda media is all a twitter this morning about the unemployment rate dropping to 5.8%, the lowest since 2008. Too bad the lowest level under Obama is still a little over 2/10ths % higher than the AVERAGE for Bush’s 8 years.

    • M. Noonan November 7, 2014 / 3:13 pm

      Its also BS because of the participation rate – and, to take a personal example, if I were to lose my job, I couldn’t obtain even 60% of my current pay in a new job doing the exact same work…and that is presuming I could even find a full time position.

  10. dbschmidt November 8, 2014 / 12:19 am

    I have actually thought about this before answering even though my answer may not reflect that. The top issues with everyone appear to be economic in nature like jobs, wages, etc. Show people the U-6 numbers instead of the BS U-3 they currently use. I have no false dream of teaching the low-info about the reality of life but they still feel it—try to explain it to them.

    I have heard every excuse including Obama’s nearly unbelievable one about how (paraphrasing here) he is still the greatest thing since sliced bread because he got almost 40% of those who voted and another 100% of those 60% of those who did not vote. Ouch, my head hurts.

    What should the Republicans do? With consideration of the mix of Conservatives, Republicans and RINOs—it will be difficult but I would focus on common ground where one could pull in a few moderates from the Lib/Dem side. KeyStone XL is a real no-brainer but I am also fixed on more Constitutional reforms than in issues. Nevertheless, one can help the other. Just look at what Governors have done in various States and duplicate on a National level. It would also add the bonus of the end of public-sector unions and the curtailing of the NAACP—but that is another subject.

    With the outrageous amounts of monies spent on this race—it might be a good time to approach the question of Constitutionality of the 17th amendment and repeal it. As well as an attempt to educate the general population on the Constitution itself with an emphasis on the 10th amendment including all of the abuses. Hell, we have the FCC—why not a Constitutional moment (30/60 second infomercial) a couple of times per day on all channels.

    I realize it is a dream at this point and a great deal of what I see as a future would require having a real liberal education (an honest one) taught in schools (privatize) again plus a few generations learning about the Constitution, great things this country has done, plus throw in money management and we might survive but for now—proceed slowly and carefully pick the next few battles.

    Economics, Boarders/Immigration in several smaller steps with complete security before anything else. If Congress feels any version of amnesty (no matter how grueling the Dems make us believe it is) is even considered then citizenship should be off the table. Remember Regan had a deal that after amnesty—the boarder would be secured to keep it from happening again. The deal was entirely paid for and he/we were screwed over. An already paid for edge to edge border that was secure never appeared. Not again.

    Basically, that is it. Walk softly, fix the obvious, educate the people – you know “be the most transparent” administration in history, rule of law and get all constitutional on their smarmy asses. We have to remember that Liberals live in La-La land but they will understand things that affect them directly like jobs, wages and/or a solid Oak stick up side their head.

  11. Retired Spook November 8, 2014 / 8:04 pm

    Something else the GOP needs to do to lay the groundwork for 2016 is to start talking about how to save social security. The last time the two parties worked together on social security reform was when Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan set aside their differences in 1983. Bush 43 tried early in his first term — invited Democrats to join him, and said there was nothing that was off the table. The donks chose to demagogue the issue for political gain instead of fixing it, and even when they had near veto-proof majorities in both houses and the Presidency from 2009 to 2011, they still did nothing. They should pay a political price for their inaction. The party that has a coherent plan to save social security will have a decided edge going into 2016.

  12. Retired Spook November 9, 2014 / 10:22 am

    I certainly hope the Democrat Party keeps this woman as its chairperson.

    “Our party has a problem,” Wasserman Schultz said in a video announcing the project. “We know we’re right on the issues. The American people believe in the causes we’re fighting for. But the electoral success we have when our presidential nominee is able to make a case to the country as a whole, doesn’t translate in other elections. That’s why we lost in 2010, and it’s why we lost on Tuesday.”

    Could be that they just cheat more in presidential elections. The statement about being right on the issues is just too funny, although I will concede that Democrats are pretty skilled at framing and spinning the issues in a way that gets them votes they probably wouldn’t get otherwise. Too bad they don’t seem to understand that positions on issues don’t necessarily translate into successfully governing the country. And there’s never been a better example of that than the current administration.

    • Cluster November 9, 2014 / 10:33 am

      And I hope the minority in Congress keeps this woman as their leader:

      Nancy Pelosi – She said the chief message she took from Tuesday’s election, which saw Democrats eviscerated at all levels, is that voter suppression was a problem. “To succeed, we must inspire, educate and remove obstacles to participation. Only by changing our political environment and broadening the universe of the electorate can we build a strong sense of community and an economy that works for everyone,”

      Democrats are firmly in the minority in this country from State government to National government, yet they are convinced that it is not their failed policies or failure to effectively govern. In their minds, they are 100% right on the issues, and for some reason more people were not allowed to vote. As they say on the South – “Bless their hearts”. I hope they carry this message on to 2016.

      – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/11/08/pelosi-and-salon-writer-agree-voter-suppression-explains-dems-midterms#sthash.ygVIHuho.dpuf

    • M. Noonan November 10, 2014 / 12:45 am

      They do cheat, but 2008 and 2012 were narrative victories, especially 2008. I recall that when Obama was elected, even I was a bit happy – just the thought that we had finally got over our racial animosities enough to elect a black man President filled me with pride in our nation. If someone as dyed-in-the-wool anti-liberal as me could feel that, I can imagine what liberals and middle-of-the-roaders felt. It carried over into 2012 on a reduced level, helped along by the fact that Romney was just too “rich white man” to change the dynamic (and, of course, a bit too RINO to really get conservatives in their full numbers to the polls).

      Democrats are, of course, counting on narrative to see them through 2016, and get them the Senate back, into the bargain. The more I look them over and ponder it all, they appear convinced that 2014 was just a minor glitch, soon to be set right by Hillary!. Perhaps the are right, at least in the sense of keeping the White House…but I’m starting to think that maybe narrative has worn thin. Of course, Hillary will win the female vote – but I don’t think she has the ability to get to the polls the number of people Obama did…and if the GOP goes with someone strongly conservative with broad appeal (ie, Walker or something like him), then I think we’ll find that narrative and all – women voting heavily for Hillary, and all – we emerge victorious.

    • Retired Spook November 9, 2014 / 3:28 pm

      What an hilarious piece. Switch Republican and Democrat around in the article, and it would improve the accuracy 100%. Having talked to several Democrats since the election, though, I can tell you that this guy is not alone in his thinking. If ever there was confirmation that Liberalism is a mental disorder, the Donks’ reaction to this election is it.

      • Amazona November 10, 2014 / 12:17 pm

        Spook, not relating to the election but to your observation of Liberal nastiness, when Kurt Warner made joke about the evolution of NFL quarterbacks, one of the responses was this:

        ““People who believe in creationism should just be lined up and shot for being too stupid to live, and too dangerous to have walking around in society.””

        Sadly, this is just one of many many comments I have seen over the past few years by Libs wishing they could just kill those with differing opinions. Sometimes is it a desire to eliminate people with different political views, or, as in this case, it is malignant intolerance of a religious belief, intolerance that someone evidently thinks justifies mass murder.

        And this is the kind of person who will then embark on a rant about the alleged “intolerance” and “bigotry” of other people.

Comments are closed.