Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

GOPsmacked: Obama Loses Big

As of this writing, it seems the GOP will pick up 8 Senate seats, with the very real possibility of one more next month in the Louisiana run-off, plus another 10 to 12 seats in the House, including for the terrific Mia Love in Utah. In addition, the Republicans won governorships in traditionally "progressive" states such as Massachusetts, Illinois, and--surprise!--Maryland where the Democrat candidate had Obama campaign for him. That means the GOP will have comfortable majorities in both chambers, and a solid grip on most state governments.

It was a bad night for Obama and the Democrats. It was a big night for the GOP.

That's good.

Was it, however, a good night for conservatives and the desperate fight to defend individual liberty? I hope so, but don't know.

So we must ask, now, what?

The medium- and long-term trend lines remain negative for those who hold to the founding principles of this country. The continuing expansion of government at all levels; the deliberate promotion of mass immigration from very poor countries; and the dumbing down of education, all form part of the progressive plan to keep power. Progressives need an ill-informed and dependent rabble of poor and young people, a docile echo-chamber media, and an elite cadre of cynical well-off bureaucrats, lobbyists, and crony capitalists. The Dems have that and their numbers grow.

While we celebrate last night's victory over the progressives, let's also not forget that the Dems do better at getting their people out to vote in presidential election years than in mid-terms. That's one cost of having lots of really dumb voters: they are hard to motivate in "boring" mid-term elections.  In addition, of course, as noted before--here, here, and here--progressives prove quite adept at using outright fraud in voting; the big plan to have hundreds-of-thousands of illegal and legal aliens voting will be firmly in place well before 2016.

At best, we have a two-year window to begin to roll back the most egregious aspects of the past six years of Obamismo. Completely revamping our absurd energy policy must lodge at the top--including freeing up fracking and drilling, getting the Keystone pipeline going, and resurrecting coal. In addition, we can begin taking apart Obamacare piece by piece, starting with the individual and corporate mandates, and freeing up the insurance market to make it compete on a national and even international basis, e.g., why can't I buy health insurance from a Canadian, British, or Australian company? I would advocate, at a minimum, a temporary freeze on all immigration while we figure out what to do with our insane tangle of immigration laws, procedures, and bureaucracies. We need to cut funding for absurdities such as the Departments of Labor, Commerce, Energy, Education, and the obnoxious and toxic EPA; and, at last and at least, get to the bottom of the hideous IRS, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious scandals.

It's a tall order, but the GOP wanted power. They now have it. They better know how to use it, and use it quickly. They and "we the people" confront one of the most arrogant, inflexible, dishonest, and, yes, totalitarian Presidents in our history, a man with a profound disdain for Western values and a deep resentment against the very country that elected him president. It won't be easy to take on him and his claque, but it can and must be done.

19 comments:

  1. I agree wholeheartedly. The election is a narrow opportunity, a tactical but nowhere near strategic victory. The GOP needs to use the next two years to first stem the tide of Obamunism, second roll-back what it is possible to roll-back (or force accomplishment like Keystone), and align themselves for a much tougher 2016 election. I'm not sure the GOP has the capability to do any of these things effectively, but at least I can feel good for a day or so about the shellacking the One took.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nothing's going to be rolled back so long as Obama is in the white house.
    Only an impeachment-sized majority in congress would theoretically be able to change anything.
    Congress can send up any law it wants... Obama may or may not sign it, but either way, he'll decide what the law is and isn't, regardless. With that kind of unilateral power, there's nothing to be done short of impeachment.
    I don't think this has dented Obama's confidence in his agenda, because his agenda is his religion-replacement of socialism.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. There are frustrated Democrats who were blocked by Harry Reid form even offering amendments. I can see bipartisan bills, including XL Pipeline and fracking, that could even be veto proof.

      Delete
    2. hmm... agreed, yeah, parties aren't completely monolithic.
      still going to run up against Obama ban on the pipeline via executive order, even with the veto proof majority, but it's an important and valid point.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  3. I'd be pleased if McConnell would dispose of the filibuster and limit holds on nominees to a few days. One can be courteous to the minority without requiring a supermajority to do business. So requiring means that only the Capitol Hill consensus will be made law, and that's means not passing any reform legislation.

    It would be beneficial at this point to pepper Obama with reform legislation and embarrass him as he vetoes it. Block all his judicial appointments. Shut down a selection of regulatory commissions by refusing to confirm nominees. Refuse to even hold hearings on Thomas Perez. And keep investigating the IRS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Morning Bob, I bet you're cheerful today! There are 'fried chicken' jokes and references all over the web - hilarious.

    All jokes aside, the GOP now has a clear mandate to commence a reform/repair agenda and if they don't get with the opportunity, they'll get their ass kicked in 2016 and they won't have to wonder why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All jokes aside, the GOP now has a clear mandate to commence a reform/repair agenda and if they don't get with the opportunity, they'll get their ass kicked in 2016 and they won't have to wonder why."

      Quite so Popular Front - why just the other day I saw a campaign ad with Mitch promising " ... To Repeal Obamacare ...!"
      _________________

      What a difference less than 24 hours can make.

      "Rather than reaffirming his pledge to repeal Obamacare "root and branch" as he has vowed to do countless times on the campaign trail, Senator McConnell is now making excuses for why he won't deliver on his central campaign promise."

      http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/post/2916/mitch-mcconnell-surrenders-on-obamacare-repeal

      Oh well.

      Arkie

      Delete
    2. actually you are right, they have gained *one* thing... appointment control. Without the slight majority, they couldn't prevent anybody from being confirmed to anything (post-filibuster)... now they can.. but that's all they've won... at this point, control of the house is pretty meaningless. Yeah, Obama will veto whatever the heck he wants.. he's not running for reelection and all the successful democrats have shunned him.... so the *only* thing the GOP has gained is appointment control...

      *WAIT*.. not even that.. recess appointments... the latest shenanigans by obama were declared illegal, but that wont stop him from doing it again... obviously the supreme court was wrong in his mind.. so it's still 'legal'.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  5. I believe it was Limbaugh, quoted today: People vote for Republicans when they get tired of the Democrat foolishness. Then they go back to them because the Republicans cannot explain what it is they stand for.

    So now there's a chance. I'm not optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They have the American people behind them. The Press isn't as powerful as they were (I've mentioned this before about them burning their creditability for Obama). I agree with just about every recommendation you've made, also do something like Waller did with the unions to a lot of these so called charities and ngos. Mainly go after these guys and quit apologizing for what they are.
    James the Lesser

    ReplyDelete
  7. I went in to work and my jaw hit the floorboards of my car. Hogan won the MD governorship!

    But now that the GOP has the Senate, I sincerely hope that one thing on their agenda will be to "Bork" a few of the O's nominees to the federal bench. Let the Dems know that nobody's going to be gentlemanly about judges any more. It was inexcusable that someone like Kagan was allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. Leftist judges are as big, if not bigger, threat to American liberties than the O himself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Dems have been singing this song for 6 years:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJb7cBfrxbo
    Perhaps they'll change their tune now.
    James the Lesser

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have told everyone for a long time; if you want to win elections for conservative candidates, look to Texas.
    The Democrats hand picked Wendy (Abortion Barbie) Davis. She was supposed to represent everything the Dems stood for; war on women, abortion on demand, wealth redistribution. She got her clock cleaned by Greg Abbott.

    Why? How did a secure border, anti-amnesty, right to life, end the oppressive EPA proponent win by such a great margin? He took 44% of the Hispanic vote with Hispanic men voting for him by 50%. There goes the argument that we have to grant amnesty to get Hispanics to vote for Republicans.

    Zane

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have to note that Harry Reid protected Obama from any painful legislation for the last 6 years. I'm hoping the Senate sends him bill after bill after bill that he has to veto.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We do *not* have two years. We have nine months at most.

    Factor in the vacations congress takes then election season and it's runup and that = 9 months (maybe).

    Sorry. Don't want to rain on anyone's parade but them's the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I doubt anything will happen differently that it has for the last 6 years.

    The GOP leadership does not have the spine or the interest to take on the government and press machinery. They'll settle down into the old crony horse trading and back scratching, making a few little victory moves to try and claim they are "doing something" but otherwise you won't even know the GOP won. They act like losers even when they have the whip hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would you know?

      1. The Republicans had control of the organizational machinery of the House of Representatives for all of four years between 1932 and 1995.

      2. During the period running from 1995 to 2007, the mean membership of the House Republican caucus was 226. A piece of legislation will commonly injure some economic sector which has its advocates, various and sundry have their idiosyncratic complaints, and there remained a modest core of chronic political temporizers (Christopher Shays, et al) for the party whips to contend with.

      3. And that was the secondary problem. The main problem is the Senate. Advocates for Mr. Hastert's caucus have contended a routine scenario played itself out: the House would pass some piece of reform legislation, which would then die in the Senate. Capitol Hill hustlers and the tricorn hat wing of the Republican rank-and-file are perversely devoted to the Senate's asinine parliamentary rules. You require supermajorities to pass major legislation, you guarantee that the only major legislation which will pass is something 'bipartisan' (which is to say something both stupid and evil).

      4. That aside, other than Mr. Reagan, you've not had in the President's someone with political principles willing to pursue them vigorously. Mr. Eisenhower had much to commend him, but he had no legislative program at all. He was an examiner of Congress' submissions, not an initiator of his own notions. Mr. Nixon had some engaging policy ideas, but he was mainly an opportunist and pretty much everything was subordinated to political advantage or intramural gamesmanship. Mr. Ford was a Capitol Hill fixture; he was not a systematic thinker and his point of departure was ever going to be what this or that congressional committee was tinkering with. Talented though he was, Mr. Bush pere was another opportunist. The single most plausible motor I have seen adduced for his political career was competitiveness. His dad owned the biggest junkyard in town, why, he'd own the biggest junkyard in the next town as well. As for Mr. Bush fils, he had commitments, not convictions.

      5. And who handed you situation #4? The Republican electorate, that's who. During the entire period running from 1804 to 1956, you'd be hard put to find an example of a political party nominating an incumbent or quondam Vice President to stand as a candidate for the Presidency (unless, of course, he had already succeeded to the office). The Democratic Party did so in 1840 and the Southern faction of the Democratic Party nominated the incumbent Vp in 1860 in a rebuke to the candidate of the main body of the Democratic Party. In 1960, the Republican nomination was handed on a platter to the incumbent VP, a man who had scarcely ever managed more than an office staff (and was not admired by the incumbent President). In 1968, it was again handed on a platter to this man; he actually had opposition that time, though neither opponent bothered to enter any primaries. From 1972 to the present, the Republican electorate has manifested a predictable pattern: nominate the incumbent President or the runner-up from the last competitive contest. If last time's runner up's a real loose cannon, you can nominate the runner-up from the penultimate contest, as was done in 1996. If the old runner up is not a candidate, you can nominate the son of the former President. The last time the GOP electorate and GOP sachems ever did anything creative in a nomination battle was in 1964. It might help to recruit a suitable president if the GOP electorate could kick the royalist habit.

      Delete
  13. A general observation:

    The only thing wrong with money is the idiots printing it. The only thing wrong with governance is those who wish to govern.

    leaperman

    ReplyDelete
  14. If it rains..
    ...
    Democrats vote...when it's Convenient
    Conservatives vote when it's NOT.
    The more you abrogate..the further one goes..
    the harder the opposition.
    VIVA la Opposition.
    "" Delende Est
    leaperman

    ReplyDelete