It seems to me that Obama is a good enough politician that he can read the writing on the wall. He’s going to have to start dealing with a significantly more powerful Republican force in Congress next year and seems to be laying the groundwork to get something done. Smart for the Republicans. Smart for Obama. The problem is, a lot of the President’s most liberal supporters are clearly having a hard time coping with the idea of both parties having some input to the governmental process. They’ll come along kicking and screaming sooner or later, but for now it’s going to remain The Audacity of Cope.
…which is this: the President does not need a Beijing Consensus in order to look good. In fact, a drubbing of his party in November would probably be excuse enough for him to abandon what are a whole raft of unpopular policy positions, appear ‘bipartisan,’ and run on that in 2012. It would require a certain willingness for the President to throw his legislative colleagues under the bus en masse, though: and, really, how likely is that?
PS: Primary challenge? Bless your heart, but the President’s already having the rules changed so that others cannot not do unto him as he did unto Clinton. Gotta love those top-down political organizations, yes?
‘Senator’ capitalized because the insecure often require that special little emphasis. In this case, SENATOR Boxer is demonstrating same by making a fairly pointless gesture that’s apparently fueled by pique:
Barbara Boxer may not only force her climate bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee without any Republican votes; aides say she could also do it without any Republicans in the room at all.
Boxer (D-Calif.) could exploit a loophole in committee rules that will allow her to approve the bill with a simple majority of the 12 Democrats on the committee, even if no Republicans are present. Republicans have vowed to boycott the proceeding.
This end run around Republicans — ignoring the usual rules that require at least two Republicans to be present for a quorum — could further hinder the chances for an already troubled cap-and-trade bill.
The problem here is that Senate Republicans are tired of Democrats forcing through legislation without analysis, deliberation, or in some cases, an opportunity to even read it; so they’re going to boycott the markup until they get a full EPA analysis. No attendance, no quorum, no markup. But SENATOR Boxer wants a bill to impress all those sophisticated Europeans at Copenhagen in December, so she’s going to alter the rules so as to force her version of the bill out via a rump committee. As the Politico article notes, this has other Democrats swearing, because: a, there was little likelihood of cap-and-trade being passed in a SENATOR Boxer-friendly form to begin with; b, there was not previously much chance of any version of cap-and-trade being passed by December anyway; and c, there is now effectively zero chance of either happening before the New Year. It’s trivially easy to slow legislation down to a crawl in the Senate, and there are now several motivated Republicans to demonstrate how to do that.
…which is not me saying that Smitty1E was wrong to criticize it; merely that his objections address his concerns of the underlying philosophy of the Republican Party. The above is a blunt political ad, and its message –“The Democrats are messing things up, and we’re not Democrats” – would be diluted by a segue into why the Democrats are messing things up. This ad isn’t here to reaffirm the Right’s opinions, in other words; it’s there to point out objective reality to the Middle, and hopefully to goad the Left into over-reacting. Continue reading “Done its job?”
I am not ordering anybody to follow this checklist. I’m not even going to nag about it. I am merely suggesting that you consider answering the questions on them before you go off on how the party isn’t listening to you.
What is the name of your local GOP group, on the county / district level?
Who is the chair?
When do they meet?
What was discussed at the last meeting?
What happened at that meeting that you disagreed with the most?
How did they address your concerns?
When does the group or sub-group that would best resolve your concerns meet?
Who else in that group or sub-group would you say is your best ally in resolving that concern?
Who in your area is running for state, county, and local office?
What did they say that they needed the most help with?
Who is the greatest obstructionist in your group, and how do you get around him or her?
I’ll keep saying it until it sinks in: there’s no cavalry coming to save us, ladies and gentlemen. That’s because we’re the cavalry.