Althouse: "Years of disappointment and tension between Democrats and their president are now on open display as politicians..."

October 23, 2014

"Years of disappointment and tension between Democrats and their president are now on open display as politicians..."

"... party leaders and strategists worried about their chances in the midterm elections begin casting about for someone to blame."

71 comments:

Krumhorn said...: Surely, we can all agree that this is W's fault. Maybe the Koch brothers?

- Krumhorn; 10/23/14, 12:23 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: They chose to jam Obamacare down our throats. Now the public is shoving Obamacare up Democrat's asses.; 10/23/14, 12:23 PM
kcom said...: You mean he's not Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Ronald Reagan combined?; 10/23/14, 12:24 PM
Rusty said...: There wouldn't be a problem if Obama had just nationalized everything.; 10/23/14, 12:27 PM
MadisonMan said...: party leaders and strategists worried about their chances in the midterm elections begin casting about for someone to blame

Mirrors must be in short supply.; 10/23/14, 12:29 PM
Curious George said...: "Years of disappointment and tension between Democrats and their president are now on open display..."

What bullshit. They know their policies have failed so Obama get's kicked to the curb.

But where is the left calling these pols racists? I mean, they are disagreeing with Obama? Isn't that because he is black?; 10/23/14, 12:29 PM
RecChief said...: It can't be Progressive/leftist policies (which hve moved further left), it must be the fault of one guy.

Classic "it's not that communism isn't faulty, it's never been implemented properly" defense.

Also,since I've been told I'm a racist every time I crticize the President over the last 6 years, this must mean that Udall, Hagan, Nunn, Grimes, Begich, and Landrieu are finally being recognized as teh racists they are.; 10/23/14, 12:33 PM
Laura said...: Ron Brown's ghost?; 10/23/14, 12:36 PM
tim maguire said...: With no more elections ever, the only political role left for Obama is punching bag for struggling Democratic pols. If he can't play that role well, then he really has nothing decent in him.

He's useless.; 10/23/14, 12:38 PM
Bob Boyd said...: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vUM1kT7G8E; 10/23/14, 12:45 PM
Brando said...: I call absolute bollocks on these creeps. Sure, Obama is unpopular now and it's hurting their reelections--but where was their independence back when he (and their leadership) was first steamrolling everything through Congress? Where were they on trying to slow down passage of the ACA so they wouldn't be passing a mess, and could try and get bipartisan buy-in? Where were they when Reid wanted to change the fillibuster rules so Obama could get allies on the courts?

You don't get to enjoy the ride and then disown it. The time to save their independent cred was back in 2009 and 2010, when it might have mattered. Now anyone who is pissed about what Obama's done is rightly going to blame his enablers too.; 10/23/14, 12:50 PM
Saint Croix said...: Campaigning in Iowa, first lady Michelle Obama repeatedly referred to Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Braley as Bruce Bailey, until she was corrected by an audience member.

LOL.

That's worse than a heckler. That's an affirmative action heckle.

Her office compounded the problem by blasting out a transcript that referred to Braley as a gubernatorial candidate.

What I don't get is the idea that Barack Obama can't help anybody, but Michelle will save the day.

Now I'm trying to think of First Ladies who are more popular than their husbands.

Abigail.
Jackie.
Laura.

That's it, right? I have no opinion on most First Ladies. In fact I have no idea who most First Ladies are. But I can think of three disliked First Ladies.

Nancy
Hillary
Michelle

Campaigning Michelle who gets the name wrong and doesn't know what the hell he's campaigning for, that's like the Joe Biden Hall of Fame.

It's kinda weird that your Vice President and your First Lady are making the same sort of clueless mistakes. It's almost like you have a secret desire to surround yourself with clueless people so you feel superior or something.; 10/23/14, 12:54 PM
Birkel said...: MadisonMan wins the internet today.
There will be a new competition tomorrow.; 10/23/14, 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: This is why I think Obama won't be using the veto pen too much after the elections.

1) He doesn't care.
2) He will get a lot of flack from Democrats and his ego will be bruised.
3) He will want revenge for #2 because he's a small man.; 10/23/14, 12:59 PM
traditionalguy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/23/14, 12:59 PM
Henry said...: If they don't like Obama they should give back his money.; 10/23/14, 12:59 PM
traditionalguy said...: Let's try to help them.

The Dems are cruel ingrates that hate Obama the Magnificent for only his skin color. It's the wrong shade: too black for whites and too white for blacks...No That is not an operable scapegoat.

It's the Jews running the Banks...maybe but its been done before.

It's Sarah Palin's fault...that has promise.

The all powerful Clinton Inc has closed ranks and is calling the media shots now...Eureka! I believe that's it; 10/23/14, 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/23/14, 1:03 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: And Obama replied: "I tell you the truth, Democrats--this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me."; 10/23/14, 1:03 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Yet, there are folks like Gwyneth Paltrow who are still deeply attached to The Won. How can a man so incompetent be such a large fundraiser for his party? What is going on in the heads of people who hand out $34,000 to have dinner & a photo with this guy?

Where I live in the MD suburbs of DC is still enamored of Obama. I see Obama stickers on a large fraction of the cars on the local roads (&, yes, they're mostly white people). Those of us who aren't among the Obamaiods just shake our heads, and say "okay, he had his chance, but after 6 & 1/2 years, aren't you guys well past delusional?". But, yet the love fest goes on.; 10/23/14, 1:06 PM
richard mcenroe said...: The GOP never has this problem. They just blame the "Tea Party" or "the base"... you know, the people they ignore or insult for years who then stay home.; 10/23/14, 1:08 PM
steve uhr said...: Obama's approval rating is the same as GW after six years. The ever-shrinking middle rightly gets tired of just about any pres. after that long.; 10/23/14, 1:11 PM
richard mcenroe said...: kcom More like Jeff Davis, Alf Landon and Mike Dukakis.; 10/23/14, 1:12 PM
n.n said...: richard mcenroe:

That's today. The traditional scapegoats are Christians and other pro-life and responsible individuals. The "Tea Party" fits the last profile.; 10/23/14, 1:12 PM
J Scott said...: "It's almost like you have a secret desire to surround yourself with clueless people so you feel superior or something."

A’s hire A’s and B’s hire C’s; 10/23/14, 1:48 PM
Sam L. said...: Blame; it's always about someone to blame. I'm betting they'll blame BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!; 10/23/14, 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I have to admit, once the Republicans take the Legislature, and the Democrats start openly hating on the lame duck President, I'll enjoy watching Crack's head explode.

I don't think he'll be able to take it. Watching the Republicans get along better with the President than the Democrats he's come to love.; 10/23/14, 1:59 PM
dhagood said...: @birkel: "MadisonMan wins the internet today.
There will be a new competition tomorrow."

beaten to it again :(; 10/23/14, 2:02 PM
sinz52 said...: I have told liberals repeatedly that to build public support for lots of new government programs,they first had to show that they could make the existing government programs work well.

They have never been interested in that.

For two reasons:

1. Maintenance isn't as sexy as building something new. A politician gets more publicity with the ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new road than for fixing the potholes in the old roads.

2. The existing programs, badly run as they are, already have constituencies to defend those programs against all attempts to reform or cut them. Liberals hope to create new constituencies with their new programs.; 10/23/14, 2:09 PM
kcom said...: "A’s hire A’s and B’s hire C’s"

And D(bag)'s hire D(bag)'s.; 10/23/14, 2:10 PM
RecChief said...: I have no opinion on most First Ladies. In fact I have no idea who most First Ladies are.

That's the way it ought to be, right? No disrespect to the ladies, but they weren't on the ballot. Why do First Ladies think they need to have some kind of cause? Michelle is the worst, if you ask my kids about their school lunch, but ever since Eleanor Roosevelt, they seem to think that they have to do something other than provide a comforting presence to the President. And, whenever we get First Gentleman, he should do the same, putter around in your shop, hit the links, let the President do her job, and relieve her stress when she leaves the west wing.; 10/23/14, 2:11 PM
RecChief said...: steve uhr said...
Obama's approval rating is the same as GW after six years. The ever-shrinking middle rightly gets tired of just about any pres. after that long.

That's true as far as it goes. However, Bush also had an adversarial press. And and "anti-war" movement...except that group turned out to be just an anti-Bush movement.; 10/23/14, 2:16 PM
SteveR said...: I expect we'll see some numbers on Nov 4 that will make us realize that the Democrat party has the same ground game that worked in 2012. All will be forgotten as the pols line up to get on the train. And surely it will be one happy family as HRC ascends to her throne. Its not about politics as much as its about power.; 10/23/14, 2:23 PM
steve uhr said...: "Bush [had an] 'anti-war' movement ... except that group turned out to be just an anti-Bush movement."

How is that any different from -- Obama had an "anti-Obamacare" movement ... except that group turned out to be just an anti-Obama movement.; 10/23/14, 2:30 PM
Brando said...: "How is that any different from -- Obama had an "anti-Obamacare" movement ... except that group turned out to be just an anti-Obama movement."

I'll tell you what--if the Right starts embracing the Obamacare law and stops trying to change or repeal it after Obama leaves office, I'll concede that.; 10/23/14, 2:36 PM
kcom said...: "How is that any different from -- Obama had an "anti-Obamacare" movement ... except that group turned out to be just an anti-Obama movement."

Okay, if you have to have it spelled out for you, I'll volunteer.

When Obama leaves office, they'll still be against Obamacare. As they were against HillaryCare and every other similar idea for the last 50 years. Because it's a bad idea.

When Bush left office, and Obama started bombing and droning left and right those "anti-war" groups just disappeared. War didn't disappear, so why did they? How many interviews in ditches have you seen lately? Where were the mass marches against action in Libya and anywhere else? That's why it wasn't an anti-war movement. Because it lost its voice when the politician changed, not when the circumstances changed.; 10/23/14, 2:36 PM
Brando said...: "That's the way it ought to be, right? No disrespect to the ladies, but they weren't on the ballot. Why do First Ladies think they need to have some kind of cause? Michelle is the worst, if you ask my kids about their school lunch, but ever since Eleanor Roosevelt, they seem to think that they have to do something other than provide a comforting presence to the President. And, whenever we get First Gentleman, he should do the same, putter around in your shop, hit the links, let the President do her job, and relieve her stress when she leaves the west wing."

I agree First Ladies should not get involved in politics at all (nor should they even have the title "First Lady"--smacks of royalty). Hillary was the worst modern offender, as she held no official office yet exercised outsized influence on the administration and the administration really should have been judged by the extent that they allowed such influence (it's no different than letting a lobbyist tell you what to do).

Michelle Obama I really don't mind though--her cause is pretty milktoast (fighting obesity) and kids should be encouraged to not get fat. When it gets to the point that she starts writing regulations for USDA, that'll be another story.; 10/23/14, 2:41 PM
RecChief said...: steve uhr said...
"Bush [had an] 'anti-war' movement ... except that group turned out to be just an anti-Bush movement."

How is that any different from -- Obama had an "anti-Obamacare" movement ... except that group turned out to be just an anti-Obama movement.

Except it's not. We were still at war after Obama took office, but the "anti-war" movement evaporated after the election. Just up and disappeared. Do you need it explained further? Barney style?; 10/23/14, 2:41 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: How is that any different from -- Obama had an "anti-Obamacare" movement ... except that group turned out to be just an anti-Obama movement.

We were also anti-Hillarycare, in case you forgot. And she's not black, so our opposition to Hillarycare couldn't be because of racism.

And Obama isn't a woman, so our opposition to Obamacare cannot be because of misogyny.

I could waste an hour explaining our opposition to socialism, but you'd reject my arguments out of hand anyway and blame our opposition to socialism on some other hate-ism.; 10/23/14, 2:41 PM
RecChief said...: I haven't heard to many leftists protest the Patriot Act since January 2009 either. Yet here I stand, against it from when it was signed to today, and until it goes into the trash bin where it belongs.

Where do you stand on the NSA collecting your communications, Steve?; 10/23/14, 2:43 PM
Brando said...: "When Bush left office, and Obama started bombing and droning left and right those "anti-war" groups just disappeared. War didn't disappear, so why did they? How many interviews in ditches have you seen lately? Where were the mass marches against action in Libya and anywhere else? That's why it wasn't an anti-war movement. Because it lost its voice when the politician changed, not when the circumstances changed."

Not to defend the anti-war opportunists, because their silence lately has been vile, but I think another part of this is the lack of casualties Americans are suffering. Even a leftist hero like LBJ got unpopular pretty quick as the body bags started coming home.

While we are still losing Americans in overseas adventures, the casualty rate is a lot lower than it was during 2003-07. Still, that doesn't absolve the anti-war opportunists considering we are still killing a lot of noncombatants and digging into illegal wars that are ill conceived. While dead and maimed Americans understandably will make a war a lot less popular, the lack thereof doesn't mean the war is peachy keen.; 10/23/14, 2:45 PM
Brando said...: "Except it's not. We were still at war after Obama took office, but the "anti-war" movement evaporated after the election. Just up and disappeared. Do you need it explained further? Barney style?"

I am sort of curious to see a "Barney style" explanation...; 10/23/14, 2:46 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Jimmy Carter held the Senate for 4 years, Bill Clinton for 2 years, and Barack Obama for 6 years (and perhaps longer).; 10/23/14, 2:46 PM
Brando said...: Anyone who protested against Bush or criticized him as a warmonger and yet supports Hillary Clinton should be required to explain how exactly she differs from him when it comes to war. I can't even think of a war (since Vietnam) that she opposed us getting into.; 10/23/14, 2:48 PM
Brando said...: "Jimmy Carter held the Senate for 4 years, Bill Clinton for 2 years, and Barack Obama for 6 years (and perhaps longer)."

The parties were differently aligned then. In the late '70s there were still a number of right-leaning Democrats in Congress who could hold their own during the '78 midterms.; 10/23/14, 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...: " "anti-war" groups just disappeared"

I think they disappeared from the television news, but they didn't disappear.

Here in Seattle, every Tuesday, downtown, at the Federal Building, the same group of people set up and protest, every, single, Tuesday of the week.

Their signs have changed a little. They used to have signs saying US out of Iraq! and US out of Afghanistan!

Now they say something different, I'm sure, but I stopped paying attention long ago.

But, they are still there. They are just no longer propped up by Democrats or the media (But I repeat myself).; 10/23/14, 2:50 PM
steve uhr said...: Thanks for the spelling lesson Kcom

The anger with Bush was that he started an (arguably) unnecessary war and (arguably) lied in the process. Obviously once the war starts you can't just pull the plug overnight and in effect surrender and destroy USA credibility around the world. Obama hardly embraced the war. Ask Cheney.

I bet the call to repeal Obamacare in its entirety will fade away after the next Republican prez. is elected. Time will tell.; 10/23/14, 3:01 PM
Browndog said...: Classic "it's not that communism isn't faulty, it's never been implemented properly" defense.

That's why the progressives aren't really worried. The infrastructure has been built, they just need the right guy to run it-

Ready for Hillary; 10/23/14, 3:02 PM
Todd said...: Well Steve, I can promise you this; I will still be pissing and moaning about it. Don't care who is in charge. It is crap and needs to go.

Feel free to call me on that if you get the opportunity.; 10/23/14, 3:07 PM
Brando said...: "The anger with Bush was that he started an (arguably) unnecessary war and (arguably) lied in the process. Obviously once the war starts you can't just pull the plug overnight and in effect surrender and destroy USA credibility around the world. Obama hardly embraced the war. Ask Cheney.

I bet the call to repeal Obamacare in its entirety will fade away after the next Republican prez. is elected. Time will tell."

For a guy who "hardly embraced the war" Obama did a pretty good job starting some additional illegal wars of his own. He also tried to extend our stay in Iraq beyond Bush's own timetable (and would have if the Iraqis hadn't refused our conditions), expanded and extended our war in Afghanistan, and tried to get us to go to war in Syria with the same guys who we are quasi-allied with now. If an anti-war group can't protest that, then they're not really anti-war.

Maybe they're just "anti-high casualties" which I understand--more bodybags are clearly worse than fewer. But then if bodybags were the determining factor, then our two worst mistakes were the Civil War and WWII. So the issue really has to be something other than casualty rates.

As for repealing Obamacare, the GOP may be calling symbolic votes to do that, but I don't think any serious person thinks that even with the power to do so they'd repeal it entirely. They're clearly going to leave some parts in place, reform other parts, add some things in, and repeal other parts. That is, to the extent they can--without a president and Congressional majority they'd have to settle for a lot less.; 10/23/14, 3:11 PM
RecChief said...: While we are still losing Americans in overseas adventures, the casualty rate is a lot lower than it was during 2003-07.

Close, but not quite

Afghanistan

Iraq

While it's true that US casualties peaked in 2007, in 2008 they dropped precipitously. This was due to the surge that the Democrat Party labeled a failure barely after it had begun. But in Afghansitan, they rose starting in 2009, peaking in 2011.

I think one reason for your perception is that media outlets stopped the daily drumbeat of how many casualties happened that day.

Take a look at page from USAToday. It's an index of US casualties in Iraq. Last updated in May of 2009. But there were 260 casualties from February of 2009 to November 2011. It's amazing that USAToday which reported every casualty for 6 years, just up and stopped reporting in the spring of 2009. And USAToday wasn't the only one. More Americans killed in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush, yet who knows that? I think that is the reason for your perception brando, just my opinion.; 10/23/14, 3:17 PM
RecChief said...: sorry, here is the link to that Iraq causalty index on USAToday; 10/23/14, 3:19 PM
RecChief said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/23/14, 3:24 PM
Scott M said...: But where is the left calling these pols racists? I mean, they are disagreeing with Obama? Isn't that because he is black?

Waiting on mana from Ferguson, MO.; 10/23/14, 3:29 PM
Saint Croix said...: That's the way it ought to be, right? No disrespect to the ladies, but they weren't on the ballot.

The mini-series John Adams has incredible acting. But the whole thing is kind of off-putting because John Adams is such a shit. He's so obnoxious and he's always saying the wrong thing. But his wife, wow. She's awesome.

Best first lady ever?

What's also interesting is how unimportant Adams seems to us. We don't name cities after him, he's not on the money, he's not famous like Washington or Jefferson or Madison. And we wonder, why John Adams? Why was he our second President?

The mini-series answers that question pretty well. Very good peek into the revolutionary era.; 10/23/14, 3:30 PM
Michael K said...: "And, whenever we get First Gentleman, he should do the same, putter around in your shop, hit the links, let the President do her job, and relieve her stress when she leaves the west wing."

Dennis Thatcher was a pretty good role model.; 10/23/14, 3:32 PM
David said...: Looking for someone else to blame?

Hey, they're politicians. Mostly in Congress. That's what they do for a living.

Seek credit. Deflect accountability.

And it's not just the Democrats, though lately they are the stars of the show.; 10/23/14, 3:37 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I expect we'll see some numbers on Nov 4 that will make us realize that the Democrat party has the same ground game that worked in 2012. All will be forgotten as the pols line up to get on the train.

Except that more and more people are getting mad at that ground game. The Dems in CO pushed through same-day registration, plus, apparently the ability to bundle up to 10 ballots from others (with no way to enforce the 10 ballot limit), in the year or so that they had full control of the Legislature and Governor's mansion. Why same day registration? Because that GOTV effort that you are talking about involves hectoring zero information, low likelihood voters into voting. People who are unlikely to think about voting until the day of the election, when they start getting hourly text messages on their publicly funded ObamaPhones to vote. And, why the vote collectors? So, that party workers can go around and have people sign already filled out ballots.

In short, the CO Dems attempted to drastically tilt the election process in their favor, and to make election fraud much easier. And, as James O’Keefe Strikes Again points out, at least some of the Dem party workers seem to be ready and willing to capitalize on these new laws to commit possibly massive voter fraud. Sarah Hoyt asks: Will You (Also) Tolerate This? Sen. Mark Uterus is down maybe 5 points from his challenger Rep. Gardner. What happens if Udahl wins, through what appears to be widespread voter fraud?

To a lot of progressives, winning elections is everything. At the national level that means that you get control of the justice apparatus (in this case, appointing political fixer Eric Holder as AG), which means that if you cheat to win, you can prevent any investigations into how the win occurred.

But, that means that election wins are less legitimate. Merely winning a close one isn't necessarily a triumph of democracy, but sometimes, maybe, a triumph of cheating. And, when the majority installed by that (possible) cheating acts against the people, it is acting as the will of the cheaters, and not the majority of the informed voters. Already, the faith of the American people in their federal (and often state) government has eroded significantly under President Obama. Expect it to erode further, if the Dems manage to maintain control of the Senate through this sort of shenanigans.; 10/23/14, 3:44 PM
steve uhr said...: Re NSA, I think both Snowden and Assange have done more good than harm.; 10/23/14, 3:50 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I bet the call to repeal Obamacare in its entirety will fade away after the next Republican prez. is elected. Time will tell.

You are presupposing that ObamaCare is a good thing. But, it really probably isn't. Sure, a lot of people are now covered by Medicaid that weren't, but so are a lot of people who formerly had decent coverage, AND, Medicaid coverage is typically pretty bad. Narrow networks, low reimbursements, long lines, etc. And, those most deserving of coverage are the ones being pushed off plans that covered their doctors and hospitals. Moreover, the supposed cost efficiencies of ObamaCare are apparently causing significant reductions in quality of care, thanks to the huge paperwork burden being imposed by the regulations. And, that doesn't even address the trillions of dollars of increased spending that are likely to result. So, we are likely to see greatly increased costs, for marginally more people covered, and reduced quality of care for most. Not something that very many Republicans are going to want to protect.; 10/23/14, 3:50 PM
RecChief said...: steve uhr said...
Re NSA, I think both Snowden and Assange have done more good than harm.

Well, that's nice I guess, but since the NSA is still collecting communications data, and now the FBI is pressuring cell phone providers to provide them the means to easily access a citizen's data. In your opinion, are those actions good or bad?; 10/23/14, 3:59 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: RecCheif said...I think one reason for your perception is that media outlets stopped the daily drumbeat of how many casualties happened that day.

Thank you. It is tiring to point out, but things like homelessness, war casualties, high gas prices, etc, just aren't covered the same way. The day after a Republican is sworn into office we're going to read about how many homeless vets there are, how shameful it is that the VA isn't treating wounded vets better, and on and on. These problems don't go away, they just aren't covered.; 10/23/14, 4:13 PM
Jaq said...: At this point Obamacare is in place. It will have to be modified in major ways the president won't like. But repealing it is now impossible.

Dems had both houses and the presidency. That is what is known as the keys to the kingdom, and aside from looting the treasury, they inflicted this abomination on us.; 10/23/14, 4:19 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: steve uhr said...I bet the call to repeal Obamacare in its entirety will fade away after the next Republican prez. is elected.

Well you've got at least two things going on here. One is that (believe it or not) we're still in the "good" part of the Obamacare rollout. Net-net many people are probably doing much better on average under Obamacare than they were before; it was designed to push the big costs and regulatory compliance charges off for a few years but start giving the benefits right away. [Which, by the way, makes it all the more egregious that the initial website/sign up roll out went so damn poorly.] Penalties for noncompliance are small but will increase, the affected populations have been relatively small (started with individual policyholders, rolling out to small businesses and then larger corp. plans later, etc) and most of the increases in coverage have come from Medicaid expansions--those will be costly down the road but right now the Fed gov is picking up most of the tab so states and individuals look like winners. As costs increase and more people are negatively affected you may see more popular disapproval for the program as it is and that could lead to political will to change the program. This is on top of the redistributive nature of much of the program's funding, which means that one person may have a very large cost but two or three people will see a modest net benefit--funding the program in that way certainly has a political/electoral impact.
Unfortunately I think it's at least equally likely that enough people will be individually better off under the program to make it politically very difficult to end. This is one reason Repubs fought so hard against the program to begin with (even though some portions of the plan were not only acceptable to many Rs, they were taken from old R plans!)--once you have a large gov entitlement program from which some people benefit it is VERY difficult to end that program. This is true even if the program on net is a cost/not worth its price, and even if the gross # of people who are net losers is greater than the # of people who are winners. Entitlements are almost impossible to end. That is one very good reason to think very hard about starting entitlement programs and/or adopting a conservative approach when starting one. That fact is not only true for on party--does anyone believe Medicare part D is going away anytime soon?
Knowing that an entitlement program like Obamacare will be politically difficult to repeal may lead lawmakers to mute calls to shut the program down entirely. I don't think a similar dynamic is at work regarding calls to end unpopular wars.; 10/23/14, 4:29 PM
Achilles said...: Don't worry. The socialists/statist will find the "right" leader to make statism work. It may take all of history but that person is out there!; 10/23/14, 4:52 PM
Achilles said...: steve uhr said...

"I bet the call to repeal Obamacare in its entirety will fade away after the next Republican prez. is elected. Time will tell."

If this happens, which it may, it will be the end of the republican party for a decade or so. They are still not recovered from passing the Medicare part B fiasco. If they sign off on Obamacare and/or pass amnesty there will be a re-alignment of the parties.

The public despises Obamacare and wants it gone.; 10/23/14, 4:59 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "But, that means that election wins are less legitimate. Merely winning a close one isn't necessarily a triumph of democracy, but sometimes, maybe, a triumph of cheating. And, when the majority installed by that (possible) cheating acts against the people, it is acting as the will of the cheaters, and not the majority of the informed voters. Already, the faith of the American people in their federal (and often state) government has eroded significantly under President Obama. Expect it to erode further, if the Dems manage to maintain control of the Senate through this sort of shenanigans."

An excellent point and palpably true on the ground. Every contested election, regardless of who wins, heightens the cynicism and indifference regarding government of the people I talk to. I guess as a conservative I should feel this is a good thing, as it increasingly deprives government of the consent of the governed.; 10/23/14, 5:47 PM
Emil Blatz said...: Loving every moment of it. I am.; 10/23/14, 6:07 PM
richard mcenroe said...: They chose to vote party line for the stimulus.

They chose to come back at night on Xmas weekend to pass OCare.

They chose to walk out on the Benghazi families

They chose anything that happens to them next.; 10/24/14, 12:38 AM
richard mcenroe said...: Add: They chose to sit in silent obedience while Harry Reid blocked hundreds of bills coming out of the House.; 10/24/14, 12:39 AM
richard mcenroe said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/24/14, 12:39 AM