Can Obama's Relection be a Good Thing for Conservatives?

Red County ^ | 3/30/12 | Ben Barrack

[Ben Barrack]

Conservatives are disheartened. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee in the fight to defeat Barack Obama. If four years of Jimmy Carter so awakened Republican voters that they nominated Ronald Reagan, why has nearly four years of Jimmy Carter on steroids so sedated Republican voters that they've decided to nominate the equivalent of Gerald Ford as the best option for defeating him?

In large part, the establishment insists on it and, like Obama, seems disinterested in the will of the people. This establishment is so invested in Romney that it is overlooking the potential consequences of one very real possibility.

What if he loses? The establishment's credibility will have been torpedoed. Yes, at great expense, but torpedoed nonetheless.

If you thought the Tea Party was angry in 2009, just wait until 2013 if Barack Obama is sworn in for a second term after defeating Mitt Romney. For starters, conservative voters will be outraged at any Republican Senator, Congressman or Governor who helped shove Romney down their throats. Accountability could take on an entirely new meaning and those elected leaders will have their feet held to the fire like never before. Romney's name will be added to the long list of liberal Republicans who couldn't seal the deal. Any attempt by establishment elitists to point to Goldwater as evidence that conservatism can't win will be met with sardonic laughter that hopefully drives a stake through the heart of the argument.

Consider the example Fast and Furious, an operation that is not only being revealed as something akin to Watergate with murder but could very likely implicate the heads of nearly every major department and agency in the Obama Administration, to include DHS, DOJ, the FBI, and the State Department. There have been multiple reports that House Speaker John Boehner has asked Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to back off of his investigation, ostensibly because of how high it could go.

While appearing on the Fox News Channel, Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation was visibly frustrated at the lack of interest on the part of Republican Party leadership relative to being more aggressive with Attorney General Eric Holder. Judson went on to say the following:

“What my friends in Washington tell me is that Boehner says what he learned from the 1995 government shutdown is ‘you never pick a fight with the president.’”

If Romney loses to Obama, Boehner will be forced to pick that fight.

If Judson is correct, it points to Boehner being more interested in running out the clock – with the November election representing the final whistle – than in a dogged pursuit of justice, regardless of where it leads. Avoiding a showdown could conceivably allow Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to skate – depending on their respective levels of involvement – instead of facing impeachment and removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Boehner has most certainly come across as disinterested in commenting on the scandal publicly and won't deviate from a short statement of support for what Issa's committee is doing. It would seem that Issa is wrestling with quite the Executive Branch behemoth and could use a greater show of public support from the House Speaker.

If there are any stories the establishment wants to see go away after the election, the ones about Obama's Birth Certificate, Social Security number, and Selective Service registration are at the top of the list. Such concerns are irrelevant, they say. Besides, the election is less than one year away and it's pointless to entertain the notion. The implication is that Joe Arpaio's investigation, even if it yields anything of substance, will be anti-climactic because Obama will be out of office and everyone will have moved on.

That is, unless he wins. Then what? If you thought the Birthers were loud before, just wait and see what happens if Obama is reelected.

Not only will the Birthers – who generally don't come across as avid Romney supporters – have four more years to continue their incessant drumbeat of demands for answers to their eligibility questions but the establishment that has made every attempt to ignore them will have been roundly defeated and, consequently, forced into a position of having to listen. With the wind knocked out of the establishment, its members will also be barraged with demands that they reconcile with their base (not the other way around) for supporting yet another in a long line of incredibly pathetic candidates. As much as the elites won't want to admit it, the Republican Party agenda could be set by conservative voters who were ignored by an establishment that still doesn't get it.

Tolerance will be in very short supply.

The sad prospect of Romney as the nominee is seemingly trumped only by the prospect that Obama could get a second term, which is made more likely, some believe, if Romney is nominated. Establishment, general election Republican losers like John McCain and Bob Dole have endorsed Romney, as have Governors Chris Christie and Nikki Haley. Tea Party favorites Marco Rubio and Christine O'Donnell have as well. A dangerous type of groupthink seems to have set in among Republican politicians that has generated a bizzare coalescence around a liberal candidate when the time is ripe for a conservative one.

For crying out loud, serial liar Howard Dean said the Democrats fear a face-off with Romney most over all the Republican candidates. Those of us who understand liberal tactics know that Dean means the exact opposite; that's why he said it. It'd be like a head coach proclaiming that his team fears facing his opponent's back up quarterback in an attempt to fool the other coach into starting him. Republican elites aren't as smart, apparently. They've been told by Howard Dean that their third string quaterback gives them their best chance and, by gum, they believe it.

Something else almost certain to happen after Romney's nomination; his religion will be thoroughly vetted by the liberal media. Most Americans know little to nothing about Mormonism but that is all going to change with Romney's nomination. According to a Gallup poll, 22% of Americans are hesitant about voting for a Mormon. Some argue that Mormonism is antithetical to Chrisitianity; some argue that it isn't; still others don't much care. One thing is certain. Everyone will know more about it with Romney as the Republican nominee for president. That, too, should be a good thing no matter what side you're on.

Don't lose heart, conservatives. Instead, check out Romans 8:28, which says:

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

In 2013, the Republican elites could find themselves at the intersection of 'be careful what you wish for' and 'sleeping in the bed you made.'

I hope they're preparing for both.

Ben Barrack is a talk show host on KTEM 1400 in Texas benbarrack.com

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Scalia will never voluntarily retire while Obama is POTUS. I suspect Kennedy feels similarly. That means there is little chance that the court will change the next 4 years. I wouldn't make their retirement the basis for my decision.

No, I would hardly say "little chance." Either could become incapacitated, or die in 4 years. You are aware that Scalia and Kennedy would be 80 in 2016? I wish them very good health!

Life expectancy:

Suppose Kennedy or Scalia retires in 2017 due to health problems after a Romney POTUS is such a disaster that Dems take the WH and Senate again? See?? It's not so easy to forcast.

Good point. I did think of such possibilities too. In my post I accidentally put "We might lose the chance for a GOP POTUS better than Romney to replace conservative justices who left between 2013-2016" in the wrong place. I meant to say that if Romney wins in 2012 and they retire in his second term, we might get mediocre justices or worse from Romney, but if Obama won in 2012 and we elected a conservative POTUS in 2016 (the years that would have been Romney's 2nd term), that might work out better. Or Romney might appoint better judges than we think, who knows.

But I never said anything to lead anyone to believe that it's easy to predict the future, and certainly not that we elect a GOP POTUS and we live happily ever after. One of the major points of my post was that it is NOT easy to forecast what will happen. For example, I wrote, "This is an extremely complex probability problem, not a logic problem."

It's not just Scalia and Kennedy. Have to think About Thomas, Ginsberg, Souter (who is a reminder of what kind of appointments a "compassionate conservative" might make, but Bush 1 also appointed Thomas).

I could try to think of a lot more possibilities and include them, but nobody would want to read the extremely long post that might result.

Bottom line, even if Romney beats Obama, the SCOTUS could still turn out badly. I won't vote for O, but I don't know if Romney would be good either. Sometimes I wonder if the GOP aristocrats even suspect how deeply I resent what GWB did.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I see the past week or so Romney ALREADY said that man-induced global warming is a serious problem. He didn't even wait till he wrapped up the primary.

I can't find any recent PUBLIC Romney pro-global-warming statements. However, his staff has some sleazy characters:

Link: Among the advisors to the Romney campaign on these issues today is James Connaughton, formerly head of the Bush White House Council of Environmental Quality, and a long time ardent supporter of cap and trade. Another is Jeff Holmstead, Bush EPA Air Chief who promoted global warming hysteria, and an interstate clean air rule providing the precedent for Obama's job and economy destroying Cross State Air Pollution Rule. Still another is Edward Krenick, another former Bush EPA supporter of cap and trade. No wonder highly active global warming skeptic James Taylor says that Romney's people on global warming are as bad as Obama's people.

And remember Holdren, Obama's science czar who wanted to "de-develop" the USA? As gov of Mass., Romney used him as a high level advisor. AFAIK he is not on Romney's staff now.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Scalia will never voluntarily retire while Obama is POTUS. I suspect Kennedy feels similarly. That means there is little chance that the court will change the next 4 years. I wouldn't make their retirement the basis for my decision.......
No, I would hardly say “little chance.” Either could become incapacitated, or die in 4 years. You are aware that Scalia and Kennedy would be 80 in 2016? I wish them very good health! “

Again, putting all your chips on the bet that they will die or be incapactitated in the next four years and not any time after that is like betting on the lotto with a large part of your life savings.

That life expectancy curve you shown is completely meaningless to this discussion showing 76/81 as the (Average ???) life expectance without knowing how it was generated or who the samples were.
Try a life expectancy curve based on actual SCOTUS justices, not a sample that includes those on welfare with high blood pressure and diabetes.

[sickoflibs]

What is he selling now? It was Palin before.

[Chunga]

That means there is little chance that the court will change the next 4 years. I wouldn't make their retirement the basis for my decision.

For conservatives, the makeup of the Supreme Court is always a consideration when voting for president, and this time it's a more important consideration than ever. The Constitution is under full assault by this administration. We need constructionists nominated to every federal judicial position in the country.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”For conservatives, the makeup of the Supreme Court is always a consideration when voting for president, and this time it's a more important consideration than ever. The Constitution is under full assault by this administration. We need constructionists nominated to every federal judicial position in the country.”

That really doesn't tell me anything.

Betting on both:

1) Scalia and/or Kennedy will retire/die in the next four years and not any time after that.
2) Liberal Romney would appoint anything like a Scalia

is a very risky bet.

Yes, GWB re-election did eventually result in two very good justices, but it also resulting in Republicans being so despised and untrusted that Dems were able to take the WH with two major congressional victories :2006 and 2008 to get much of their agenda accomplished.

That resulted in two terrible justices that Obama got with little resistance.

I can easily imagine the liberal Romney POTUS being so bad that Dems win again big in 2016. It's pretty easy to do.

[jjotto]

We need constructionists nominated to every federal judicial position in the country

Mitt Romney was a student of a real Constitutional scholar, Cleon Skousen. It is at least partly on this basis that some Republican intelligentsia can claim he is a 'conservative'. But it's very clear the Romney knows and rejects 'constructionist' views of the Constitution.

Think more Souters on the Supreme Court...

[stephenjohnbanker]

“1) Scalia and/or Kennedy will retire/die in the next four years and not any time after that.
2) Liberal Romney would appoint anything like a Scalia

is a very risky bet.”

With Obama, think Sotomayor and the Bulldyke. We KNOW what vermin HE will appoint.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Again, putting all your chips on the bet that they will die or be incapacitated in the next four years and not any time after that is like betting on the lotto with a large part of your life savings.

I am assuming that you used the word "you" in that sentence as you would use the word "one" as in "Putting all one's chips....," because I am not assuming either outcome. But in a sense, we have to bet our chips on Romney, or bet against him (by not voting at all -- I assume nobody here is voting for O). I am saying that the possibility that Scalia and Kennedy will not be able to serve is real, not certain. They really do get old.

My earlier post in this dialogue discussed cases in which they could serve longer than 2016. I noted that in some of those cases, a Romney presidency could result in worse justices than an Obama presidency.

It may come to pass that both of them do fine and live to the age of 100. I hope they do. But nobody knows.

That life expectancy curve you shown is completely meaningless to this discussion showing 76/81 as the (Average ???) life expectance without knowing how it was generated or who the samples were.

I don't think it is "completely meaningless." In any case, it is based on real numbers, but I put it there to illustrate that men near the age of 80 are more likely to have health problems than 50 year olds. That is why all the justices in the last 30 years except Ginsburg were in their 50s when they were appointed. I think you really do understand that the probability that either of the two justices either dies or becomes incapacitated is greater than the probability of one dying.

Try a life expectancy curve based on actual SCOTUS justices, not a sample that includes those on welfare with high blood pressure and diabetes.

I think you know that the sample would be too small, and extremely inaccurate, including 18th century justices. But maybe there is a more accurate way to estimate what their odds are. I do not pretend to know what the exact numbers are, but I know they are not zero, and they could be greater than you think.

In my opinion, Obama appointing a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy would be a defilement of this nation. But a failed Romney presidency, followed by a new leftist swine POTUS replacing those justices, would be just as painful and shameful. And our votes make one or the other of those outcomes possible.

I believe that electing Romney is such a gamble, at least at this point, that I don't know whether it is possible to make a rational decision to vote for him or not vote for him in the general election.

[Gilbo_3]

dont know, and dont care what *it* has to sell...rabble-rousers are irritating and are either statists or too fearful to be of any help...

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Yes, GWB re-election did eventually result in two very good justices, but it also resulting in Republicans being so despised and untrusted that Dems were able to take the WH with two major congressional victories :2006 and 2008 to get much of their agenda accomplished. That resulted in two terrible justices that Obama got with little resistance.

And it is quite possible that, in case R had to replace conservatives on the scotus, he would appoint "moderates." But the next leftist in the WH would appoint leftist demons to replace Ginsburg and Breyer (Clinton appointees, would not voluntarily retire with a GOP POTUS in charge). Not a good trade.

I can easily imagine the liberal Romney POTUS being so bad that Dems win again big in 2016. It's pretty easy to do.

Agree.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”In my opinion, Obama appointing a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy would be a defilement of this nation. But a failed Romney presidency, followed by a new leftist swine POTUS replacing those justices, would be just as painful and shameful. And our votes make one or the other of those outcomes possible.
I believe that electing Romney is such a gamble, at least at this point, that I don't know whether it is possible to make a rational decision to vote for him or not vote for him in the general election.”

Exactly ! And those comments are not personally directed at you.

I suggest we all follow our conscience in this terrible decision but those that pretend to know with absolute certainty that this country will be better off after 4 years of a Romney POTUS (considering the next election after that) , or that know that Kennedy or Scalia will retire in the next 4 years, or that Romney would appoint a justice that we will find acceptable, or that they even know what a Romney POTUS would really do, are just making it up.

Let's watch the race develop.

BTW : If Romney is really our last hope then maybe Newt and RS should not have spent so much time attacking him, Newt used the OWS ‘envy the rich’ attacks against him, and RS just said Obama would be a better POTUS than Romney, I didn't find those helpful. Romney's polling way below Obama now.

[Gilbo_3]

enjoying the 'what ifs' about SCOTUS...but lets be realistic...

theres NO guarantee that any of em live or die, nor any of us beyond the next keystroke...

that said, even with a marginally 'conservative' court [cough, spit], we only got a 5-4 on Heller and mcDonald, two cases directly bearing on a simple phrase "Shall NOT be infringed"...

the court, even when/if it gets a correct 'interpretation' then diminishes the Rights further by watering down the upheld Right with drivel that becomes future weighted opinion...

even further, whats [who] to stop bambam from simply EOing anything, or even doubling the number of justices and appointing them whenever he decides he needs to ???

SCOTUS *should* be an important factor...but its hit or miss how any 'conservative' justice acts once tenuured for life...

again, our issues come back to how our *reps* have acted the last 40+ yrs in allowing socialists to be rubberstamped into SCOTUS while simultaneously cowing to pressure in support of decent jurists...

NOT my fault/problem now...

[stephenjohnbanker]

I own a business. I must pick a CEO to run it.

My only choices are Romney and Obama

1) Romney, I cannot trust at all, but he has an MBA, and doesn’t hate the business. He could be lousy, and hurt the business.

@) Obama despises all private businesses, despises the free enterprise system, despises our products, and will hire only those who think as he does. He will certainly destroy, bankrupt the business in 4 years.

There you are.

Which one do I choose to run it?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

that said, even with a marginally 'conservative' court [cough, spit], we only got a 5-4 on Heller and mcDonald, two cases directly bearing on a simple phrase "Shall NOT be infringed"..

Here's another one (Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency), Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas vote co2 is not a "pollutant," Kennedy votes with the 4 demons that it is:

The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the ruling "repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on global warming," undermining the government's refusal to view carbon dioxide as an air pollutant subject to EPA regulation.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Well put. I would say it’s a ‘no-brainer’ - but the brainless around here can’t wait to broadcast how they would rather pick Peter Pan or some other fantasy third choice instead.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I own a business. I must pick a CEO to run it.
My only choices are Romney and Obama”

Except :

1) You don't personally own the US
2) You don't get to personally determine the POTUS this year.
3) You don't get to determine the POTUS in 2016 either.

How about this?

You have three choices :

1) Choose Obama and be responsible legally and financially for everything he does, if he cheats you go to jail with all personal assets forfeited.

2) Choose Romney and be responsible legally and financially for everything he does, if he cheats you go to jail with all personal assets forfeited.

3) Disown them both, the decision is made by someone else who is responsible legally and financially for everything he does.

Would you be willing to defend every position Romney takes? I already know the answer.

[sickoflibs]

I disagree with Gilbo on this one, Alito and Roberts have made a huge difference for the positive.

I remember the O Conner court and that was like flipping a coin. She had NO consistent judicial philosophy and stuck her finger in the wind for decisions. The MSM called her ‘moderate’ because she had no consistent princples

[stephenjohnbanker]

“3) Disown them both, the decision is made by someone else who is responsible legally and financially for everything he does.”

No POTUS? Youze changing the rules.....and I know you know what I think of the Romulan : )

Here it is. If Obama gets back in, he will either take down our country, or we will stop him, via uprising. The uprising would be brutal(not going to go into the gory details). Maybe there IS no choice, but be forewarned....if the uprising DOES NOT happen, I believe the country is finished. We don’t know how much pain the citizens of America will take. Will they fight, or roll over. Nobody knows for sure. FReeper Travis McGee is one of the very brightest we have. He doesn’t know either. Ask him. And HE has been in combat.

Now, I will be the first one to tell you I’m flummoxed. The choices are unbearable. If Obama gets back in would I defend our country? Yes. Would YOU? I would bet yes. The average FReeper? Probably. The average American? Aye.....there’s the rub! This is not a chess game here.
This is our country.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Here it is. If Obama gets back in, he will either take down our country, or we will stop him, via uprising. The uprising would be brutal(not going to go into the gory details). Maybe there IS no choice, but be forewarned....if the uprising DOES NOT happen, I believe the country is finished. “

Except as we have learned from 2007 to 2008, then 2009 to 2010 that it is possible that Republicans will rally and protest in mass against socialism, but only if the POTUS is a Democrat not a Republican.

If Romney is POTUS he has the loaded gun against the puppies head. His blank check to make us swallow anything he does his first term : amnesty, cap-and trade, same sex marriage is that if we oppose him we hurt him and we help Dems defeat him, and they will destroy the country. And he will have Dems protesting him from the other side.

Romney : “Support me or the puppy gets it, the country dies if I lose”

With Bush it was : "Support me or the terrorists will kill you"