Posted on 03/02/2012 6:28:27 AM PST by KansasGirl
Columnist George Will says the 2012 presidential looks like it might be a lost cause for Republicans and believes that the primary goal of conservatives should be to retain control of the House and win the Senate so Congress can restrain President Barack Obama while the GOP grooms its talent for 2016.
“Romney and Rick Santorum… are conservatives, although of strikingly different stripes. Neither, however, seems likely to be elected… If either is nominated, conservatives should vote for him,” Will writes in his upcoming Sunday column, obtained in advance by POLITICO.
However, Will argues, that control of both house of Congress is more attainable and more important.
“[T]here would come a point when… conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than… electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate.. [C]onservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013,” writes Will.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
” Will wants MCCONNELL and BOEHNER to control Obama?!?!?!?!”
They are useless cowardly fools. We have no leadership. Will is, as usual, wrong!
Will is just telling us the GOP Establishment’s game plan from the beginning. They want Obama in the White House. They want Rinos to control the Senate or House.
If this was not the game plan from the beginning, they would not have pushed Romney who has a track record of failure in the previous elections and who they know is unacceptable to the majority of the base.
They are traitors. They want a one party system so they can “get things done” - overturn the constitution and create a NAU, global Fed, judiciary, electronic currency and taxation system. They are all singing from the same treasonous page.
It increases his beltway cred.
George Wilts.
This
“Then there’s the problem of moderate Republicans. They hold the center of gravity, politically-speaking. They have shown a willingness to bolt the party on critical issues and support a Democrat president. So holding a majority together in the Senate has always been problematic.”
Right on, FRiend. There is no chance of a conservative majority in the Senate in the next Congress. None. Zero. But the RINOs would love to have the majorities and keep the base line budgeting spending fiasco going. Then they will just blame the inevitable tax increases on the kenyan.
The huge red flag for me is none of the top tier new faces ran for President this time. No Ryan. No Christie. No Rubio. The beltway GOP just don’t have the fight in them to take on Hussein and the rabid dims. It’s just not there.
I absolutrly despise Romney, but I’d walk over broken glass to cast a vote the candidate positioned to take Obama out.
If Romney doesn’t govern as he has campaigned, we recruit Palin to primary him in 2016.
“Unless the Reps have veto proof majorities in Congress,...”
Notice you said “Reps” (I think you meant Republicans rather than Representatives in this case) while I said “conservatives”. Conservatives would not need 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress to stop the democrat agenda dead in its tracks. They would not need to reverse all the past hundred years of progressive legislation to stop the leftists right now. All they would need to do is not fund the programs and stand up to the leftist threats to “shut down the federal government”. This de-funding stoppage is made much easier due to the fact that the nation is reaching its credit limit. Yes, the reversal of the progressives’ past federal legislative acts would have to wait until we elected a cooperative president and/or veto-proof majorities.
If Obama does get re-elected, I certainly do want at the very least conservative control of both houses of congress for an Obama lame-duck presidential term, and that may be the most realistic and important goal for right now.
I don’t think George Will has what I described in mind when he wrote his column, though. I think he visualized a bunch of faux conservatives, not tea-party types, in the House and especially in the Senate, still “cooperating” with the democrat executive and judicial branches for another four years. JMHO.
There are NO MODERATES.
It is not enough to stop the Democrat/liberal agenda dead in its tracks. Obamacare will be implemented. If Obama appoints two to three more Supreme Court justices like Sotomayor and Kagan, there will be terrible price to pay not for just years but decades. The Constitution will become a meaningless piece of paper.
All they would need to do is not fund the programs and stand up to the leftist threats to “shut down the federal government”. This de-funding stoppage is made much easier due to the fact that the nation is reaching its credit limit. Yes, the reversal of the progressives’ past federal legislative acts would have to wait until we elected a cooperative president and/or veto-proof majorities.
Easier said than done and it would not last for long. We have culture of dependency in this country that will soon pass the 50% mark. We have 54 million on SS, 47 million on Medicare, 60 million on Medicaid (Obamacare will add another 18 million), and 46 million on food stamps. Almost 50% of the population pays no income taxes. And the government controls over 40% of the US economy now, which means any major cuts in spending will affect employment and the economy.
If Congress votes not to fund the programs, the US will operate probably on a continuing resolution. There is no way we will stop funding DOD, our intelligence agencies, etc. And it will signal the Reps political demise in the 2014 midterms. You have to be a lot smarter than just "not fund the programs and stand up to the leftist threats to 'shut down the federal government'"
If Obama does get re-elected, I certainly do want at the very least conservative control of both houses of congress for an Obama lame-duck presidential term, and that may be the most realistic and important goal for right now.
You are making a false choice. I want both and if I had my druthers, I would want control of the WH over control of Congress. The President has veto power, can appoint judges, conduct foreign affairs, and use the executive agencies to do things like secure our border and enforce our immigration laws. He can also rein in out of control agencies like the EPA.
I don’t think George Will has what I described in mind when he wrote his column, though. I think he visualized a bunch of faux conservatives, not tea-party types, in the House and especially in the Senate, still “cooperating” with the democrat executive and judicial branches for another four years. JMHO
George Will is a pompous ass who has lived too long inside the Beltway. He has lost touch with reality. And I find it interesting how pundits on the Left and the Right seem to overlook the 2010 elections, one of the most historic midterms in 75 years.
We will see how electable Obama is in 2012 and whether he is going to be a drag on the Dems. On thing to look for is whether the Dems up for election want to be seen with him during the campaign. Nelson of FL avoided Obama recently when he was in FL. I don't think that Obama can defy the laws of political gravity. 2012 is the Reps election to lose. Once the primaries are over and the GOP can train its guns on Obama and his policies, there will be a different dynamic in play. As long as the election is a referendum on Obama, Obama will lose. He now has a record and hope and change no longer can cut it. Do the American people want four more years of Obama?
“Do the American people want four more years of Obama?”
We are not on different sides; but the whole point the thread was to discuss what conservatives could do if Obama DOES win. Its called discussing a hypothetical - what to do if the worst happens and the guy IS reelected.
So, to answer your question, the only context in which an answer is reasonably made is to first have an answer to the question “As opposed to who?” Undoubtedly, and unfortunantely, because we now have nearly the univeral franchise in this country, the American electorate just might want Obama again in preference to certain opponents that might be nominated to run against him.
There is nothing “false” about discussing the possibility of - “if Obama does get re-elected, I certainly do want at the very least conservative control of both houses of congress for an Obama lame-duck presidential term, and that may be the most realistic and important goal (other than the presidential election contest) for right now.”
I don’t know how you get more Republicans in Congress if Obama is re-elected unless perhaps conservatives show up to vote but skip the presidency and only go down ballot.
If Will was in charge in 1776 the USA would still be colony of British Empire.
Why would the e-RiNO's adopt such a defeatist, pessimistic strategy? They're essentially throwing the election.
Does it really mean more to them, to retain control of the GOP, than to elect a conservative President? Do they really hate conservatives so much, that they'd throw the White House and two or three Supreme Court seats, just to keep a conservative, any conservative, out of the Oval Office?
Just what are we dealing with here?
Start with this: The GOP establishment is non-ideological.
While the Democrat leadership are committed ideologues -- i.e, using government to achieve an ideological end -- the Republican leadership is in the business of using government to further the limited aim of their own re-election.
They perceive themselves as, and are happy to serve as, "the loyal opposition" and have no ambition to be the "lead party". They're happy to take a turn when the opposing party stubs its toe.
They're comfortable with this arrangement. And they absolutely love being in Washington, being part of the power structure.
Ideology -- especially conservative ideology -- makes them decidedly uncomfortable.
Most realistic my a$$. You are spouting defeatist nonsense. Again, this race is the Reps to lose. As long as it is about a referendum on Obama and his policies, Obama will lose. That is the most realistic result.
Hypothetical: An assumption used as a basis for investigation or argument, as in “ suppose Obama were to be reelected...”
If even discussing a scenario is forbidden, because talking it through would be “defeatist”, I’d hate to to see what somebody whose screen name is Kabar would do to somebody else who started developing a plan B.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.