Why taking over the Senate may not do Republicans much good

Washington Post ^ | 03/18/2014 | Paul Waldman

[SeekAndFind]

There’s an old story about a freshman member of the House who is getting shown around by a senior member on his first day, and the freshman asks about the other party. “I want to meet the enemy,” he says. “No, son,” says the old bull, “they’re the opposition. The Senate is the enemy.” I thought about that today as the prospect of a Republican takeover of the Senate becomes more of a possibility. If the GOP controlled both houses, would Republicans be able to present a united front against President Obama, one that might actually accomplish any practical goals? There are some clues in the maneuvering that’s going on right now over health care as Republicans look forward to this fall’s elections.

To begin with, we should acknowledge that a Republican takeover of the upper house is anything but a sure thing. The midterms are still seven and a half months away, and a lot could happen between now and then. There could be an economic crisis, or months of solid job growth, or an alien invasion, or who knows what.

[SNIP]

If the Republicans do take the Senate, they won’t have a lot of time to savor the victory, because two years later they’re going to be the ones defending more seats (see Sean Trende’s analysis for more details). That makes it entirely possible, maybe even likely, that Republicans will have control of both houses for only two years, and after 2016 we’ll go back to the way things are now. So can they legislate during that time?

[freerepublicchat]

Republicans need to do some long term damage to Democrats' reputation.

If Republicans can organize all the scandals under a single theme showing Democrats' efforts to dishonestly manipulate the vote, that might do lasting damage.

Instead of separate hearings on the IRS and Benghazi, show how they were both part of a larger pattern to control and manipulate the public. With that, Obama's executive orders delaying provisions of Obamacare can be brought in as additional actions to manipulate the elections.

The American people need to know Democrats can't be trusted. Hearings on election manipulation would include most of the scandals and tie everything together for the average voter.

[Iron Munro]

It will be worth it just to see Harry Reid knocked down a notch.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: To stop judicial nominees ALONE, it is worth winning the Senate

How will this work?

Obama proposes a justice who will replace a retired Ruth Ginsburg.

Congress rejects the replacement

Obama persists

Congress persists as well

The seat is vacant till 2017...

That’s OK?

[kidd]

The article is trying to convince me that stripping Harry Reid of his powers will be meaningless.

This is why less and less people follow the news. They don’t want to be dumber after reading their article.

[DoodleDawg]

To a certain degree, the question is moot as long as Obama is president. Anything big and consequential on the Republican agenda would get vetoed.

Anything on the Republican agenda will be filibustered long before it could be sent to Obama.

[Rock N Jones]

Gee Wizz WaPoop, it hasn’t done the Republicans any good at all not having control! Why not elect all Republicans to the Senate and just to find out what happens?

[kcvl]

Paul Waldman

Paul Waldman of Media Matters Action Network

Media Matters Action Network launched Political Correction to hold conservative politicians and advocacy groups accountable

he coauthored with David Brock

[drypowder]

I read the headline and immediately thought; with his pin and phone maybe the obozo is going to nullify both houses of congress. He may as well and while he's at it, nullify the supreme court too. They all have proven useless over the past 5 years.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Well, let’s just do it anyway and find out.

I'm game. We will try to give you one Senator from Michigan.

[dforest]

Good response. True, it may not be much good, but what difference does it really make!

[Amendment10]

I suspect that Mr. Waldman is clueless about Congress's power to override presidential vetoes. More specifically, the Founding States made the Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I to give Congress the power to override presidential vetoes if 2/3 of both Houses vote for an override.

Note that Congress has used this power as recently as Bushes 41 & 43, and also with Clinton.

List of United States presidential vetoes

What this means if that if patriots and former Obama supporters can get organized to elect 2/3 conservative majority control of both Houses by both Democrats and Republicans in the 2014 elections then Congress can repeal constitutionally indefensible Obamacare Democratcare for example, without Obama's signature.

So contrary to Mr. Waldman's arguement about questionable advantages if Republicans win the Senate, there are distinct advantanges if patriots win both the Senate and the HoR.

[dfwgator]

Yeah, so we can get more traitors, like Judas Roberts in the Supreme Court.

[nascarnation]

re: impeaching Baraq

I really don’t think having SlowJoe as POTUS would really improve the situation.

[Liz]

Yeah....but the beauty thing of Repubs holding the Senate---is Harry gets a new office ....in the sub-basement, next to the furnace.

Harry'll just love his brand-new cardboard desk (some assembly required). Although I hear phone service isn't hooked up down there yet. Too bad.

Give 'ol Harry a comfortable desk chair---and tell him not to
worry about all those silly electrical switches laying around.

[kcvl]

More of his GARBAGE! Paid for by George Soros...

Editor’s note: Paul Waldman is a contributing editor at The American Prospect and the author of “Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.” Follow him on his blog and on Twitter.

(CNN) — It’s hard to overstate how frustrated Republicans have been over the last few years by their failure to gin up a juicy Obama administration scandal.

They tried with Solyndra and “Fast and Furious,” but those turned out to be gigantic nothing burgers. Well now at last, they may have something, in either Benghazi or the IRS targeting conservative groups. Unlike Benghazi, where even the Republicans claiming it was “worse than Watergate” can’t quite say what the misconduct was (unless you consider squabbling over talking points to be a nefarious and earth-shattering crime), the IRS affair is pretty straightforward.

From what we know, employees in the Cincinnati IRS office singled out conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny. If that turns out to be true, then it was absolutely wrong and the people responsible should be held to account, as everyone in both parties up to and including President Obama has agreed. But this controversy shines a light on a larger problem in the way our tax system interacts with our political system.

Obama says some IRS employees ‘failed,’ order accountability

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/opinion/waldman-irs-scandal/

[The KG9 Kid]

I live in Northern Nevada and am not looking forward to the retribution coming our way when Harry Reid isn't Senate Majority Leader anymore.

A new GOP-controlled US Senate is going to beat Nevada's ass like a pinata on Cinco De Mayo in the middle of Dodger Stadium on 'Bat Day'. All I can do is lash myself to the mast and brace myself.

I sure hope that the GOP understands that the sleaze in Nevada is all in the South.

[Liz]

I guess writer Waldman musta liked his plan so he got to keep it (cackle).

[Repeal The 17th]

Yes, from 2003 to 2007 but the republicans never had a super majority and the democrats blocked every move.

[Repeal The 17th]

yes, that’s ok

[McGruff]

Bwahhh! Lowering expectations already. The Washington Compost must be running scared.