Skip to comments.Milbank: Losing the Senate could be just what Obama needs
Posted on 07/05/2014 12:03:22 PM PDT by PoloSec
It seems to be an axiom among Democrat strategists that if life hands you lemons, you pick those lemons up and throw them at the Republicans as hard as you can. But for the rest of the world, one hopes to make lemonade. One particular pack of lemons the Democrats are dealing with this year is the very real possibility of losing control of the Senate this fall. And if you read no further than the title, you might think that the hope of making lemonade was the attitude taken by the Washington Posts Dana Milbank, when he wrote, For Obama, loss of the Senate could be freeing.
Its not a crazy idea at all. Sometimes a president can be forced into finding a path toward getting things done when faced with a unified block of opposition in the legislative branch. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich seemed to find a way to make things work, at least for a time, and its now looked back on as one of the more productive and appreciated eras of federal government accomplishment in modern political history. But as you read further into Milbanks musings you find that hes talking about something very different.
Yet theres a chance that having an all-Republican Congress would help Obama and even some White House officials have wondered privately whether a unified Republican Congress would be better than the current environment. Republicans, without Harry Reid to blame, would own Congress a body that inspires a high level of confidence in just 7 percent of Americans, according to a Gallup survey last month finding Congress at a new low and at the bottom of all institutions tested.
There would be no more excuses for Republicans failure to put forward their own health-care plan, immigration proposals, specific cuts to popular government programs, and pet causes involving abortion, birth control and gay rights. This would set up real clashes with Obama who could employ the veto pen he hasnt used a single time since Republicans gained control of the House in 2010 and sharp contrasts that would put him on the winning side of public opinion.
It is not hard to imagine a Republican takeover of the Senate causing conservatives in both chambers to overreach. House Republicans would get more pressure from their base to take a swing at impeachment, because the odds of convicting Obama in the Senate would be better (if still prohibitive).
Vetoes? Impeachment? Pinning the blame for a dysfunctional Congress exclusively on the GOP rather than sharing it? These are the net positives for Obama in the event of a Republican controlled Senate? Wait a minute here I thought that obstructionism and gridlock were bad things and the reason that the GOP needs to be taken to the woodshed?
In these few paragraphs we get an unapologetic peek behind the mask and see exactly what the real goals are in the DC elite thinking circles. Actually getting something done isnt in anyones best interest. (One need look no further than the immigration debate which Democrats have no interest in resolving to see that.) Milbank speaks aloud what so many leaders in the Democrat Party try not to reveal. The true objective is always winning the next election, not doing something for the nation today. If Obama can be propped up on camera wielding his veto pen, thats a win, even if it means theres still nothing getting done. Hes fighting the Republicans and thats all that counts. Milbank doesnt want the President impeached, but he most certainly does want the GOP to try it in case it makes voters think more kindly of Obama. And if the pathetic polling numbers of the legislative branch remain in the toilet for two more years, all the better as long as the GOP shoulders the blame.
When life hands you lemons, inject some poison into them and feed them to your enemies.
Trying to soften the blow that they will experience in November.
I read nothing the Washington Post says, including anything written by the Dem Party sycophants like Milbank who write their political “analysis”.
I am convinced. Let’s hope that the Dems and Harry Reid retain control of the Senate. It is better for us in the long run. And maybe there will be some SCOTUS vacancies to fill during these next two years.
The Dems and and media will strive to make everything the fault of the Republican Congress, every day leading up to the 2016 elections.
The GOP has done everything they can to secure a Rat victory in November. I think the GOP will lose seats.
And in other news — there are significant advantages to contracting Alzheimer’s Disease.
It would sure be refreshing to see some real action by Republicans for the restoration of our destroyed freedoms than a bunch of pundits sitting around coming up with reasons and fears about why the Repubs should do nothing.
At this juncture, positive, productive action for America is far more important that wimp politics.
Dana Millbank was the creep who defended poor little doe-eyed Muslimah Saba Ahmed when she crashed that Republican strategy session & wound up getting owned by Brigitte Gabriel.
Oh, those nasty Islamophobes, he railed.
The ONE GOOD THING about the Republicans controlling the Senate is that they could stop Obama’s packing of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court should an opening happen.
Other than that...they’d just make fools of themselves, yet again.
Milbank speaks aloud what so many leaders inFixed.
the Democrat Partyboth parties try not to reveal. The true objective is always winning the next election, not doing something for the nation today.
So according to Milbunk, if the RATs lose the Senate it’ll be good for Mullah Baraq. So, I guess if the RATs keep the Senate, Milbunk will says that’s bad for Mullah Baraq, hmm?
“Losing control” to their pals like McConnell, Graham, Snowe and others... What a joke. Nothing much would change.
The chance that the GOPE Senate would vote down a SCOTUS nominee is close to zil.
Same old blah, blah blah. Does this guy want this country to go? I am really sick of these people who only write about doom and gloom instead of offering real solutions to problems.
Obama “It’s just a flesh wound”
Milbank is a kook.
If (big if) the GOP does the smart thing and start passing bills that retards the reach of Obama’s bureaucracy, THEY will be on the side of public opinion.
The GOP also needs to be certain to have appealing spokespersons who are NOT all white men. Get Tim Scott, Erika Harold, Allen West, Mia Love, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, other DECENT CONSERVATIVES who will give a positive public persona to this “changing demography” we keep hearing is going to put Demon Rats in control of government for a generation.
No need to 'make work'. Need only repeal the dung heap the democrats have piled up and defund Holder's justice department. Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz, Mike Lee or Jeff Sessions can use their pen and phone too, and the House can support the Assembly of States by facilitating the drafting of Amendments that will hand the democrats a spear from which they can impale themselves through their buttholes.
The rest of efforts and energies can be used to publicize the graft and corruption of K Street and the corporations and banks that 'pay to play', then supporting the grassroots in leading a boycott of the a-holes of oligarchy; and additionally cleaning internally to demote the ruling class puppets on both sides of the aisle.
This would set up real clashes with Obama who could employ the veto pen he hasnt used a single time since Republicans gained control of the House in 2010 and sharp contrasts that would put him on the winning side of public opinion.
Except there won't be any clash because nothing will be sent to the White House except a truck full of elephant droppings. There will just be defunding, defunding and more defunding with Congress setting up separate accounts for national defense and security thereby deleting the Presidency, why not? Is it not what the White House has done to the Congress? And if the military is ordered to stand down, then Congress can appoint special 'csars' as receivers of congressional military authority to maintain vigilance against all enemies; all by methods first practiced by the current White House.
No need to impeach, just neuter the presidency and ignore it with the same attitude of indifference as has been done to Congress. Act like the White House is not there until Ted gets sworn in January 2017.
Snowe has been replaced by another “independent”, but people in ME may think she is still the senator.
Dana is a typical RAT media hack without a shred of honesty in his whole being. He fits in well at MSNBC.
What you are seeing here, on the part of Dana Milbank, is a little doublethink. Either way, whether Harry Reid stays in power or is bulldozed out of the majority, it will be “good” for the Current Occupant. Mostly, it is an attempt to psyche out the Republicans, “Heads I win, Tails you lose” sort of thing.
The Liberal Establishment is still convinced the ratchet only works one way - that when the progressive movement makes a gain, it cannot ever be reversed. Therefore, even when an apparent reverse DOES happen, they still “win”.
Time for us to bust the dog on that ratchet. It will then spin backwards, with nary a chance the action will function again until the weights hit the ground. (If you ever worked with an old-fashioned cuckoo clock, you know what I’m talking about.)
I guess the Republicans will frustrate Obama again, because they’ve pretty much deliberately scuttled any chance of winning the Senate, like they did in 2010.
I’m pretty sure Cochran is gone in Mississippi, and things don’t look good for McConnell in Kentucky; so there’s a likely loss of two right out of the gate.
Add in declaring war on the base and letting Obama run roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law—I’m wondering what the GOP has given conservatives to vote for in November.
America needs a defunding of the Federal Gov IRS, EPA, and DHS in that order.
To begin the process of taking back public power and control we can begin
with a 20% cut across the board.
Either whistling past the graveyard or too lazy to check his facts. The Democrats owned the House and the Senate from 2006 onwards. Congressional ratings were pretty abysmal. In 2008, Obama crushed McCain, and Democrats got an even bigger majority in both the House and the Senate.
I see no difference between Reid and McConnell.
The purpose of a politician is to get reelected.
It depends on the nominee. What if it is Eric Holder?
‘Rats = Detroit. The GOPe is worthless.
What about the illegal-alien-turned-Democrat-voter influx between now and November? I’m a bit worried about that..
Okay, that one might go down to the wire
A strong argument for term limits.
You can hide your own Easter eggs.
It may be much worse (for the country) than that.Knowing that he'll never be removed from office through impeachment,Osama Obama may very well use loss of the Senate as a reason to just do *anything* and *everything* he wants by Executive Order and/or by instructing his Attorney Corporal to look the other way when confronted with certain types of lawlessness.Add to that his refusal to obey subpoenas he might get from Congress (by claiming "Executive Privilege") and you see him moving closer to his Inner Mao.
Death can be fun.
Add Michelle Nunn in Georgia and the Democrats might actually pick up three seats.
Honestly, I don't see the GOP taking the Senate this time around but sending Cochran and McConnell packing will be a small price to pay.