The Democrat's Civil War has begun

[B-Man]

JAMES TARANTO: Take The Senate, Please: Rationalization Season Begins.

 

 

Of late the Washington Post’s liberal blogger Greg Sargent has been working overtime to reassure Democrats that their political straits are nowhere near as dire as everyone has been saying. Thanks to President Obama, he’s no doubt been earning time and a half. But now he’s brought in a guest blogger, Paul Waldman, to offer a different kind of reassurance, in a post titled “Why Taking Over the Senate May Not Do Republicans Much Good.”

 

That’s right, the election is still 7½ months away, and Waldman is ready to concede (notwithstanding a disclaimer that “we should acknowledge that a Republican takeover of the upper house is anything but a sure thing”). He’s past denial and anger and into the bargaining stage. . . .

 

It seems to us that Waldman has set up a false dilemma. True, it’s probably safe to assume that full repeal of ObamaCare has next to no chance of becoming law while Obama is president. But given Republican majorities in both chambers, there would be nothing preventing the House and Senate from considering both types of bills, or from sending both types of bills to the president’s desk.

 

The House has passed dozens of full-repeal bills since Republicans took over in 2011, but it has also passed more modest bills, including one to delay the individual mandate tax and one to delay the employer insurance mandate. The president threatened to veto these measures–even though he had already decreed the delay in the employer mandate–and they died in the Senate anyway.

 

Suppose a Republican Congress sent two bills to the president’s desk–one repealing ObamaCare outright, and one repealing just the mandate tax. If he vetoed both, Republicans could portray him as the stubborn extremist, defender not only of an unpopular law but of its most unpopular provision.

 

.

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

JAMES TARANTO: Take The Senate, Please: Rationalization Season Begins.

 

 

Of late the Washington Post’s liberal blogger Greg Sargent has been working overtime to reassure Democrats that their political straits are nowhere near as dire as everyone has been saying. Thanks to President Obama, he’s no doubt been earning time and a half. But now he’s brought in a guest blogger, Paul Waldman, to offer a different kind of reassurance, in a post titled “Why Taking Over the Senate May Not Do Republicans Much Good.”

 

That’s right, the election is still 7½ months away, and Waldman is ready to concede (notwithstanding a disclaimer that “we should acknowledge that a Republican takeover of the upper house is anything but a sure thing”). He’s past denial and anger and into the bargaining stage. . . .

 

It seems to us that Waldman has set up a false dilemma. True, it’s probably safe to assume that full repeal of ObamaCare has next to no chance of becoming law while Obama is president. But given Republican majorities in both chambers, there would be nothing preventing the House and Senate from considering both types of bills, or from sending both types of bills to the president’s desk.

 

The House has passed dozens of full-repeal bills since Republicans took over in 2011, but it has also passed more modest bills, including one to delay the individual mandate tax and one to delay the employer insurance mandate. The president threatened to veto these measures–even though he had already decreed the delay in the employer mandate–and they died in the Senate anyway.

 

Suppose a Republican Congress sent two bills to the president’s desk–one repealing ObamaCare outright, and one repealing just the mandate tax. If he vetoed both, Republicans could portray him as the stubborn extremist, defender not only of an unpopular law but of its most unpopular provision.

 

.

 

.

And the dumbasses like Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman will defend Obama, and many Ds will follow his blog, and continue to be "more unified than the Republicans" and the interal discussion that needs to happen to prevent, or now, win the Civil War, will once again be prevented from happening.

 

Greg Sargent, and he doesn't need Waldman, because he does this on his own all the time, is doing the worst thing he can possibly be doing(once again, if you want something right, assign a far-left buffoon like Sargent to do the opposite).

 

Now he's telling the Ds to focus on the Rs, and what they can/can't do, rather then focusing on themselves, and the very real, very big political problems that Obama is creating for them on a weekly basis. He's destroying entire sections of their identity, and credibility, never mind whole planks of their presumed 2016 platform.

 

Example: Immigration. Is Hillary going to run on some comprehensive, 2500 page law, that looks/smells/feels like Obamacare? NO! She's not that stupid(if she is, and I'm wrong, it doesn't matter, because she loses on this anyway). If she even comes close to that, Rs call Obamacare! = "Yeah Hillary, and how many delays, and how much are you going to ignore enforcing the law, based on polls, will you be doing?"...and vioia, it's a loser election issue. I'd be shocked if she just walks into that trap.

 

However, 2500 page comprehensive immigration reform IS the current Democratic policy. There is no immigration policy alternative for Ds.

 

So now what? Seems to me like a discussion is in order, one that begins with: what are we going to do now that Obama has made all sweeping legislation approaches radioactive to us? Which also means: some idiots are going to say "we don't care, comprehensive immigration is the only way!" Which will lead the rational to say "we will get killed by this". And again: Civil War.

 

See? Obama has destroyed an entire approach for Ds, yet? Nobody is talking about what they do about it. No. Instead? It's cover Obama's ass and stay "unified" by that. A year from now, when covering Obama's ass stops being a priority? It's too late: these things will already be defined.

 

It's really simple, if you see things straight.

[TakeYouToTasker]

OC:

 

The issue is, that the true believers let this get so far down the road, that now it's too late to turn back, as the whole concept of activist government has come under fire. Their only hope, as they now recognize, is to throw gun, pray for a miracle, and hope it all works itself out. An admission of guilt is too little, too late.

[John Adams]

The Reps will win seats in Nov for sure but not because the Dem party is falling apart. The Dems are plenty united behind Dems when push comes to shove--that is absolutely not true about Republicans, who will not vote Rep unless it's the right kind of Rep.

 

The Republicans are a far less united party than the Dems right now.

 

2016 will be a tough year for the Dem presidential candidate because of Obama-fatigue. But Reps will need a helluva candidate to win over the Rep vote and the middle. I doubt if Rand Paul that guy. Paul Ryan might be.

Edited March 20, 2014 by John Adams