With an R house and D senate very little got done. Each side blamed the other for the gridlock.
So in that way, it’s a good thing we now have an R senate. Now the republicans will have to pass actual legislation and we get to see what “repeal & replace Obamacare” means. It will also be interesting to see what an R budget really looks like.
And will they block Washington DCs pot legalization? On one hand we have the R “tough on crime”, and the old “gateway drug” logic and “think of the children”. On the other hand, R says there’s nothing worse than big government overriding the will of the people.
I predict much fun will be had at the 2016 election. Spin will reach new heights.
Some of that sounds reasonable. Once upon a time I was a republican. Then the crazy took over the GOP. I hope the crazy will be purged and the R congress will pass sensible legislation. Even if Obama vetoes it, it will be a clear choice in 2016.
You can’t purge anyone in our party system. And I’m not sure about Will’s list. It looks focused on returning power to the legislative branch that was ceded to the executive during Obama’s first two years, but trying to abolish those agencies muddles that message and is bad policy to boot. The problem with CFPB and IPAB isn’t that they exist, it’s that they are not very accountable to elected officials. CFPB in particular isn’t even directly accountable to the President, it’s basically part of the Fed.
Another problem I’m seeing with Will’s suggestion is that the President won’t sign any of those. It’s possible that on two of them a veto-proof majority could be assembled. The media reports that relations between the President and Congressional Dems is at an all-time low. Establishing a good relationship with Democratic leaders and more moderate members could be advantageous. They you can get some things done without the President, and there is significant Democratic dissatisfaction with all of those items except CFPB.
I’m expecting two years of shutdowns, debt defaults, pointless ACA repeal votes, and impeachment hearings – all engineered by Ted Cruz, who will be undermining and backstabbing Boehner and McConnell at every turn.
Er, no. The Republicans won’t be able to resist doing some dumb things, but they won’t do all of them. ACA repeal is probably going to reach the President’s desk, just because it never has before. That’s fine, once. If ACA is indeed “growing in popularity every day” as Democrats contend, they should welcome a repeal on the President’s desk to veto. So no one should be complaining about that.
Shutdowns won’t happen. Never again. Impeachment is also off the table. Default was never on the table.
Of course I did, and as the cite reports George Will has continued to recycle that lie for more than 2 decades.
BTW, that was not the only time he has looked like a dunce or a master misleader, and that misleader item is indeed something everyone has to keep up with.
Will’s strategy seems to be the Republican majority in Congress should enact these laws and then see if Obama will veto them. If he signs them, great - Will thinks the laws are a good idea. But if he doesn’t sign them, Will figures this will be a winning campaign issue in 2016.
On that, I have my doubts. I don’t really see 2016 being fought over issues like a banking regulatory agency, a tax on medical devices, and an oil pipeline. These just aren’t Main Street issues. Arguing Obama obstinately vetoed legislation passed by Congress won’t necessarily sing either - Obama won’t be running in 2016. If Clinton (or whoever) distances herself from the vetoes, the Republicans are left with a non-issue. And it could backlash against the Congressional Republicans.
As I said in another thread, I think the smart move for the Republican in the next two years will be to work on bipartisanship (albeit with them in the driving seat) and get things done. They need to show the voters that they’re grown-ups and not just the party that fights Obama.
The biggest threat Obama can make right now is to return the favor. If he practices the same kind of blind opposition he’s faced for the last six years he can hurt the Republicans. He doesn’t have to worry about the cost - he’s retiring in 2016. But the voters can throw Congress out with him. If the Republicans don’t accomplish something in the next two years, they might see 2016 giving the House, the Senate, and the Presidency back to the Democrats.
Why would you think that? Mitch McConnell has already said he isn’t going to try and repeal the ACA. Boenher will probably put it up for another vote, but it doesn’t get past the senate.
Perhaps that is actually something the GOP and Obama can agree on. Obama, as president, is no friend of legalized pot.
The theme is that Republicans are trying to return power to the legislative branch, but I don’t see that as a particularly effective campaign message either. There’s no point in doing these things unless you can make them bipartisan, in which case the President might feel compelled to sign some of them or maybe his veto can be overridden.
But either way, Republicans need to find some partners, not do what they’ve been doing. Either the president or Senate Democrats will do just fine.
Mitch McConnell speaks on what he plans to do in the first weeks, while also pointing out that when deals have had to be made with the President, he’s the one who made them:
[Possible fed Washington pot legalization overthrow]
Obama would probably sign it, but that’s not what I would find interesting. What I will find interesting is how the GOP deals with the issue. Many of the repubs campaigned on the idea of an out of control federal government “showing big government legislation down people’s throats”. So the question is: Will they overrule 63% of the Washington DC voters and ban something that a majority of the people want?
I’m wondering if it will create a rift in the GOP?
The constitution is pretty clear on the issue, and SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the feds. I know you think there’s a big fat “gotcha” here for the Republicans, but the law and the constitution are both on their side, should they decide to act. The laws against pot have been on the books for about 100 years, so this isn’t some new “big government” program sprung out of the New Deal or the Great Society.
How would you feel if 63% of the people voted to have prayer in public schools? Or to lower the minimum wage below the federal level? Would you want the feds to stand back and say: Hey, if that’s what the people want!
You’re misunderstanding me. I have no doubt congress has the legal authority to overturn the public referendum. Washington DC has a special status in that it is directly controlled by congress. What I will watch with interest is how R politicians who campaigned on “reigning in the out of control federal government” will vote. Hence the topic of this thread: The GOP will have to show their cards.