Let’s accept the fact that Obamacare can not possibly be repealed until January 2013 at the earliest. Listening to Republicans rant and rave about repeal is certainly entertaining, but it’s a lot like listening to your angry four year-old announcing that he’s running away from home. Lots of passion, sincerity in huge amounts, but the result is preordained against them.
As Obama and his allies (sycophants?) are forever telling us, the passage of the president’s health care initiative is historic, and they (let’s assume they mean Progressives in general, rather than themselves personally) have been fighting to get this done for nearly one hundred years, since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. What does this history tell us? It says we’ve been faced with pervasive, subversive, Progressive propaganda for nearly a century. Anyone who thinks that we can turn it all around in a couple of weeks probably really needs Obamacare – at least the mental health provisions.
Fortunately, the House and Senate, in an effort to preserve the illusion that they will be “saving” us money by adding 30 million people to a taxpayer funded program have front loaded the taxes, but delayed the benefits by four years. Keep that number in mind. Four years. Two election cycles.
We can deal with the increases in taxes. They are monumentally annoying, to be sure, and will do some serious damage to our economy, but they are survivable. What we can’t deal with is a continuation of the majority rule of Liberal/Progressive/Democrats in Congress as they redefine just what liberties and rights we actually have.
The LPDs had plans to control all energy development, use and pricing for the entire country. Then we had financial regulation reform. (This one from the folks who gave us Fannie and Freddie, no less.) They already control, along with their union-based unindicted co-conspirators, a huge fraction of our auto industry, our financial industry, numerous banking concerns, and so on, and so on. Oh, and let’s not forget that Michelle is going to make us all eat our veggies, or no “American Idol” for us!
But back to the key number, the two election cycles. What can we do with two elections that will offset a hundred years of creeping Progressivism? We can bend all our efforts into changing the House. Forget the Senate. Yes, there will be a few Republican pickups in the Senate, but November 2010 will not possibly give the Republicans a filibuster proof majority. End of story.
The House is a different matter. A simple majority in the House alone cannot reverse Obamacare. It cannot reverse too much in fact. But what it can do is choke the beast. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution states:
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
That means that unless the House authorizes new taxes, they can’t be implemented. Surely a Constitutional scholar from the University of Chicago knows that. Hopefully he also knows that you can’t raise taxes simply by Executive Order.
So a Republican majority in the House from 2011 onward will effectively preclude any new taxes. No new taxes would mean no Cap and Trade, no additional support for Government Motors, no further financial support for Fannie or Freddie. Euphoric thought, isn’t it?
The House must also concur with the Senate in the passage of the annual budget and the appropriations needed to fund each budget item. If a (Republican) House gets grumpy about those budget appropriations, the Senate will have to pull in its horns regarding out of control spending increases for government largesse. The alternative would be completely shutting down the government.
The problem is that to install a Republican majority in the House, the election effort between now and November has to be concentrated on House races, and Senate races will perforce be de-emphasized. Yes, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom, since pickups in Senate representation are normal in a mid-term election, but given the general anti-incumbent atmosphere in the country currently, the party affiliation of several Senate seats will change without too much undue effort. But it would take a Herculean effort to win a majority in the Senate for too little real governing clout.
Efforts should be concentrated on the House races by a coalition of anti-Obama activists, and a lot of citizens who are not activists now, but could be convinced to join in the effort. Tea Party members, Conservatives, Libertarians, independents, disenchanted Reagan Democrats and Republicans (Note for Michael Steele: See where you place on the list?) must join forces in this effort.
It will take actively campaigning for, and electing, Republicans. And yes, that will take holding our collective noses in some cases. But every state Board of Elections is controlled by Democrats and Republicans who definitely don’t want anyone else playing in their sandbox, so third party candidates and independents would have an uphill battle just to get on the ballot. With time running out for such a move, unless personally deep pockets are involved, third party candidates would be a futile waste of effort in terms of stopping the Obama juggernaut and almost guarantee a Democrat win by splitting the opposition vote.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not a Republican. But I recognize that voters may have to deal with Republicans who are major RINOs, such as Dede Scozzafava was in the NY-23 special election. Let’s hope that the Republican Party has learned something from that particular fiasco, and we get very few Scozzafava RINOs nominated in 2010.
The Scozzafava issue is why there is a need for 70 to 80 viable Republicans running for every seat where a Democrat is retiring, and where the Democrat incumbent is even slightly vulnerable. Why so many? Does anyone think that it’s possible to win 100% of the races in question? Does anyone think that a Republican could win in San Francisco, for instance? Let’s face facts, if Nancy Pelosi tore out the Pope’s heart on national television, and ate it raw on camera, the only votes she might lose would be those of vegetarians who objected to the whole eating meat thing. So you can’t win ‘em all.
But you can win half of them, especially when there are polls out today that show resistance to Obamacare is surprisingly strong. Naturally nearly nine in ten Republicans want continued resistance to Obamacare, along with nearly two-thirds of independents. The most shocking result is the 41% of Democrats who are also in favor of resisting Obamacare. That is not a typo. About two out of five Democrats are potential allies in defeating Democrat incumbents in the House in November 2010.
The real question that remains to be answered is: “Can an effective coalition be brought together to deny Democrats control of the House?”
It could be done, but only if a few preconceptions of all concerned were changed. The Tea Party folks have to figure out a way to organize their groups in line with Congressional Districts. They have to reach out to Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, and others and offer to work with them. Republicans have to be aware of the difference between having the Tea Partiers working with them, and working for them. There is no way that the Tea Partiers will accept being subservient to the Republican Party. If they could accept that role, they’d already be Republicans, right? The same is true of all the members of each other group. Try to keep in mind what the real goal is. It is not getting a Republican candidate elected. It is denying the seat to an Obama Democrat.