December 17, 2008

Democrats drunk with power

Caroline Kennedy wants to be a Senator. That's her Christmas wish I guess the Democrats will deliver. No special election for Obama's vacant Senate seat seems likely. President-elect Obama is Man of the Year. Media bias is in high gear. What else could go wrong for conservatives? Plenty. President Bush has abandon any pretense of capitalism. Conservatives both moderate and real conservatives are eating their own. There's potential for a declaration of an Al Franken victory in Minnesota. There's going to be a Democratic Senator from Alaska (yes, Steven's could have let it stay Republican, had he stayed clean). A massive infrastructure spending is being proposed. Abortion legislation is going to be changed. New SCOTUS appointees are likely in the next few years, at least maintaining the status quo there, but possibly also pushing it left. And reporters are apparently being instructed on what to not ask of Mr. Obama;

The newly elected Executive and Legislative victors have not even been sworn in yet. How are things going to look in 2 months time? Or 12 months time. Different I expect. But how different is the real question. The fact that Obama has selected a good number of Clintonistas, and appears to be headed to the middle of the road, is no comfort. The Democrats have solid majorities in both the House and the Senate. They will want to push their own far left agendas. Obama will likely fall in line with them more often than not. Just like the Illinois go-along-to-get-along approach that served him so well in the past. And Obama himself is still has all of those radical associations in his closet.

Democrats are not likely to look for bi-partisanship now. They have no need to build bridges to conservatives. nor are they so inclined. Democrats are now where they were for a good portion of the 20th century - in power in at least 2 (in this case 3) of the 3 non-judicial pillars of government. In solid control in both legislative houses, and complete control of the executive. What do conservatives have to oppose them? The filibuster. Well you can't break that out on every single issue. It can't be part of every debate. We've got to pick and choose where to resist.

And in doing so I'd argue that where it is most needed are things that alter the playing field for time lines beyond 2010 and 2012. For example the Fairness Doctrine has far-reaching implications to Republicans. And the public probably doesn't care too much about it. It needs to be stopped if put forward. Illegal immigration and paths to citizenship - illegal immigrants are more likely to support Democrats than legal immigrants. That's another game changer. And that could be a positive one if framed right by the GOP and then the reasons for the position disseminated quickly, broadly and effectively.

As for the Democrats, they are likely to become more drunk with power over the next 12-16 months. What we can try to do to stop them, or hold them at bay, is not going to influence their decision to plow forward with every radical legislative idea they think they can get away with. The GOP has to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and be resolute in defending that line in any legal way possible. The battles are coming, we'd better be prepared with our resolve and get some tactics in place to support the strategic battles we need to fight.

We're on defence - it's not a pretty picture, but it needs to sink in that it's a siege and we have to hold the fort until the cavalry starts to arrive in 2010. Then again, we'd better get the cavalry suited up and armed PDQ as well.

I'm just saying.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Disagreement is always welcome. Please remain civil. Vulgar or disrespectful comments towards anyone will be removed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This