Republicans Should Focus on Congress as White House is Lost

[chance1]

George Will says the Presidency in 2012 is a lost cause - not gonna happen so ....

Repubs should focus on the maintaining the House and winning the Senate

so as to "restrain" Pres. Obama - love that word

He says the Repubs have a good bench for 2016 with Jindal, Paul Ryan plus


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73541.html

 

[cityboy-stl]

Well, republicans really don't want the White House this year anyway.

 

[JayHawk]

I agree Loki.

 

[Stardreamer]

They have already lost Snowe, they really think given how poorly the congress has performed post 2008 is going to encourage the voters to support more partisans?

The real danger is the throw the bums out attitude that must surely be developing. In that scenario the Democrats are at a disadvantage being the party in power in the WH and Senate.

 

[Orlandude]

The proof is in the ongoing polls and, for polls, they seem to be staying fairly consistent. The President's approval ratings are on the rise and the approval ratings of Congress have tanked. Last I saw, barely 10% of the electorate thinks Congress is doing a good job. Nearly the entire nation is disgusted, if not furious, with Congress and the partisan bickering and gridlock. Obama will be re-elected. Look for a lot of Congresspersons to get handed pink slips by the voters.

Cityboy-Stl is right. Republicans really don't want the WH this time. Republicans will pull out their real heavyweights in 2016.....Christie, Ryan, Rubio, Jeb Bush, etc...and you'll see a return to the traditional GOP and an abandonment of the three ring clown circus we have seen for the past months. Also, America has grown weary of the tea party, who basically hijacked the GOP and turned Congress into a dysfunctional mess. Dems need to get rid of Reid and buckle down the Senate. ALL of Congress needs a major housecleaning.

 

[palbert]

George Will says the Presidency in 2012 is a lost cause - not gonna happen so ....
Repubs should focus on the maintaining the House and winning the Senate
so as to "restrain" Pres. Obama - love that word
He says the Repubs have a good bench for 2016 with Jindal, Paul Ryan plus
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73541.html

Good job of quoting. I read the same thing.

Aren't you supposed to introduce your take on the issue? Which is?

 

[Just_Believe18]

I guess you want more anti-gay homophobes stuffing the House and Senate then, chance1. I see how it is.

 

[Orlandude]

for perspective, many A-list Democrats sat out the 1992 elections, believing that GHWB's reelection was a sure thing given his astronomical poll numbers.

Good point Loki. Many A-list Democrats also sat out the most recent mid-terms and we all saw what happened. Obama referred to it as "the shellacking".

 

[chance1]

Good job of quoting. I read the same thing.

Aren't you supposed to introduce your take on the issue? Which is?

My take is that prior to super tuesday a quirky but well known conservative talking head + columnist is saying .....

The presidency is a pipe dream

Plan B is the way

Not a very good place to be

I agree with him tactically

 

[chance1]

I guess you want more anti-gay homophobes stuffing the House and Senate then, chance1. I see how it is.

Uh no

Not sure where u pulled that from

Oh yeah

It's a projection thing

 

[chance1]

^ u would

George Will's POV presented to the do as I say not as I do'ers

Is what it is

 

[Sausy]

Still don't think it's a given the GOP,at least if Romney builds on his leading contender position on Tuesday,goes down vs Obama in November.I certainly am not rooting for a GOP takeover of the Senate.....not sure GOP can hold on to its current majority in the House but don't think the GOP will lose control.The worst of all worlds would be two things...total control of the presidency and Congress by either party.It would lead to more overreaching partisanship and strong backlashes as it would be mistaken as a "mandate".Will is absolutely right on if Santorum becomes the nominee,it's simply smart tactics to hold on to the more possible and make gains from there.I think he's premature though to count out Mitt Romney.I'm not of fan of what he's become,but he still cuts a Presidential image and the economy is not set on clear sailing by any means.

 

[evanrick]

Its a shame Obama can only serve two terms

 

[palemale]

It's a long way to the election and a lot can happen between now and November. I do not think Obama is a shoo-in. Sure, he's the favorite. However, if the economy tanks, or even if we have a few months with bad unemployment numbers, the election could turn out differently than we are expecting right now.

That said, a new NBC/Marist poll reported in Realclearpolitics shows Obama trouncing Romney in Ohio and Virginia in the fall. I know it's still early, but those numbers were a bit eye-popping. We'll have to see if they are just outliers. A recent Gallup poll also showed Romney leading slightly nationally. These polls all can't be correct.

Jonathan Chait had a recent article in New York magazine that I thought pretty well captured what is going on. His thesis is that the Republicans realize that demographics are severely against them and that if they do not knock Obama out this time, his policies will be here to stay. This is the reason, he argues, that they have chosen obstruction to compromise. http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-chait-2012-3/

I think his analysis is accurate. Republicans have fucked themselves by pandering to the base. My guess is that Obama will win. If he does, and the economy continues to improve, the Democrats may hold the presidency, the House and Senate for another 8 years after Obama, maybe more. It will take that long for the Republicans to realize that they have to expand their appeal beyond older, white Protestant voters. The Republicans may even go the way of the Whigs, and we will see a new, major party emerge.

 

[rareboy]

^ Oddly enough, it wasn't democracy per se that created the two term limit.

Or at least I don't remember it being a plebiscite issue.

 

[chance1]

I think his analysis is accurate. Republicans have fucked themselves by pandering to the base. My guess is that Obama will win. If he does, and the economy continues to improve, the Democrats may hold the presidency, the House and Senate for another 8 years after Obama, maybe more. It will take that long for the Republicans to realize that they have to expand their appeal beyond older, white Protestant voters. The Republicans may even go the way of the Whigs, and we will see a new, major party emerge.

it's systematic - the process of mostly winner take all primaries with hard core Repubs/Conservatives as the "audience" serves to:

1 - keep potentially qualified persons on the sideline - see perhaps chris christie
2 - pushes good candidates (see mitt romney) to do/say dumb things - i'm not suggesting he hasn't made TONS of errors but basically the primary process has created a dialogue about mitt which is not the whole story
3 - alienate independents who quite frankly were poised and ready to kick obama to the curb for a whole variety of legit reasons

soooooo

if in this year, one of enormous potential for the repubs, they can't figure it out

well will they ever?

they're like a NBA team that has to shed it's current roster of high priced non producers and start over

It entails taking risks .............

but the "old guard" boehner, cantor, palin, rush, etc.

is not the team to do it

PS - what mitt could've done/should've done was have a sister souljah moment with the conservative base early on - would've been painful at first but provided him with a brand that was longer lasting - now he's just faux conservative and inauthentic - neither very good

 

[CowboyBob]

^ Oddly enough, it wasn't democracy per se that created the two term limit.

Or at least I don't remember it being a plebiscite issue.

The two term limit is the 22 amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1951 by republicans after FDR being elected to 4 terms.

Ronald Reagan wanted to repeal the amendment saying it interfered with the right to vote for a person as many times as you wanted to and it limited the effect of the President in the second term.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/29/us/reagan-wants-end-of-two-term-limit.html

They really need a two or three term limit in Congress and the Senate too.

 

[TX-Beau]

I have to agree that you don't want a system that allows endless terms.

 

[JayHawk]

I agree and disagree.

I know and it isnt even my time of the month.

The congress critters should be limited to two terms Senate and three terms House. That and their retirement package courtesy of Uncle Sam should be after 20 years JUST like the SERVICE.

However I think the job and office of the President is so complex that it takes four years to GET it and then you have two very effective years followed by two lame duck years.

Some would kill to have had Ronald Reagan for more terms and yet he was senile so it was a good thing. I would have loved to see Bill Clinton take a third term. Presidents are babes in the wood when it comes to international politics. Such short terms by world standards also have the effect of making our Foreign Policy look like it was written by Sybil.

 

[Kulindahr]

They have already lost Snowe, they really think given how poorly the congress has performed post 2008 is going to encourage the voters to support more partisans?

The real danger is the throw the bums out attitude that must surely be developing. In that scenario the Democrats are at a disadvantage being the party in power in the WH and Senate.

Except that voters blame Republicans for the despicable Congress, two-to-one.


Since term limits were mentioned... what we need is a "private sector" rule: you can't sit in Washington longer than you've been in the private sector (and corporate lawyers and lobbyists don't qualify). Someone could be in Congress thirty years -- if he/she had already worked in the private sector thirty. Only twenty-nine? Sorry; if you want that next Senate term, you have to go do real work another year.