The good news is that Republicans are well-positioned to hold the House and take the Senate, and all they have to do is avoid taking affirmative measures to screw things up. The favorable political climate springs from the fact that some of us fought, beginning in February-March, 2009, to kill the “bipartisan deal” on health care that was supposedly going to save the Republican Party from extinction.
As a result of this, it would take a blithering cretin to derail the GOP’s good fortune arising from the natural course of events.
Enter Speaker John A. Boehner (R.-Ohio).
If Boehner’s purpose in putting an Obama-like immigration plan on the table as “the Republican position” was to get “doggie treats” from President Barack Obama, The Washington Post, pro-amnesty groups, and virtually every liberal in town, then, congrats!
Boehner, who, a few short months ago, was being vilified as Satan incarnate, is now every liberal’s favorite Republican. Goooood boy!
If, on the other hand, Boehner has the least little bit of interest in keeping the speakership in GOP hands in 2015, then, well, not so much.
Here are five reasons why moving amnesty forward will keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) in power — and could even achieve the virtually impossible task of losing GOP control of the House:
(1) It means that months will be spent focusing on an issue that benefits Obama, rather than focusing on issues, such as Obamacare.
Focusing on ObamaCare is a good idea. As the employer mandate kicks in, the lost jobs, lost insurance, and increased premiums will only multiply, so why would you spend months in a bloody internecine battle that focuses everyone’s attention on something else?
We’ve seen how MSNBC has used the Christie Bridgegate controversy to drown out the Obama’s heath care debacle. But to willfully knock ObamaCare out of the news by unnecessarily moving legislation which will change the political balance of power for the rest of our lifetimes would be far, far worse.
Think immigration is an issue that will hurt Republicans? Wait until it’s been on the front page of every newspaper for four months in a row.
Has it really not occurred to Boehner that, by putting Obama’s priority at the top of the news, you amplify its ability to hurt you?
It means the GOP ground game will be destroyed
Want to know why New Hampshire went “blue” in 2006 and 2008? It wasn’t because of demographics, as New Hampshire’s “red tide” in 2010 demonstrated. Rather, it was because conservatives like me, disgusted with George W. Bush, Sen. John S. McCain III, Sen. John Sununu, and Rep. Charles Bass, began voting third-party or simply stayed home.
There were a lot of us. And it turned the state “blue,” at least for awhile.
Once people get in the habit of voting third-party, it builds problems into the system, as conservative gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Cuccinelli found out in Virginia, when his bid was thwarted wholly as a result of a Third Party spoiler.
Obama understood that you don’t win elections by destroying your base. Rather, he went systematically through the component parts of the Democratic Party, unions, trial lawyers, same sex couples, “Dreamers [sic],” pro-aborts and anti-gunners–gave each group a reason to work night and day to get him elected.
Boehner, on the other hand, is proposing to demolish the most important component of the GOP ground game by stabbing them repeatedly, and joining with Obama to defeat Republicans on an issue of absolute central importance to them. Do not assume that your base will work for you or even turn out in November under these circumstances.
It means that Obama’s ground game will be energized
Nothing grows a movement as much as the imminent prospect of legislative victory.
We’ve seen how Obama has held out the continued possibility of Manchin-Toomey gun control, legislatively or otherwise, in order to keep the anti-gun movement energized. Pundits have even erroneously suggested that Reid’s motion to reconsider could be used to bring it up in 2015, even though all legislation automatically dies with sine die adjournment at the end of a Congress.
The same is true in the case of immigration reform.
Democratic constituencies normally turn out in smaller numbers in off-year elections, and the GOP is counting on this to take the Senate.
But this doesn’t necessarily have to be. And it won’t be if Republicans spend months debating an issue which will energize and bring out Democratic voters. And, no, none of these infrequent voters are going to vote Republican because Barack Obama successfully jawboned the GOP into giving away the store.
Before the fight’s even started, Obama has already broken Boehner in two “like a little boy”
I had interpreted Boehner’s two sentences on legalization to mean that 11.5 million+ illegals (and it may be a lot more) wouldn’t get citizenship under the Boehner legislation.
Obama has already interpreted Boehner’s principles as embracing green cards and a non-special “path to citizenship.”
This new Democratic “Obama army” putting Hillary in the White House for eight years, the dirty little secret is that, with the proper Obama-type “enforcement,” agricultural visas could be used to grant citizenship to the 11.5 million even faster than under the “special path to citizenship” in the Senate bill.
So guess what? Under the concessions Boehner has already made, filtered through the Gospel according to Barack, the Democrats have already gotten what they want out of this process: eight-11 million new Obama voters.
There are ways to reach out to Hispanics without shooting yourself in the head
Did you see liberal columnist Greg Sargent’s column in The Washington Post Saturday?
Sargent’s central argument that the GOP will be hurt with Hispanics by delaying immigration reform until 2015 centers around that fact that “Sen. Ted Cruz (R.-Tex.), a likely presidential candidate … would have an opening to demagogue the issue to appeal to right-wing primary voters.”
But here’s a small detail Sargent apparently missed: Cruz is Hispanic.
That’s why the racists on MSNBC hate him so much. He is, in their view, too uppity and doesn’t know his place — and his place is to be the property of the Democratic Left.
If you want to reach out, nominate Cruz or Sen. Marco A. Rubio (R-Fla.). If as liberals are wishfully hoping, Americans in 2016 will want to score another “first,” pit the articulate Cruz against the white-bread witch the Democrats are fielding.
Let them indict him because he wanted to stick a delay of ObamaCare onto the government funding bill — and Obama would rather shut down the government before he would change one word of his beloved legacy.