Tuesday, August 23, 2016

GOP Congressional Strategists Already Building A Wall Of Obstructionism Against President Hillary


I've been talking with congressional candidates in swing districts-- and some red districts-- all over the country who are telling me their internal polling numbers show Hillary absolutely crushing the Trumpanzee. Many are hopeful that Hillary's coattails are going to sweep them into office and, in fact, the DCCC and DSCC seem to think even their incredible weak menagerie of unlovable conservative candidates can win-- despite what Democratic voters want and expect from Congress-- as a result of an anti-Trumpanzee tsunami. And the DSCC may manage to drag atrocious otherwise unelectable candidates like Katie McGinty (PA), Ted Strickland (OH), and even Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ) over the finish line and win a Senate majority, but Pelosi's shockingly incompetent DCCC would need an certifiable miracle to do the same in the House. Even with a Democratic Senate (stuffed with shitty members from the far right of the party who will be eager to work out terrible deals with the GOP), President Hillary is still going to have to face a GOP-controlled House with two objectives: obstruction beyond even what they did to Obama and a concerted effort to destroy her politically in time for the 2020 election.

First thing Monday morning Politico started the day with a warning from an unnamed "powerful Hill GOP aide" who was referring to a Washington Post piece that weekend envisioning Clinton, Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer working on a package to boost infrastructure spending, alongside some form of corporate tax reform. The "powerful Hill GOP aide" attributes that vision to Clinton and calls it absurd. "Clinton is delusional. Nothing they want can be remotely paid for without massive, economy-crushing tax increases. And no one will be politically cowed by her after this election. It won’t be difficult for Republicans to unite in opposition to virtually every single thing she has campaigned on. And if Paul [Ryan] is running for president in 2020, all of his upside is in fighting her tooth and nail."

Politico urges its readers t take note: "this is an important preview of the next year if Hillary wins. Even if the Senate turns Democratic, the House is likely to remain in Republican hands. And if Clinton wins the White House, she’ll have to navigate a House Republican Conference that is only becoming more conservative."

And not "more conservative" in the way Trumpist sociopath Steve Bannon seems to define it. The Trumpists won't be a major presence in Congress. The only Member Trump endorsed and did an ad for so far, Renee Ellmers (R-NC) got crushed in her reelection primary and the only Republican in either house of Congress to have contributed money to the Trumpanzee campaign is clueless and anti-science House Science Committee chairman, Lamar Smith. Trump may have an enthusiast in Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and a miniscule handful of House backbenchers-- nose-bleed seats, in fact-- but his influence in Congress will be next to nothing by November 9. If he has any influence it will be because the buzz about his new media empire with Bannon, Ailes, and Mercer turns out to be real. But here's how Bannon described his own vision for America, which is distinctly any but conservative, to Ronald Radosh of the Daily Beast 2 years ago:
[W]e had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

...“National Review and the Weekly Standard,” he said, “are both left-wing magazines, and I want to destroy them also.” He added that “no one reads them or cares what they say.” His goal was to bring down the entire establishment including the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress. He went on to tell me that he was the East Coast coordinator of all the Tea Party groups. His plan was to get its candidates nominated on the Republican ticket, and then to back campaigns that they could win. Then, Bannon said, when elected they would be held accountable to fight for the agenda he and the Tea Party stood for.

If they didn’t, “we would force them out of office and oppose them when the next election for their seats came around.”

That, essentially, was the tactic employed when Eric Cantor was ousted by a far right candidate, virtually unknown college economics professor Dave Brat, in his Virginia district’s primary. It was also the path Donald Trump’s supporters took in Wisconsin, when hoping to duplicate their successful tactics in Virginia, they ran a candidate in the Wisconsin Republican primary against Speaker Paul Ryan in his own district. There are a few Republicans that Bannon does respect. One of them is Rep. Louis Gohmert, the fiery congressman from Texas, who was also at the party. Gohmert, who is part of the self-proclaimed anti-establishment wing of the Republican Party, was an ally of Cruz in the government shutdown.

Trump’s decision to take on Bannon indicates that he wants to wage his campaign along the lines laid down by him-- that of destroying the Republican leadership and the Party as we know it. Trump’s behavior thus far has been compatible with Bannon’s belief in Leninist tactics. As the Bolshevik leader once said, “The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.”

Only one question remains. Knowing this, why do leaders like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and others, who regularly condemn Trump’s statements but yet still endorse him, stick with such a self-defeating approach? They will only end up helping Bannon and company cast them into oblivion and finish their hostile take-over of the GOP.
So maybe the House Republicans will have a two-front war on their hands next year-- battling President Hillary one the one hand and the Trumpanzee Media Empire on the other. I would suggest that a plan to making sure that neither brand of conservatism becomes the dominant governing principle of this country, we should do our best to elect as many progressives as possible, not garden variety DSCC and DCCC Democrats who will never stand up for anything, but real progressives like the ones on this page that pops up when you click the thermometer:
Goal Thermometer

Labels: , , , ,


At 6:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Between the gerrymandering and the DCCC support of blue dogs, progressives will not be able able to make much of a dent on the goings on in our corrupt greed obsessed Congress. The American ship has become a cruise ship for the 1% and will eventually sink out of sight, just like Rome.

At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The foundation for this wall was begun in the early days of the WJ Clinton tenure as HRC took command of the "Clinton Health Plan." It would be truly disappointing to have to deal with an HRC tenure in the absence of GOP obstruction more vehement than that they "naturally" afforded Obumma - for all the wrong reasons.

The building of that GOP wall was occurring at about the time of the following anecdote. Too bad Dems couldn't also take the hint and start their own wall to block the Clinton grifters.

Bernie Sanders met with HR Clinton in 1993 after she was appointed chair of hubby’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform.
“In February, Sanders requested a meeting with Hillary, 'to bring in two Harvard Medical School physicians who have written on the Canadian system,' according to the records of the administration’s task force. Those physicians were Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, leading advocates for single-payer health care. 
They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’ recalled Himmelstein. And I said, 'How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ” tinyurl.com/jslcwys

John Puma

At 3:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Puma's comment demonstrates that Hillary has been on the take since forever and has not changed one bit in 23 years.


Post a Comment

<< Home