Will Republican leadership have the guts to:
- Keep campaign promises to stop Obamacare?
- Keep campaign promises to stop Executive Amnesty
- Not re-confirm Eric Holder in drag?
Question 1 — Will the Obamacare vote be rope-a-dope (of the Republican base) by GOP leadership?
If there is anyone who thinks that Mitch will follow through as this article suggests, I want to meet them. I’ve got some serious property in the Everglades ripe for commercial development they’d obviously be persuaded to invest in. DLH
From David Martosko at London Daily Mail:
House leadership sources confirm that a vote is in the works to repeal the Affordable Care Act next week.
Senate leadership aides won’t comment on their schedule but aren’t dismissing the idea of holding a rancorous floor vote to yank Obamacare
The president will certainly veto the bill, but the exercise would force Democrats in purple states and tight districts to cast an up-or-down vote as Obamacare’s popularity plummets
A GOP operative says ‘we want to show the country that Republicans want the same long list of things that they want – and that Democrats, including the president, are what’s standing in the way’
Republicans will also have a chance to present long-promised alternatives to the ACA, which House Speaker John Boehner says are in the works . . .
Senate Republicans are six votes short of the 60 they would need to break a Democratic filibuster on a repeal effort. But Nevada Democrat Harry Reid used a sleight-of-hand technique called ‘reconciliation’ to pass the Obamacare law with a simple 51-vote majority in 2010.
Two Senate GOP aides sid Wednesday morning that the same shortcut could be used to undo it.
‘I’m not saying Leader [Mitch] McConnell is going to go that route,’ one told Daily Mail Online, ‘but it would be hard for anyone to argue that it’s unfair to do it since that’s how we got here in the first place.’
With the discipline of party showmanship there may be fifty-one votes using former Majority Leader Reid’s tactics to repeal Obamacare in an ineffectual vote. But cynical political observes ask, would McConnell allow the vote to come to the floor if there were enough votes to overcome a veto and have “ending healthcare for America” tied to Republicans? Public relations is not a forte, and adversity is something they run from. The more interesting question is will they use their leadership powers to even stop funding the most poisonous aspects.
Question 2 Related reading: The Lucy and Charlie Brown football scenario:
From RedState Leon H. Wolf writing today: Just in Case You Did not Know, You Were Lied to About Executive Amnesty
So back at the end of 2014, a lot of people pooh poohed the idea that the fight over executive amnesty would have to happen then or not at all. Many so-called “reasonable Republicans” insisted that this was the wrong time to hold the GOP’s feet to the fire. “Wait until next year,” they said. “Wait until the GOP actually has control of both chambers. Then, you see, they will do something.” And indeed that is exactly what McConnell and Boehner promised. By punting the funding question for the entire government down the road until September, they swore up and down that they were going to stand and fight come February when it came time to fund DHS.
In the least surprising development in all of human history, February is now around the corner, and Boehner and McConnell are folding like cheap suits.
Make no mistake, however: this is exactly what Boehner and McConnell wanted all along. They wanted Obama to take the heat with the conservative base for a policy that they actually support. So they are mounting at every step of the way what has been obviously fake and token opposition to Obama’s plan
Our bet – Republican Congressional leadership will make only token, disorganized blustering efforts designed to fail to stop Obama’s unconstitutional executive actions. Using the power of the purse will be uninspired and oafish so as to invite pressure on Republicans to fold.
Question 3 – Will Republicans confirm Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General?
From Patriot Post
To land the job, Lynch, a respected New York federal prosecutor, will need three GOP votes.
. . . Asked if she thought the President’s actions were “legal and constitutional,” Lynch said yes. That didn’t sit well with plenty of conservatives, who see the President’s executive order, which would roll out the welcome mat to as many as five million people who entered the country illegally, as a gross violation of U.S. law. “…You’re here defending this, and I believe it’s indefensible,” Sen. Sessions fired back. “I just want to tell you, that’s a big problem for me… President Obama’s executive amnesty represents one of the most breathtaking exertions of executive power in the history of this country… and the legal opinion attempting to justify this circumvention of Congress was issued by the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel.”
On social issues, Lynch’s views were a mixed bag. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tackled the issue of same-sex “marriage,” which the Holder DOJ lawlessly advanced by refusing to defend DOMA in court. “What’s the legal difference,” Sen. Graham pressed, “between a state ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being constitutional?” In an obvious dodge, Lynch responded that she hadn’t been involved in the arguments before the Supreme Court so she was “not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point, but I look forward to continuing the discussion with you.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) saw plenty of red flags in Lynch’s position on life, pointing out that a majority of Americans — as well as the Supreme Court — supported the ban on partial birth abortion. Yet she, judging by her questionnaire, personally wrote briefs that defended one of the most brutal and inhumane practices on the planet. Of all the cases to involve herself, Sen. Grassley asked, why this particular issue? Lynch tried to deflect the question, claiming that she was concerned about how the law would be implemented and not the procedure itself. . . .
With Republicans in the Senate majority, Lynch can only advance from the Judiciary Committee if the GOP approves of her nomination. The question is, do they trust her to do what Eric Holder didn’t: honor and uphold the Constitution?
Our bet — enough Republicans will vote to confirm. All the DOJ and Treasury related scandals, the foreign policy cover-ups, all to continue to be stonewalled or swept under the rug, even with Republican help.
If I recall, one of the “weapons” the GOP had in their “tooth and nail” arsenal to block Obama’s unconstitutional executive action on illegal immigration was its ability, with its newly gained control of the Senate, to block the president’s Cabinet nominations. Rejection of Ms. Lynch’s nomination should be of the highest priority since she clearly supports the executive action. Failure to do so reveals in the most arrogant fashion the Republican establishment’s cynical willingness to betray the voters who put them in control of congress. This is an “opposition” party?????