August 28th, 2014

The Democrats’ plan; which backlash is more likely?

The Democrats have a plan, according to Marc Ambinder:

Go big on immigration [through Obama's executive action]. Wait for the GOP counter-reaction. Quietly pray for the government to get shut down. Use it like a cattle prod to wake voters up just before the midterms.

At the same time we hear that Democrats in Congress are spooked by Obama’s threat of amnesty through his pen and phone, because they feel it threatens their election prospects.

The two sound contradictory, but not necessarily. The fear of the Democrats that it would hurt their chances doesn’t take into account a possible Republican reaction to shut down the government. Those who believe that would happen are more sanguine, because they remember that such an action was largely unpopular the last time Republicans tried it.

So, how Democrats feel about it depends on what they think Republicans will do in return. Will they try to shut things down, or won’t they?

And remember all that “Republicans want to impeach Obama” talk just a little while back? It was predicated on the same idea: that Republicans might be provoked into impeaching Obama before the midterms, with no real chance of conviction, a series of acts which the American people would not favor. Or, next best thing, the public could be talked into thinking the Republicans want to do it, and that would engender a voter backlash against them, too.

A more callous, manipulative, hypocritical set of actions on the part of Democrats could hardly be imagined (actually, it can, but I’m using hyperbole). But even if they do manage to provoke another shutdown attempt, I’m not sure it would work the same way it did last time.

The reason is that this issue is huge, and Americans are energized about it more than about most other issues. They do not want Obama to do this. This is not only because they do not want amnesty given to these people in the current climate of border overrun and terrorist resurgence, but also that quite a few people (even, perhaps, some low information voters) are aware that the issue of amnesty for illegals has been debated for decades in Congress, and they might get a trifle riled up at Obama’s trying to do this all by his lonesome.

Obama and the Democrats would be bargaining that people want the issue resolved, and are fed up with Congress not “fixing” it in all this time, and therefore wouldn’t care about Obama’s power-grab because he would finally be solving the problem. But that completely ignores the fact that he would be “solving” it in the opposite direction from what the majority of people would like (see this and this).

It’s as though you’ve brought an ill relative to the emergency room. The staff there is making you wait much too long, and you’re getting angry. You want to see your relative get some treatment. Then a doctor comes along and says, “I’ll fix it!”, grabs your relative by the arm, twists it, and then takes out a gun and shoots him dead. It’s an action and a solution, all right, but not the one you were looking for.

16 Responses to “The Democrats’ plan; which backlash is more likely?”

  1. Illuminati Says:

    “A more callous, manipulative, hypocritical set of actions on the part of Democrats could hardly be imagined (actually, it can, but I’m using hyperbole). ”

    Exactly! The amoral complicity of the entire Democrat establishment is much more scary than Obama himself. Without their support none of Obama’s shenanigans would work.

  2. AManOfTheWest Says:

    “What if I told you that the Republic was now under the control of a dark lord of the Sith? “

  3. Sgt. Mom Says:

    Of course Americans – well, those of us who have been paying attention – are energized and rather upset about the amnesty issue. The uncontrolled border, floods of illegals swamping border towns, their lives and deaths affecting bordertown hospitals and undertakers, the un-inoculated bringing 3rd world diseases to classrooms in working-class neighborhoods, minimum-wage workers and manual laborers being priced out by illegal workers willing to work for a pittance, prospective legal immigrants forced to jump through endless hoops … yes, this will affect just about everyone outside the rarefied levels of the well-to-do and the governing class.

    And the Dems likely know it. Even the LIVs can be pushed a titch too far, when little Juan or Johnny comes down with TB that he caught in the classroom.

  4. Yancey Ward Says:

    Obama is taking the long-term view on this one- by 2024, Democrats can add 10+ million new voters, a great majority of whom can be expected to vote for Democrats. Permanent majority.

    Democrats in Congress, however, can see that their careers might end before all those new voters get to vote.

    Simple- if Obama does this before November (I don’t think he will- he will do it in late November), Democrats will get crushed at the polls, and there will 60 Republicans in the Senate. However, during his last two years in office, Obama will fast track all those new legal residents for citizenship, and by 2020, those new citizens will be voting.

  5. neo-neocon Says:

    Yancey Ward,

    I have felt ever since I heard about Obama’s plan, and even before, that those who advocate this are taking the long view to change the demographics of America to make a permanent Democratic majority.

    It might work. It might even happen without it, demographics and birth rates being what they are.

    But it could engender a backlash, even among Hispanics who are citizens, and among black people who see it as threatening their jobs, and if that occurs it would backfire. I have no idea what the chances of this are. But it is possible.

    In addition, it is also possible that if Obama does this after the midterms, and if there are enough Republicans in the Senate and they are joined by a few Democrats there who see their seats as being threatened in 2016, he could be both impeached (the relatively easy part in the House) and convicted (the hard part in the Senate). It’s a real longshot, but it could happen.

  6. parker Says:

    Bho will not move on this issue before the mid-term election. It would mean giving the gop a sizable majority in the senate, not an impeachment conviction majority, but a majority that will deny his court nominations and other appointments. A senate that would pass legislation coming out of the house forcing bho to veto budgets, etc making the messiah the obstructionist. Iow, it would push all of his narcissistic buttons. Bho is not the sharpest knife in Soro’s kitchen, but he is no dummy.

  7. NeoConScum Says:

    Hey, we were wrong quoting last night’s news that Obama is going to another fund raiser in Rhode Island tomorrow. Sorry, my Bad. It’s 2-Fund Raisers. Yep, the world’s on fire and just back from his golf marathon in The Vineyard, The Boy King is going to TWO FUND RAISERS.

  8. Cornhead Says:

    Some person or group should sue Homeland Security and ICE to enjoin them from issuing whatever documents they are planning to issue to illegal aliens per the King’s illegal order.

    You read it here first. This avoids the impeachment problem.

  9. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Obama and the Democrats would be bargaining that people want the issue resolved, and are fed up with Congress not “fixing” it in all this time, and therefore wouldn’t care about Obama’s power-grab because he would finally be solving the problem.”

    If that is their thinking, then they are confusing their hard core base’s support, for Americans en mass. But they are as aware of the polls as we and have to know that Obama unilaterally granting amnesty before the Nov election would be highly counter-productive, at least in the short-run.

    I agree that Obama is thinking long term and wishes to create a fait accompli toward permanent one party rule. He’s willing to sacrifice congressional democrats to get that voting majority. But… amnesty created through executive order is NOT the rule of law, so a Republican President could as easily reverse it. Clearly he thinks its a bet worth making that 2016 will see a Democrat President.

    Given the support of the GOP leadership for ‘amnesty without borders’ (any democrat promises to secure the border are laughable) Obama’s assessment of democrat Presidential prospects in 2016 appear possible.

    That said, he’s skating on very thin ice. If ISIS comes to America, Obama and the democrats are going to get all the blame in the minds of the LIV’s regardless of how much the MSM tries to make it Bush’s fault.

    The prospect for a coming perfect political storm has to be at least 50/50 and in the worse case scenario, Obama’s ‘legacy’ becomes an albatross that democrats cannot remove from their necks for an entire generation.

  10. parker Says:

    Cornhead,

    we are pass the point of lawsuits. Fill in the blanks to find out what comes next. Hike your skirts to avoid the offal staining your skirts.

  11. Ymarsakar Says:

    It doesn’t really matter what Americans blame for terrorist attacks. Those who hold no power, don’t get a say. The police, controlled by the Left, will determine how counter terrorist operations are run and who the targets will be. Hint, it’s something the IRS would target.

  12. Cornhead Says:

    Parker

    Better than doing nothing.

    Also the House could cut spending.

    Just try!

  13. stan Says:

    Why not just say — Democrats look for media allies to save their bacon. It doesn’t matter what the GOP actually does.
    Only what the press reports.

  14. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “It doesn’t really matter what Americans blame for terrorist attacks. Those who hold no power, don’t get a say. The police, controlled by the Left, will determine how counter terrorist operations are run and who the targets will be. Hint, it’s something the IRS would target.” Ymarsakar

    That the quiescent American public is divided enough to give the illusion of having no power is a mistake in perception to assign it reality. The mob always have political power, it just needs an impetus for its formation and focus. ISIS’ entry into the US with a series of attacks would awaken the mob and democrats KNOW it and that is why they work so hard to keep it in the dark.

    The police generally do as they are told and while the democrats are nominally in charge, police forces are not a unified whole and, if ISIS attacks, the police will be focused on stopping those attacks not repressing accusations against the Obama administration’s negligence.

    Relatively successful attacks by ISIS cells would devastate democrats in either the 2014 or 2016 elections. LIVs who are NOT ideologues will firmly reject the party in power of the DHS, which would be Obama… if the US is seen as incapable of immediately stopping the attacks. In fact, any attacks will be politically damaging with fickle LIVs.

  15. Ymarsakar Says:

    the police will be focused on stopping those attacks not repressing accusations against the Obama administration’s negligence.

    Like at the Marathon bombings, cracking down on citizens with curfews, and still not finding a clue.

  16. Ymarsakar Says:

    if the US is seen as incapable of immediately stopping the attacks. In fact, any attacks will be politically damaging with fickle LIVs.

    The Leftists people call LIVs or moderate Democrats, will do as they are told and support Hillary, the new God of the Left, if they get rid of Hussein.

    Blaming Hussein is meaningless and for weaklings. It was only ever a convenient thing for us to support because it allowed a personal target for American hatred and emotion to be focused against.

    The real target was and should always have been, the Leftist alliance and ALL of its members.

    All of its members.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge