Scott Walker to tea partiers: Let’s focus on taking out Democrats, not our fellow Republicans

posted at 2:41 pm on January 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Some righties are grumbling about this, but c’mon. No one expects a Republican governor who’s up for reelection in a blue state to lead the “throw the RINOs out!” movement. Besides, this makes strategic sense if I’m right about Walker’s niche in the 2016 field. I see him as an establishment/tea party “hybrid” candidate who’ll challenge Christie from the right (especially on social issues) and whoever emerges as the tea-party favorite from the center (especially on immigration). His war with the left over collective bargaining reform in Wisconsin is already so legendary that there’s practically nothing he could do to ruin his conservative cred before the primaries. He’ll be acceptable to tea partiers. His task now is to make sure he’s acceptable to establishmentarians too before they settle on Christie and one obvious way to do that is to discourage tea partiers from challenging Republican incumbents. He opposed the shutdown for similar reasons, I assume, saying at the time, “I support limited government. But I want the government left to work.” That might well be his 2016 campaign slogan — and Christie’s too. Christie will simply have a harder time selling it to righties than Walker will. There may well be a new debt-ceiling standoff next month over ObamaCare (or maybe not). How do you suppose Walker will come down on that one?

Is this true, though?

[G]o and help in those elections [against vulnerable Democrats] and elect new Republicans because a year from now things will be much different if Republicans hold the United States Senate.

How? Obama might have to use his veto a lot more next year, but that’s fine by him. He’s a lame duck. At best, forcing a lightning rod like O to play goalie against GOP initiatives instead of leaving it to Harry Reid will free up a few centrist Democrats like Joe Manchin to vote with Republicans on hot-button issues knowing that they have no chance of becoming law. And this assumes, of course, that Republicans build on Reid’s precedent and nuke what’s left of the filibuster so that they can pass bills through the Senate with a simple majority. I’m not sure they will. They gain nothing politically from it given the reality of O’s veto and they’ll take a predictable beating for it from lefty hacks in the media (all of whom cheered Reid for nuking the filibuster vis-a-vis executive appointments). Worse, Democrats will be primed to exploit the new rule in 2017: It’s the GOP that’ll be defending the lion’s share of vulnerable seats in the 2016 election, which is bound to have higher Democratic turnout than usual because it’s a presidential election year. It’s worth nuking the rest of the filibuster if/when Republicans once again control the Senate and the White House. Before then, why?

The only important difference in having GOP control of the Senate next year is that Republicans will be able to veto Obama’s appointments, including/especially Supreme Court appointments. They can still do that now in theory since the filibuster remains in effect for SCOTUS nominees, but if someone on the Court resigns this year, it’s a cinch that Reid will go ahead and nuke that provision too. Having 51 Republicans for the last two years of O’s term would solve that problem going forward — if they hang together and vote unanimously against a bad Obama appointment. You trust Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, and Mark Kirk to do that, don’t you?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Scott Walker to tea partiers: Let’s focus on taking out Democrats

Conservatives to Scott Walker: We ARE focusing on taking out Democrats.

The Schaef on January 7, 2014 at 5:36 PM

I mean, Romney lost because more of his base stayed home. You really want to keep proving that point?

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2014 at 11:48 PM

I call. While I happily pulled the lever for Gov. Romney, though I could have wished it was one of many other possible choices to face Obama, I understand the reasoning of those strong conservatives who refused to vote for another squishy candidate.

So, yes, we have 8 years of a socialist President, and issues like ObamaCare and a more leftist SCOTUS as a result. But if someone would learn how to play the cards right, all of that should roll up to an easy win for conservatives for the next 5 election cycles. The 2010 “shellacking” was real, and it should have continued through 2012 and 2014. But no, the way we really shot ourselves in the foot was by caving in to the fear of standing on principle. The last time it was tried it worked, and resulted in a return to greatness from the doldrums of “stagflation”, “malaise”, and incompetence in the White House.

If the only way out is through, then so be it. But nothing good can happen until the truth of the need to return to an originalist government becomes the clarion call of all conservatives. Enough with compromise.

Do not submit.

Freelancer on January 7, 2014 at 10:22 PM

We have been alternating between a slow walk and a run to the gallows for the past 100 years. Can you really blame anyone for having the brilliant idea to run the other way? To insist that the answer is to run the other way? To actively oppose those who refuse to run the other way? To be vehemently opposed to those who want to return to the slow walk? To openly ridicule and deride those who advocate a return to the slow walk? To refuse to cooperate with ANYONE who insists that we continue that slow walk … ESPECIALLY if their reason for continuing the slow walk is to have more power?

Let’s take it another notch… Those who are unwilling to RUN from the danger because their piece of the pie gets smaller are VERMIN who deserve to be extinguished? (Politically… and it’s a shame I have to say that)

We had the luxury of time in the 80′s, with a sense of urgency to the 90′s, but it’s to the level of emergency now and yet there are those who are arguing against calling the Ambulance. We are now down to the ABCs of life here:
(A)irway – The economy that is being ballooned to extinction.
(B)reathing – The reduction of revenues by starving the economy of oxygen in lower taxation.
(C)irculation – as the arteries are more and more clogged with bureaucrats and their damnable regulations.

Denial has gone from unwise, to unsafe and is now in the column of TREASONOUS!!!!

Medbob on January 8, 2014 at 2:11 AM

If you enjoy a two party system, then the change that has started in one party must also happen in the other. And this is something that Democrats fear.

ajacksonian on January 7, 2014 at 7:36 AM

That doesn’t logically follow.. if that counts for anything.

V7_Sport on January 8, 2014 at 11:54 AM

You thought it would be good vote for Obama as a “force multiplier” against republicans. You are not in “angry warrior mode”, either you are a moby or a moron.

V7_Sport on January 7, 2014 at 1:35 AM

Why do you hate America?

You keep voting for a party that increases spending/dept and increases the size and scope of gov’t – the GOP.

these things hurt America. Why do you want to hurt America?

Why do you hate conservatism? Again, you vote for a party that is not conservative and does the opposite of conservatism when in office (the GOP). So, by any reasonable standard, your actions mean you are not remotely conservative.

why do you continue to lie and pretend you are conservative

Monkeytoe on January 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Note to the purists on here: You will never see a candidate you approve of win the White House because most people in the US do not share your political viewpoint. Pop Quiz: Name just 1 past president who clearly exemplified your brand of Conservatism. Most people will make the mistake of saying Reagan, but if he were alive today and running for office, most of you would call him a RINO. Like it or not, the GOP is the only party that shares most of your values and has an actual chance of winning an election. Vote in a GOP president and majorities in both houses of Congress, then you can have your Inquisition to root out the non-purists.

Dagnar on January 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Note to the purists on here: You will never see a candidate you approve of win the White House because most people in the US do not share your political viewpoint. Pop Quiz: Name just 1 past president who clearly exemplified your brand of Conservatism. Most people will make the mistake of saying Reagan, but if he were alive today and running for office, most of you would call him a RINO. Like it or not, the GOP is the only party that shares most of your values and has an actual chance of winning an election. Vote in a GOP president and majorities in both houses of Congress, then you can have your Inquisition to root out the non-purists.

Dagnar on January 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

What about 2010? That was the tea party brand. And Reagan was too conservative by the standards of his day and yet you try to make him off limits because he is the perfect example for your side being wrong on an epic scale. Whatever. If you think I’m a purist you’re mistaken. I voted for McCain and for Romney. But as you know those moderate winners lost. I’m not wasting my time in 2016. If I can’t tell the difference between the Republican and the Democrat. I’m through with doing things your way and losing. You can lose by yourself.

magicbeans on January 8, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Monkeytoe

Why do you hate America?

I don’t, idiot. I am a patriot, by your words and actions, you are not.

You keep voting for a party that increases spending/dept and increases the size and scope of gov’t – the GOP.

That’s not their platform. Why do you need to lie about what the GOP stands for? Are you a paid DNC moby perhaps?

these things hurt America. Why do you want to hurt America?

I vote for the best people who are electable and then I work to keep them accountable. Why do you just sit on the couch and whine that others aren’t working hard enough for you? Do you think that you can rationalize being lazy as being conservative? That’s just stupid. The thoughts that come out of your brain that wind up getting typed here are dumb.

Why do you hate conservatism?

You have no concept of what the word means.

Again, you vote for a party that is not conservative

Um, no, I don’t. You do by enabling the democrats to win. You can’t be this stupid, you must work for them.

why do you continue to lie and pretend you are conservative

That’s psychological projection, moby, you are the one out to help democrats get elected. Really, it’s just lame at this point.

V7_Sport on January 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3