White House ponders life with a Republican Senate

[Mister Nightowl]

Source: Republitico

By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE | 10/27/14 5:02 AM EDT

Nervous that Democrats could lose control of the Senate, the White House is already discussing how to cut deals with a Republican majority.

As bad as the electoral map for Democrats is this year, the map for Republicans in 2016 is even worse. GOP incumbents are up in seven states President Barack Obama won twice and two he won once, including Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Rob Portman in Ohio, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Mark Kirk in Illinois and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.

Those senators, goes one thought circulating in the West Wing, would be under pressure to move toward the middle and be the bridge to larger deals with a caucus eager to show it can get things done.

Aides are discussing potential areas for agreement: tax reform, infrastructure, sentencing reform, renewing unemployment insurance, raising the minimum wage and expanding early childhood education.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/2014-elections-republican-senate-112214.html?hp=t1_3

---

Who the fuck is Republitico (nope, it wasn't a spelling error!) trying to kid? As long as Obama continues to Govern While Black, he'll receive ZERO cooperation from the Racist Republican Retroheads!

[still_one]

1. sounds like a typical politico story.

[liberal N proud]

2. Do they really think there are going to be any deals to make?

If the pukes win, it will be even more venomous than it has been in the past. They hate Obama so much that hey will never deal with him and will go so far as to create legislation that blocks him from doing anything at all.

If the pukes win next week, this country will be in a really bad spot. Really, really bad spot.

[freshwest]

38. It's not just Obama they hate, although they do. It's what he and who he represents. They are

determined to reduce us all to beggarity to increase their own wealth.

[Vinca]

3. For the most part, a Republican Senate would make no difference.

We have a Democratic Senate that is continually blocked by GOP filibuster, so the gridlock would reverse and Democrats would filibuster Republicans. The only worry is court appointments.

[RadicalGeek]

4. Would They

They may not, for fear of being seen as "Obstructionist".

But if the opposition from folks like Sanders, Warren, etc were based on principle. . .

[unblock]

5. except that republicans are far more adept at prying loose a few democrats than vice versa

the real saving grace would be a veto, but that will likely only save us from the more outrageous republican efforts.

[jmowreader]

14. You are under the impression the GOP wouldn't end the filibuster on day one

My impression is the GOP has a three-part plan for 2016.

Part 1 is to take control of both houses of Congress.

Part 2 is to send the president a LOT of bills he'll veto. They would probably love to send him 664 bad bills - right now he has two vetoes, so his vetoing 666 bills would "prove he's the Antichrist" - but they're not likely to be able to do it; 664 bills is about two per workday over a two-year session of current-day Congress. We'll probably see another 50 Obamacare repeal bills.

Part 3 will be to blame the whole thing on the Democrats as a campaign strategy for whatever candidate the teabaggers pick out.

This plan makes a LOT of assumptions that aren't certain, like the theory the Republicans can win control of Congress without something New And Exciting on the ballot, like the tea party in 2010 or a new Democratic president to thwart in 1994.

[Doctor_J]

20. maybe someone will inform the president that he can veto bills

We can hope

[blkmusclmachine]

32. Vetoing poison bills would very un-bipartisan, so you know Obama would sign them all. We can expect

passage of Keystone pipeline; Trans Pacific Partnership; killing off Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid; unfettered deregulation of water, soil, air, and foodstuffs; selling off of Federal land; the finishing off of Unions and Public Schools; Personhood bill; Marriage Amendment passed; ruining US Credit worthiness; repeal of ACA; and destroying the DEMS 2016 chances. And Third Way would love every second of it, too!

[bigwillq]

30. This is everything that is wrong with the two-party system

Very little gets done because the two parties are too busy fighting each other like spoiled children.

[blkmusclmachine]

33. It might look like a tag team wrestling match, but they get paid by the same Owners.

[bigwillq]

34. Can't disagree (nt)

[Enrique]

6. a Republican senate will usher in a Golden Age

according to Politico's knowledgeable sources.

[jmowreader]

15. It will, but the wrong kind

[turbinetree]

7. No Compromise

Why would the white house and its staff think and talk like this to compromise with right wing hypocrites we have the citizens of this country been given the slight of hand and a slap in the face when it comes to the right wing responsibilities that have dragged this country down with the help of the U.S. Supreme Court right wing majority.
And if anyone thinks that its not about the U.S Supreme court then you are not coming to the realization that elections do matter about your well being to live in this small d democracy
We the liberal agenda need to get out and vote its that simple, there are more of us than the right wing hypocrites

[Mass]

8. Not sure with the Senate (will McConnell be leader in this case), but the House

succeeded in having a leadership even LESS substantial than the previous one.

In an article in politico, Kevin McCarthy explains he still tries to catch up with policy matters (he has just be congressman for 10 years and in the leadership for at least 6), and that he wants to get everybody in the caucus to agree before a bill comes to the floor.

This certainly promises a very long two years, and a continual caving to the Tea Party.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/kevin-mccarthy-congress-republicans-112209.html

[jalan48]

9. Bullshit

You gotta love these folks. "Cut deals with the Republicans" and "Move toward the middle" WTF? Maybe Obama secretly wants a Republican majority, he will finally be able to compromise and "get things done", the things the Republicans want done.

[byronius]

22. I smell desperation.

By 2020, the GOP will be dead. Three generations in the wilderness, I've read, before people forget just how evil they've been.

So, Romney/Palin 2080!

[jalan48]

27. And those moneyed interests that back them?

I'd like to believe they will disappear but I don't think it's likely. If anything, they will only get stronger. Do you think the corporations and billionaires they represent will simply give up?

[byronius]

36. Money only goes so far. Meg Whitman, for instance.

Once awakened -- is there any amount of campaign cash that could convince you to vote Republican?

Me either. And my almost-adult kids are both mad as hell about Citizens United and the corporations that use it.

Youth are running 70-30 progressive for the first time in US history. And most of them know exactly how we got to this dark place.

If I were one of the moneyed interests, I'd start hiding it or faking it a whole lot better. Because the stain, once seen, is impossible to eradicate.

Walmart's declining sales aren't just because of the disappearing middle class. I wouldn't walk inside one, ever. And I speak up about it. No one I know would buy anything from them, ever, period, no matter what they did or how low their prices were.

Payback's coming. And they're all going to scurry for the rocks they came out from under. And it won't save them.

Adam Smith once suggested that the all-knowing consumer would right all social wrongs. I think we're close.

The Kochs will be nothing but history in ten years, mark my words. And their survivors will be scrambling to greenwash their failing companies.

[jalan48]

37. Optimism

I admire your optimism. I guess I'm more of a pessimist or cynic. I think these rich folks are way ahead of us. Occupy laid it out for Americans and still Romney (Romney!) got how many millions of votes? Repression is a bummer but that's what I see in the upcoming decades. Hopefully it's not full-blown Pinochet type fascism. Really, what purpose do you think the massive, NSA data collection site in Utah is for?

[byronius]

44. Most Americans are not easily repressible. It's the original meme.

And the wheel is turning. I don't think of it as optimism; I think of it as historically-supportable fact. Labor has been through this before, and the jagged line always trends up. Today's GOP would be considered pinko by the GOP of the early fifties. I believe we're about to go through some serious social reformation, and that there will be a serious wave of throwing money out of politics.

[jalan48]

46. Time will tell

As I said, I don't think those with money and power will go quietly into the night in the next few years, no matter how irrepressible Americans may be. I hope you are right but having been through the "revolution" of the 60's and seeing where we are today-I'd say chances of that happening are slim to none.

[byronius]

47. Check this out --

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/27/1336730/-Grokking-Republicans-Learned-Helplessness-vs-Personal-Control

[jalan48]

48. Good Stuff

Thanks for the link. I agree that working toward positive change is a must. Giving in or becoming too cynical is definitely not the answer as I will attest to. When I become too stuck I refer back to Camus for some good thoughts. I sincerely hope these new folks will be representative of us progressives but alas, I'm not sure that will be the case. Here's a link to a new book which makes a lot of sense to me. There's a longer abstract (100+ pages) about it if you google his name.

http://global.oup.com/academic/product/national-security-and-double-government-9780190206444;jsessionid=5F23B1EC3B099F3D294FFEA644F2D7C8?cc=us&lang=en&

Thanks again!

[freshwest]

39. Several DU parents are posting threads that their youngsters have said they will not vote.

Because of the mantra that both parties are alike and it means nothing to vote. The propaganda has been every effective. I'm not confident as you are. I hope to be pleasantly surprised the day after the election.

[byronius]

45. Anecdotes, yes, but the hard numbers bear out my conclusion. The youth are angry and involved.

[freshwest]

49. Thanks, byronius!

[secondwind]

10. 23 GOP seats are up for grabs in 2016. I'll take those seven states and regain the majority. n/1

[freshwest]

40. They've disenfranchised millions since 2010 by gerrymandering and changing voter ID standards.

Over half a million have been disqualified this year in Texas alone. But fourteen million Texans have been registered, half the state's population. Whether they will vote is another matter. If they won't vote now, why should they vote in 2016 when it will be even harder?

Sanders and Warren have been begging people to vote this year. If they don't, Warren loses her position on the finance committee and the agency she fought for will be undone:

The media driven horse race politicking is used to get Dems to ignore 2014. Warren is focused on keeping the Senate. If we lose it, Warren and Sanders will be nothing between now and 2016.

The GOP will make permanent changes. There will be no coming back to even this difficult point in time, no escaping the Tea Party dominance given them in 2010:

A GOP Senate's First Target - Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency
For years, House Republicans have been trying to gut her greatest accomplishment.

By Erika Eichelberger - Sep. 26, 2014



If the GOP wins the Senate, they'll no doubt use the opportunity to push through a range of measures that are kryptonite to Democratic voters—new abortion restrictions, limits on the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to combat climate change, a relaxation of the rules reining in Wall Street's worst excesses...

Half of their work is already done. The House has passed a bill that would limit the bureau's power by replacing its director with a five-member panel, and subjecting its budget to the congressional appropriations process - meaning that hostile lawmakers could starve it to death. (Unlike most federal agencies, the bureau is bankrolled by the Federal Reserve, an effort to free it from the whims of partisan politics.) House Republicans have also introduced legislation to let other financial regulators overturn CFPB rules, to eliminate a fund the bureau uses to compensate consumers who've been defrauded by an institution that's gone belly-up, and to restrict the kind of data the bureau may collect from consumers. (Republicans have charged that the CFPB's collection of credit data is a violation of privacy, even though the bureau does not collect any personal details the consumer doesn't volunteer.)...

A Republican-controlled Senate would also likely try to eviscerate portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act. In 2011, Shelby introduced a bill to beef up the requirements that force banking regulators to conduct cost-benefit analyses prior to issuing any new rule - a significant hurdle. Last year, the House passed a handful of bills to deregulate derivatives, often-opaque banking products that have been demonized as "financial weapons of mass destruction." In June, House Republicans passed a bill chipping away at consumer mortgage protections...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/republican-senate-would-gut-elizabeth-warren-consumer-protection-bureau

She has explained why the GOP will not raise the minimum wage, either:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017173228

Sanders has just recently spoken again, as posted here on DU, of the real necessity of GOTV in 2014. If we want him to run in 2016, we have to prove that we care enough to vote. I posted a video where he left a meeting, dismayed no one wanted to discuss domestic issues and vote. After a while, those who we look to represent us, won't bother if we show them we don't believe in what they're doing for us. If we don't show up now, I doubt that Sanders will run for POTUS. Because he can't carry this alone by himself.

I'm not talking specifically to you, or lecturing anyone. But I don't see your scenario happening if we don't focus on this year. Obama will be forced to make concessions because the GOP will have both houses and be able to deny him any decent kind of Continuing Resolutions to fund government without them. They want another shutdown, they want a default. Rand Paul said the last time they tried for default, that it could be framed a a good thing, and his running buddy said they would enjoy 'managing catastrophe.' Here is a little bit of what would happen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110218177

A lot of Americans will not survive that, period. Some will not awake to the danger until it's too late. Sorry, I'm tired and a little bummed with all of this bad news.

[OldRedneck]

11. Yep, when the GOP wins the Senate, they'll all . . .

. . . move to the center, hold hands with Democrats, and sing a few verses of Kumbaya.

And Mona Lisa was a man.

I hope no Democrats fall for this bullshit line of reasoning, but, I suspect a lot of us will. Some of us are wimpy and stupid that way.

The only good Republicans is a . . . . oh, wait . . . I can't say that in public.

[KingCharlemagne]

17. Abe Lincoln was a good Republican. Oh, wait, he is dead. See, that

wasn't too difficult!

[jmowreader]

23. As were Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower

"Good Republican" and "good president" are sometimes not the same thing: by all accounts Gerald Ford was a good Republican, but he was a caretaker president at best.

[KingCharlemagne]

24. I have very mixed feelings about Ford, Eisenhower and, to a lesser extent, Teddy Roosevelt. Ford,

imo, deserves a modicum of credit for steering the nation following Nixon's resignation.and for preserving the Constitution. That said, I will never forgive him for pardoning Nixon without also pardoning the Vietnam-era draft evaders. (That latter task remained for Jimmy Carter to undertake, sometime after 1977, IIRC), especially since the two (Nixon and Vietnam\Watergate) were so inextricably linked. By the same token, Eisenhower deserves some credit for working behind the scenes to bring down Joe McCarthy, for pushing the nation's interstate system and for using federal troops to integrate Little Rock schools. However, Eisenhower's administration is when we first dipped our toes into Vietnam (after the French defeat in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu) and never forget that Nixon (Eisenhower's VP) was deeply involved in the planning and development of the Bay of Pigs baloney that was dropped onto JFK's lap and which JFK ended up having to clean up shortly after taking office. Teddy Roosevelt, imo, gets huge credit for being the trust-buster -- we live with his legacy in that regard even today. And conservation and our national park system as we know it today owes TR a great debt. But in the Philippines, our campaigns to suppress Filipino nationalism were bloody and cruel and a real "Achilles heel," as TR himself said.

Of the three, I suppose I like TR the best. How about you?

[KamaAina]

12. Ayotte, Portman and Kirk, maybe

no way teabaggers Johnson and Toomey get on board with this.

[AngryAmish]

13. Of that infrastructure and sentencing reform should be able to get done

Tax reform...I am not sure I trust the President on tax reform.

[moonbeam23]

16. Hopefully this is just disinformation

designed to discourage and depress progressives....let's hope for blowback...

If it's true...why the FUCK would anyone give in before the game is even played????

God what a bunch of spineless wimps...i'd love to bitchslap all of them!

[mikeysnot]

18. Self Fulfilling prophecy...

[KingCharlemagne]

19. I like the cut of your jib. Assuming it comes to pass (R control of

both House and Senate), President Obama should veto every single friggin' bill those whackjobs send his way (except maybe Continuing Appropriations\Spending Bills). Negotiate with fascists and terorrists? Come on, they've made President Obama's life a living hell for the past six years. Time for a little friggin payback for Boner and McChinless. Force those bastards to own their nihilism and obstuctionism.

[geretogo]

21. After they take the Senate they have two years to find more ways to suppress votes and then

by an extremely small percentage they will steal the presidency and then we will officially living in
a true one party totalitarian corporate police state .

[freshwest]

41. Agreed. They've never been shy about telling us their intentions, either.

[Blue Idaho]

25. How does President Obama make deals with people

Who have vowed to totally dismantle each and every accomplishment of his administration and years in office?

I say, warm up that veto pen and blame everything on the TeaPublican lunatics.

[Historic NY]

26. V E T O........

[INdemo]

28. do they make deals involving a phony

impeachment process?

[blackspade]

29. How about not fucking 'pondering' it and get behind....

Democratic candidates?

And how about not helping marginal GOP candidates in 2016 by 'looking at potential areas of agreement.' Bury the fuckers.

[DCBob]

31. This sounds like a RW manufactured story to appeal to independent voters..

who like the idea of cooperation.

[MFrohike]

35. Entitlement "reform"

Reform used to mean to change, now it just means to slap lipstick on a dead pig.

[jakeXT]

42. White House & the CIA are hoping a Rep. Senate will, in their words,“put an end to this nonsense.”

Human-rights lawyer Scott Horton, who interviewed a wide range of intelligence and administration officials for his upcoming book, “Lords of Secrecy: The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Foreign Policy,” told The Intercept that the White House and the CIA are hoping a Republican Senate will, in their words, “put an end to this nonsense.”

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/23/obama-stalling-until-republicans-can-bury-cia-torture-report

[Turbineguy]

43. Life would be easy.

With everything blocked by republicans President Obama could start taking as many vacations as Bush took.