(from the diaries by streiff)
The latest election results in Mississippi have generated considerable anger among conservatives. The tactics of the GOPe are disgraceful; there's no question about that. And some are saying that it's time to play hardball..Republicans in Mississippi should either NOT vote in the Senate race, or even better ( or worse, depending on one's perspective) vote for the Democrat. That would really show the bastards. The same tactics are being suggested for Kentucky, and possibly even Tennessee.
Others posit that the GOP, like Iraq, is beyond any hope for conservatives, and it's time to once again evaluate a third party option.
I'd like to step back, and take a somewhat different perspective; to pose the question: "Would it really be that bad if the GOP didn't win the Senate in November?"
First, a few assumptions:
1. Republicans will hold their House majority, and likely INCREASE the size of the GOP conference. And the next Republican House conference will be more conservative than the present one.
2. Anywhere from 6-13 Senate seats are deemed to be in play. Only one, Kentucky, has a GOP incumbent who is at risk. Another, Georgia, has an open seat currently held by the GOP. As Obama's popularity continues to implode, more Democrat seats will be seen as vulnerable.
3. In a perfect scenario, conservatives in Mississippi and Kentucky would sit on their hands in November, and let Democrats take those two seats; yet the GOP would still win 8 Democrat seats, giving them control of the Senate by a 51-49 majority.
THAT would really shake things up, to put it mildly. But since perfection is almost always unattainable, it's more relevant to ask what's the downside if we don't take the Senate this year..if we fall short by a seat or two, because Cochran and McConnell lost.
But, my friends, that's actually a trick question. So then, let's rephrase it correctly..
What would really be different if we have a GOP controlled Senate, by a very small majority, with Mitch McConnell as Majority leader, and with senators like Thad Cochran and Lamar Alexander; as opposed to a Democrat controlled Senate, with a smaller majority than they now have, and Harry Reid still as majority leader?
Indeed, what would really be different, from a legislative viewpoint?
And the answer is, not that much....
Obama will veto ANYTHING that a GOP controlled Congress passes.
The House will still be able to conduct its oversight investigations...
About the only drawback that I can see is that Obama/Reid would be able to ram through more confirmations the next two years. Yes, that sucks...but consider:
1. McConnell might well decide, as majority leader, to RESTORE the old Senate rules, giving the minority more power. Just like Mitch to say he's doing so because it's the "conservative thing" to do.
2.If the GOP had a small ( 1-3 votes) senate majority..there are more than enough GOP squishes in the Senate who would vote with Democrats to confirm most of Obama's future appointments.
So, there's really no downside then....
The GOPe declared all out war...using the dirtiest of tactics, on the conservative base in Mississippi. This war was supported by all the national interests of the GOP establishment.
You find yourself in a war...you fight back..hard..any and every way you can. Take no prisoners. We, the conservative base, handed them the House in 2010, and they've ignored us..nay..they've shit on us, ever since..
Time to return the favor. Time for a little domestic "shock and awe...."
Let McConnell and Cochran go down to defeat. Possible we'll still win the Senate. If we don't it ain't that big a deal.
Either way we win!!