14 For ’14
(1) AMEND THE UNEMPLOYMENT EXTENSION WITH A ONE-YEAR DELAY OF
OBAMACARE’S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
Reading the New York Times is like planting a listening device in Hitler’s bunker. So Monday morning, assuming no conservative would notice, the Times printed the Democrats’ comprehensive strategy for the 2014 elections: Distract attention from ObamaCare by pushing unemployment extension and minimum wage increases — – issues which would be packaged as “economic inequality.”
That said, the Republicans’ countermove is obvious: Amend Reid’s 3-month unemployment extension bill with a one-year delay of ObamaCare’s individual mandate.
According to the liberals’ phony polls, the unemployment extension is supported by 55% of the American public, but 68% support a delay in the mandate.
Let me say this about the unemployment extension: Unlike the weepy privileged Princeton progressives, my childhood friends and relatives actually drew unemployment insurance. And I have been told, personally, face-to-face, the day after unemployment insurance expired: “I guess I have to get a job now.”
Re the ObamaCare mandate: 2,000,000 (of a targeted 7,000,000) are claimed (by Obama) to have signed onto ObamaCare on federal and state exchanges. Many of these may not actually be sign-ups. But, even more important, only between 18% and 21% of sign-ups are between 18 and 34 — the so-called young invincibles. These 400,000 “suckers” represent under 15% of the 2,700,000 which would be necessary to keep the system from collapsing.
Furthermore, the sign-up period has closed.
Wrong, you say? Everyone who wants and needs insurance made sure that their insurance continued uninterrupted. The only outstanding “sea of dupes” (from which the remaining 5,000,000 must be drawn) are people whose only motivation is avoiding a penalty (which, contrary to incompetent reporting, starts at $95 in 2014, but runs as high as 1% of modified adjusted gross income).
The bottom line: A delay of the mandate kills ObamaCare. This means Obama would be forced to veto legislation swapping unemployment insurance for a mandate delay.
Talk about a win-win!
(2) ANNOUNCE A LAWSUIT TO OVERTURN THE MANDATE.
Like McCain-Feingold, ObamaCare can be constitutional in theory, but unconstitutional in application. And there is a pretty good argument that a law that is not binding on Obama or any of his wealthy friends is not binding on the “little people” either.
Republicans should spend the next three months discouraging any more “cash cows” from being duped into signing up as blood donors for ObamaCare.
The worst-kept secret in Washington is that no one will pay a penalty in 2014. With only 5% of California sign-ups consisting of Hispanics, while 50% of California’s uninsured are Hispanic, there is NO WAY that Barack Obama, in an election year, is going to impose large fines targeted at his core constituency.
But young invincibles need to know this, before any more are duped into giving their blood to this vampiric program.
(3) ABORTION: ALLOW WOMEN TO SUE MALE ABORTIONISTS WHO BUTCHER THEM.
There are an estimated 54 million Hispanics in America. But people who define themselves as “born again” have averaged, according to Gallup, about 39% of Americans — or 128,000,000 men, women, and children.
Born-again pro-lifers are one of the two most important pillars of the GOP ground game. Yet, Mitt Romney, bludgeoned by the liberal media, ended up distancing himself from these conservative voters. As a result, enough white evangelicals stayed at home to make a difference in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire.
So here’s an idea: For over twenty years, legislation has existed to allow woman to sue (mostly male) abortionists for physical, mental, or emotional harm done to them. This legislation would allow liquidated damages, punitive damages, and legal fees. Thus, abortionists would be forced to pay their victims for policing them.
So riddle me this: Is it a “war on women” for women to be allowed to sue men who butcher them? I think not.
(4) MOBILIZE GUN OWNERS.
Probably the single most important remaining constituency of the Republican “ground game” is the Second Amendment community.
As we saw in two recall elections in “blue” Colorado, Obama’s rabid war on firearms has woken up this constituency. And it doesn’t look like Democrats, in 2014, will be able to roll back their virulent anti-gun image.
But now Harry Reid has made the stakes infinitely higher. By pulling the trigger on the “nuclear option,” Reid has opened the door for a screaming Leftist to replace swing-vote Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. If this were to happen, the Heller and McDonald decisions would be reversed, and the Second Amendment would, as far as courts are concerned, be wiped from the Constitution.
Sure, Reid pretends his “precedent” doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court. But no one believes that a man willing to blow up the Senate in order to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals wouldn’t do the same thing when the Supreme Court is at stake.
So the message to gun owners is this: A vote for anyone with a “D” after their name is a vote to repeal the Second Amendment.
But this message can be reinforced by forcing senators to vote on gun-related amendments: For instance, every year New York Senator Charles Schumer pushes appropriations “boilerplate” prohibiting veterans and others from regaining their gun rights — even with government approval — and even for acts committed more than 50 years ago. Provisions like this need to be challenged.
(5) CONSERVATIVES NEED A NEW “FAMILY PROTECTION ACT.”
For all of their funding, supporters, and organization, conservative pro-family organizations are widely perceived as being on the eve of destruction.
Part of this is as a result of the phony polls which purport to show that Americans, on every issue, have suddenly become enamored with the “nut Left.” Part of it is as a result of isolated acts by Obama-packed courts (Although how is it that Orrin Hatch didn’t “blue slip” the Obama-appointed judge who brought same-sex marriage to Utah?).
But part of the problem is that the “Religious Right,” when it was growing into a formidable movement in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, had an active agenda, embodied, in part, by the composite wish-list, the Family Protection Act.
And it doesn’t have a real pro-active agenda now.
That needs to change.
(6) THE HOUSE NEEDS TO SIT ON EVEN THE MOST MINUTE IMMIGRATION VEHICLE.
The rumor which is setting Washington on fire is that House Speaker John Boehner intends to bring immigration to the House floor just as soon as the GOP primary filing season has ended.
For Boehner to sucker-punch his base in a way that clearly treats them as fools is probably the only thing Boehner could realistically do which would actually threaten Republican control of the House.
Currently, the Senate can’t even send the House its immigration bill, because this unconstitutional Senate-initiated revenue measure would be “blue-slipped” in the House and sent back to the Senate without action.
But Senate Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they intend to amend any bill the House sends them with a “path to legalization.” It is not clear that this would fail in the House. Furthermore, if passed, it would turn 11.5 million illegals into a potent, motivated, and public political force, newly freed to destroy the Republican Party. Few of these people are ever going to vote Republican — least of all because Obama forced the GOP to capitulate on immigration. And putting this issue on the table would fall right into the Democratic strategy of using immigration to turn public attention away from the inadequacies of ObamaCare.
(7) BE EXPLICIT IN YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.
We’ve all seen the ads: While the GOP insured a Merry Christmas for “millionaires and billionaires,” they put a lump of coal in the stockings of the unemployed. “Merry Christmas from the GOP.”
The irony of all of this is that economic conservatives, who have recently been trying to purge the party of social conservatives, are now in a position where they’re the drag on the ticket — and they’re relying on Tea people to stand beside them on a minimum wage fight which is not a priority for non-economic conservatives.
That said, I’m glad to stand beside the Chamber of Commerce on the minimum wage — for the simple reason that it’s sound economic policy.
But let me suggest that, rather than talking about benefits for “job creators,” economic conservatives promote an agenda which is more explicit in its support for the middle class:
-Repeal any tax increase enacted subsequent to January 20, 2009, which increases the tax liability for the middle class (This repeals ObamaCare).
-Ban any bailout for the “millionaires and billionaires” running insurance companies, as a result of the “risk corridor” provisions of ObamaCare (This repeals ObamaCare).
-Provide that ObamaCare is permanently repealed in any year in which the Congressional Budget Office finds that ObamaCare has resulted in a substantial loss of middle class jobs. (Then, make sure the nest of vipers at the CBO are replaced the minute Republicans take control of both the House and the Senate.)
(8) BEWARE OF FAST-TRACK.
Under fast-track legislation, Congress is authorized to effectively “ratify” a trade treaty by a majority vote, irrespective of constitutional provisions which would seem to require two-thirds of the Senate.
If this is constitutional, it would seem to be similarly allowable to approve Senate rules changes which would allow a majority to pass a resolution to “deem” that a veto has been overturned. This is particularly true because Senate Democrats have just voted to, effectively, deem that the Senate rules have been changed, notwithstanding a 67-vote requirement to do that.
Given this, there is no reason why ObamaCare could not be repealed on January 3, 2015, and any veto deemed to have been overriden. Then, under the post-Civil War Supreme Court decision of ex parte McCardle, remove the jurisdiction of the courts to second-guess you.
(9) IN A TSUNAMI YEAR, THERE ARE FEW SENATE SEATS WHICH CANNOT BE SEIZED FROM REID AND HIS MINIONS.
Ripe pickups include open seats in South Dakota, West Virginia, Michigan, and Iowa, a semi-open seat in Montana, and seats held by Mark Begich (Alaska), Jeff Merkley (Oregon), Mark Udall (Colorado), Tom Udall (New Mexico) Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Al Franken (Minnesota), Kay Hagan (North Carolina), Mark Warner (Virginia),
and Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire).
(10) MAKE SURE THE OPERATIVE THEME FOR THE 2014 ELECTIONS IS A SINGLE WORD: “LIAR.”
(11) UNDERSTAND THAT STRATEGIES LIKE THE SHUTDOWN NEED TO BE MICROMANAGED.
When every newspaper in America is accusing Republicans of being “terrorists,” “presidential assassins,” “kidnappers,” “extortionists,” and “firebombers,” the GOP needs to stop its whining and respond in kind, blow-by-blow.
How is it that a mugger who stole your wallet by fraud, force, extortion, and bribery, and then refused to give it back, gets away with calling you the criminal?
(12) DON’T BE GREEN-EYESHADE ACCOUNTANTS INTERESTED IN NOTHING MORE THAN OFFSETS FOR POLITICALLY POPULAR PROGRAMS.
(13) LEARN FROM OBAMA HOW TO RUN A “GROUND GAME.”
Obama spent all of 2012 making sure that the pillars of his constituency — trial lawyers, same-sex couples, unions, immigrants — all had “skin in the game” — and all understood their interest in going to the ends of the earth to make sure he was reelected.
Romney treated these efforts with derision and he — therefore — lost.
What are the pillars of the GOP? Pro-lifers, gun owners, evangelicals, pro-family advocates, right-to-work advocates, anti-taxers, deficit hawks, pro-business advocates, small-government
proponents, libertarians, a variety of foreign policy and pro-military conservatives, and others. All of these should be made to understand why their interests would be served by a GOP-controlled Senate.
(14) DON’T OVERREAD THE “LESSONS” OF THE SHUTDOWN.
Currently, congressional Republicans are, according to CNN polls, five points ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot. The generic ballot advantage is reflected in a variety of polls — one showing Republicans doing better than they have done in three years, another
Barack Obama, on the other hand, came out of the shutdown with Americans realizing, for the first time, that he was not a nice person. His negatives fell, in ways from which he can never recover. And, unlike meaningless approval/disapproval numbers for Congress, Obama’s
unpopularity goes to the very heart of the Democrats’ brand.
If this a “loss” for conservatives, please, please, please give me ten more such losses.