By Weer’d Beard, in a comment at Jay G’s place.
This year I’m seeing Politics as a Chess game. I see no good moves, but I see a LOT of sacrifices that might move some better pieces into play.
Senator Elisabeth Warren, and a 2nd Term of Barack Obama are two of those moves.
He’s right. This election year is looking more and more like a year we’ll have to sacrifice for an advantage in the long run. I’ve been saying for a while now that the idea that “we have to get Obama out no matter what” is surrendering the war to win one battle. On the other hand, if we surrender this battle, we are in a position to hold the line (or at least keep the enemy’s advance to an absolute minimum) while reinforcing our resources across the board – and most importantly, reorganizing our command structure – before our next push.
Or, to break from the metaphor: The Republicans are expected to hold control of Congress this time around (and may even gain full control of the Senate). If the Republican candidate wins, no matter who that ends up being, Congress will reflexively defer to him on pretty much every issue, and especially on Supreme Court nominations. Does anyone really think Romney’s nominations will be any better whatsoever than Obama’s? Does anyone think Santorum or Perry will nominate anyone who is not a social conservative that will base their decisions more on their religious beliefs than the Constitution (especially Santorum)? Does anyone really think they have a clue what Gingrich’s nominees will look like at all?
On the other hand, if Obama wins, Congress will reflexively oppose him on pretty much every issue, even on Supreme Court nominations. While it’s true that, based on history, there’s very little chance of derailing those nominations, some opposition is always more effective than none at all, and there’s always the chance that it will make him more cautious about those nominations. In the meantime, that reflexive opposition will keep his chances of causing damage through legislation to a minimum.
While that holding action is going on, we will have time to point out to the Republican leadership that the party lost because the slate of candidates was unacceptable. That the current status quo for presidential candidates will not stand, and will only cost them voters.
And if they can’t get that message, and turn the party away from the current path of big government, social nanny state candidates, then they deserve to hemorrhage voters, and the battle won’t have mattered anyway because the war is already lost.
END OF LINE
Curses! Foiled Again! 