Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
In the more recent cruise podcast, John O'Sullivan suggested that the Republicans in the House should let the Democrats have their way. His idea was that if they just say, loud and clear, to the American people, "OK, the Democrats won. You voted for them. We will let them do what they think is best, but then they have to own the results," we could demonstrate with real finality the failures of Left-leaning ideas.
In the last election, when George W. Bush wasn't being blamed for the dreadful economy, the Republican House was. Perhaps we could eliminate this line of argument for the last time by just announcing our capitulation. Maybe the House Republicans should decide to vote "present" for two years just to see what happens.
Of course, we would have to live with the results. And our victory in the war of ideas might be a Pyrrhic one.
What do you think?
- Comment (74)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
I agree with O'Sullivan. Either way we are screwed. But at least this way, we have at least a chance that Obama and the Democrats will have to "own" the results.
Basically, we'd be saying to the American people, "you wanted four more years of this? You wanted Obamacare? You wanted higher taxes? Higher unemployment? Inflation? Less energy independence? Dodd Frank? Less Religious Freedom? More "flexibility" with our enemies? More hostility to Israel? More executive orders? Etc.?"
"Okay, fine. Fine. Here you go. And don't forget, we told you so."
Oct '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Martyrdom? "There ya go, got what you want? Happy now?"
If everything [a.] imploded pretty quickly [b.]the press didn't misrepresent the cause[c.]and next election we could set off on a corrected course with an electorate duly chastened and suddenly wise, it might be worth it. How likely is that?
More likely [a.]things limp along with intermittent explosions[b.]giving the press time to develop why it's the Republican's fault and[c.] sending us beyond the point of no return.
Mar '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
From 2008-2010 the Democratic party controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Have they "owned the results" yet? Perhaps I missed it.
Nov '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Roberto, I think if they did it, it would have to be in the form of a huge, extreme publicity stunt. I mean, literally they would have to announce that they were going to vote "present" for two whole years, and then do it. Or at least do it on every bill that had anything to do with the budget and economics.
Mar '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Lucy Pevensie
Roberto, I think if they did it, it would have to be in the form of a huge, extreme publicity stunt. I mean, literally they would have to announce that they were going to vote "present" for two whole years, and then do it. Or at least do it on every bill that had anything to do with the budget and economics. · 7 minutes ago
There you go, you answered your own question. Even the fall of the Soviet Union and collapse Communism did not, "...demonstrate with real finality the failures of Left-leaning ideas..." to the true believers; and the true believers are a larger number than we wish to contemplate.
Continual failures could educate citizens at the margins though, perhaps.
Mar '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
I see a technical hurdle: don't all fiscal bills have to originate in the House?
Republicans couldn't simply "vote present," they would have to actually write the bills. If they were to announce that the WH/Nancy Pelosi should write the bills for them and they would sign off on it, I imagine that would look pretty ridiculous. If the House GOP wrote the bills themselves, but including tax hikes and spending hikes and whatever else, then they will share the blame in the press and the public for any negative consequences.
Mar '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
I don't think this really counts. We have yet to see any real negative effects of Obama's first term - most people still have the same healthcare, interest rates haven't gone up, and unemployment hasn't had a double-dip yet.
It is naive to expect the public to become outraged over horrors which are still hypothetical.
Nov '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Mendel
I don't think this really counts. We have yet to see any real negative effects of Obama's first term - most people still have the same healthcare, interest rates haven't gone up, and unemployment hasn't had a double-dip yet.
It is naive to expect the public to become outraged over horrors which are still hypothetical. · 5 minutes ago
The other thing about the 2008-2010 period is that they were still blaming Bush. If we gave them complete control for the next two years, it would be really, really hard to blame Bush. Not saying that they wouldn't try, but I think they'd fail.
Nov '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Mendel: I see a technical hurdle: don't all fiscal bills have to originate in the House?
Republicans couldn't simply "vote present," they would have to actually write the bills. If they were to announce that the WH/Nancy Pelosi should write the bills for them and they would sign off on it, I imagine that would look pretty ridiculous. If the House GOP wrote the bills themselves, but including tax hikes and spending hikes and whatever else, then they will share the blame in the press and the public for any negative consequences. · 9 minutes ago
Would they? Or could they just let the minority propose minority bills and pass them, minority members overriding the "present" majority? I am no scholar of how these things work, so I don't know.
Jun '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
I don't recall a single episode of the Road Runner cartoons where Wylie's condition improved once he was already half way down into the canyon.
"I blame Acm...*spledth*"
Mar '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Lucy Pevensie
Would they? Or could they just let the minority propose minority bills and pass them, minority members overriding the "present" majority? I am no scholar of how these things work, so I don't know. · 0 minutes ago
I'm not an expert either, but my understanding is that the Speaker of the House is essentially a dictator who controls everything save how members actually vote. For this to work, I believe there would have to be enough contortions and breaks from long-standing tradition to make the whole thing look like a cynical ploy - and be easily used against Republicans.
Apr '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
The GOP House will go along by default. They'll have to raise the debt ceiling that will pay for Obamacare, Dodd-Frank etc. That will cement American decline whatever else the House majority does. I can't see them shutting down the Government.
Mar '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Lucy Pevensie
Mendel
The other thing about the 2008-2010 period is that they were still blaming Bush. If we gave them complete control for the next two years, it would be really, really hard to blame Bush. Not saying that they wouldn't try, but I think they'd fail.
The problem is that blame only gets apportioned when people feel pain. The economy is in the duldrums right now, but not completely in the tank.
Economic changes - especially what Obama is proposing - takes a while for its effects to be felt. By the time things go really south, Obama will be out of office and his Republican successor will take it on the chin.
Nov '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Mendel
Lucy Pevensie
Would they? Or could they just let the minority propose minority bills and pass them, minority members overriding the "present" majority? I am no scholar of how these things work, so I don't know. · 0 minutes ago
I'm not an expert either, but my understanding is that the Speaker of the House is essentially a dictator who controls everything save how members actually vote. For this to work, I believe there would have to be enough contortions and breaks from long-standing tradition to make the whole thing look like a cynical ploy - and be easily used against Republicans.
That sounds as though you are saying that my idea of a means to really drive home O'Sullivan's plan would not work. But do you think O'Sullivan's general idea just won't work?
Nov '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
So wouldn't it be better, instead of going along by default, to announce boldly that they are conceding and that they refuse to take ownership of any of the results?
Aug '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
This very thought has crossed my mind since the election. However, I'm not sure I want to give carte blanche to the Dem's.
I'm curious...has this ever been attempted before and if so, what were the consequences?
Jun '10
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
I passed a CNN monitor last night, and Cooper and his two guests were agreeing that Benghazi-gate was Republican doings and the Administration was spotless.
Severely Ltd. said in #2 More likely [a.]things limp along with intermittent explosions[b.]giving the press time to develop why it's the Republican's fault and[c.] sending us beyond the point of no return.
I contend the press needs no time to develop why things are Republican's fault, even if they end up crashing more quickly and drastically than SLtd. states. And the media does currently "shape the narrative."
Feb '12
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
I like it. I am on board.
Just one thing first. Can anyone cite for me an instance when Dem disasters have actually been pinned on the Dems? Have they ever paid a political price for anything?
Mar '11
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
Lucy Pevensie
Mendel
Lucy Pevensie
That sounds as though you are saying that my idea of a means to really drive home O'Sullivan's plan would not work. But do you think O'Sullivan's general idea just won't work?
It might work - especially if Democrats had control of both houses of Congress - but I am skeptical.
As Roberto pointed out above, history has a random way of assigning blame and praise. We still have no national consensus about whether Reagan really turned the economy around, or even whether the New Deal worked. (And don't even think of mentioning welfare reform to a Gingrich supporter.)
So it would be risky. If Republicans do want to take a passive role, they should also very publicly make clear predictions of what they believe the negative consequences of Democratic policy will be - not that that guarantees the public will remember it when those predictions come true.
Nov '12
Re: Who Thinks John O'Sullivan is Right?
The risk of this strategy is that even if some things go wrong because of Democratic mismanagement, there will still be a sufficient number of non-failures for them to argue that (i) they've done a good job and (ii) that they need another four years to make further progress. This was their message in a nutshell in the 2012 platform. I found it to be utterly unconvincing but apparently a lot of people did not.
Then, it would become a sort of political self-evisceration.