CBS News' Political Director: Obama Must 'Destroy' Republican Party

[green73]

The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. …

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

article
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/19/CBS-News-Political-Director-Obama-Destroy-GOP

[jkr]

too L8...but thanks for playing

now you can focus your INCREDIBLE intelligence and AMAZING energy level into something positive and PRODUCTIVE

divisive animals...

[rpfocus]

Not necessary. The GOP will destroy itself if it doesnt get rid of the nuts, racists, religious loonies, and chickenhawks. The dirty tricks the GOP pulled on Paul supporters only make me smile seeing the beginnings of the demise of the Republican party. Ready to seat our delegates yet, A#*holes? At this point, if the GOP remains as it is, it is just a matter of time until a 3rd party becomes viable.

[cheapseats]

too L8...but thanks for playing...


Not necessary. The GOP will destroy itself...


If REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKEOVER people abandoned their angle/front of Freedom Fighting, I didn't see a memo or hear any chatter.

[Brian4Liberty]

Our push for small government has revealed the truth: both Parties are dedicated to big government and the establishment "complex". What we are seeing now is the GOP establishment joining with the Democrats to preserve and expand the status quo. The road to serfdom and tyranny is being paved by the leaders of both parties.

[Brian4Liberty]

Not necessary. The GOP will destroy itself if it doesnt get rid of the nuts, racists, religious loonies, and chickenhawks.

That's pure leftist propaganda right there.

[cheapseats]

Go for the Throat!

Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.

By John Dickerson|Posted Friday, Jan. 18, 2013, at 6:13 PM ET

On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon.

Inaugural speeches are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day.

But this might be too much for Obama’s second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been tried and it didn’t work. People don’t believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing “serious harm” to the country.

The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.

President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker.

How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too.

That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name.

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

This theory of political transformation rests on the weaponization (and slight bastardization) of the work by Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes transformational presidents from caretaker presidents. In order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust themselves. Obama's gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of today’s Republican Party, Obama has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of “self-deportation” and the pure no-tax wing.

The president has the ambition and has picked a second-term agenda that can lead to clarifying fights. The next necessary condition for this theory to work rests on the Republican response. Obama needs two things from the GOP: overreaction and charismatic dissenters. They’re not going to give this to him willingly, of course, but mounting pressures in the party and the personal ambitions of individual players may offer it to him anyway. Indeed, Republicans are serving him some of this recipe already on gun control, immigration, and the broader issue of fiscal policy.

On gun control, the National Rifle Association has overreached. Its Web video mentioning the president's children crossed a line.* The group’s dissembling about the point of the video and its message compounds the error. (The video was also wrong). The NRA is whipping up its members, closing ranks, and lashing out. This solidifies its base, but is not a strategy for wooing those who are not already engaged in the gun rights debate. It only appeals to those who already think the worst of the president. Republicans who want to oppose the president on policy grounds now have to make a decision: Do they want to be associated with a group that opposes, in such impolitic ways, measures like universal background checks that 70 to 80 percent of the public supports? Polling also suggests that women are more open to gun control measures than men. The NRA, by close association, risks further defining the Republican Party as the party of angry, white Southern men.

The president is also getting help from Republicans who are calling out the most extreme members of the coalition. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called the NRA video "reprehensible." Others who have national ambitions are going to have to follow suit. The president can rail about and call the GOP bad names, but that doesn't mean people are going to listen. He needs members inside the Republican tent to ratify his positions—or at least to stop marching in lockstep with the most controversial members of the GOP club. When Republicans with national ambitions make public splits with their party, this helps the president.

(There is a corollary: The president can’t lose the support of Democratic senators facing tough races in 2014. Opposition from within his own ranks undermines his attempt to paint the GOP as beyond the pale.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_presid ent_should_declare_war.html

[acptulsa]

That's pure leftist propaganda right there.

Absolutely. We're allowed sour grapes after what was done to us in Tampa. But the people of the GOP are not the enemy, the party elite are.

George Will said this morning that everyone in Washington is in complete accord. They all want to offer an unprecedented level of welfare, and no one wants to pay for it. Here we have the real source of all this liberal animosity against the GOP--they're just uneasy because they can't tell the difference between their own corporatist, warmongering party and the GOP any more. If they can't be different from the Big Government Nixonian GOP, well, they'll invent some differences--be they real or not.

This is good cover for the liberals. After all, they're more racist than Republicans (they can get away with it--affirmative action isn't racism it's counter-racism, and therefore the lesser evil) and they're more sexist than the Republicans (of course, feminism is counter-sexism too, though that doesn't change the fact that it's a far more rabid sexism than any other kind). So, they need the cover, and they'll invent it wherever and whenever they can.

[rpfocus]

Uh-huh. You remembered Left, but you forgot Marx, Fasc, and Social. Originality is not allowed so please remember those in the future. Propaganda indeed. Meanwhile, I'll continue to support Liberty issues/candidates (outside of the corrupt GOP platform) and wait for that viable 3rd party. Shouldn't be too long at this rate.

[rpfocus]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_presid ent_should_declare_war.html

Was that really necessary, most of us know how to click a link.

[oyarde]

Last I looked , it appeared the GOP was doing a fair job at destroying themselves and surrendering to the socialists.

[acptulsa]

Was that really necessary, most of us know how to click a link.

Yes. I didn't want to click slate at all, much less give them the more meaningful type of click that comes from a link on another website and drives them up the momentary rankings.

[green73]

Yes, we know the GOP is self-destructing. But isn't it funny to see the CBS political director showing his flaming colors?

[kathy88]

Yes. I didn't want to click slate at all, much less give them the more meaningful type of click that comes from a link on another website and drives them up the momentary rankings.The Art of War. +rep

[cheapseats]

Was that really necessary, most of us know how to click a link.


I believe this article analyzes an important in-play concept...that it INSTRUCTS/WARNS...tho it is not HAPPY/POSITIVE news.

Would you seriously rather hop around to read what you DO want to read, is it really an imposition to skip over what you DON'T want to read...or are you an Ostrich who imagines that BURYING unpleasantries eliminates them?

Now, if you were arguing that REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKEOVER strategerizing is not best conducted in view of Opponents & Operatives, if you were suggesting that STRATEGY rather than Conspiracy Theory should be squirreled away in a TRUSTED MEMBERS ONLY / BOUNCER ON DUTY forum, I'd agree with you.

[Anti Federalist]

Our push for small government has revealed the truth: both Parties are dedicated to big government and the establishment "complex". What we are seeing now is the GOP establishment joining with the Democrats to preserve and expand the status quo. The road to serfdom and tyranny is being paved by the leaders of both parties.

This.

Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

The author of this piece is either a government organ, or deluded, because if anything this is now the fourth term of GWB.

[Anti Federalist]

Last I looked , it appeared the GOP was doing a fair job at destroying themselves and surrendering to the socialists.

I owe ya a rep, came in to say the exact same thing.

[green73]

I owe ya a rep, came in to say the exact same thing.

I think the left would like to paint that over and make it part of Dear Leader's legacy.

[acptulsa]

I think the left would like to paint that over and make it part of Dear Leader's legacy.

I know for a fact they're trying to accomplish this very thing. Which is why they lied in a baldfaced manner this morning on one of the Sunday Blather shows about whether we were growing or shrinking the GOP.

Dear Leader and we must work together to kill the GOP. It can't have been dying on its own, not under the careful tutelage of the likes of Billy Kristol...

[cheapseats]

Yes, we know the GOP is self-destructing...


People...living, breathing humans with names, faces, homes, families, whatnot...are doing things & NOT doing things that are CAUSING the Republican Party's (seeming) demise. (Maybe they're "just" doing whatnot til Y'ALL are despised nationwide, before they make a "comeback" as BIG GOVERNMENT "MODERATES" ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE.)

Intuitively, DIFFERENT people could do & not do DIFFERENT things to sell themselves as Vanquishers of the Republican OLD GUARD.

Absent force, this will not be pulled off by Extremists swinging harder "right"...such are "melting pot" DEMOGRAPHICS.

[Brian4Liberty]

Last I looked , it appeared the GOP was doing a fair job at destroying themselves and surrendering to the socialists.

To what extent are they now working together?

From another thread, here's a possibility:


If we assume that Boehner (and some Democrats) could force a bigger spending plan through the House (less cuts than the automatic sequestration), the only thing stopping it after that would be a Senate filibuster. Hmmm. Did they buy time with the latest debt ceiling limit extension to give them enough time to eliminate the Senate filibuster before a big sellout "compromise" gets pushed through?

[acptulsa]

It stands to Reason that DIFFERENT people could do and not do DIFFERENT things to sell themselves as kicker-outers of the Republican OLD GUARD.

It won't be pulled off by Extremists swinging harder "right", c'est la vie.

But no matter how scrupulously we restore principles that once worked for us, and fight corporatism by eliminating 'one size fits all' laws (and no matter how many Senate Democrats also fight one size fits all laws when it suits them to do so), and no matter how much we reassure people that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments ensure state governments can step into any void we create, we will be portrayed by these corporate media propagandists as 'swinging harder right'.

Bank on it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Related thread? McConnell and Reid scheming together?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?401707-CFL-Slams-Mitch-McConnell-re-Senate-Rules

[cheapseats]

But no matter how scrupulously we restore principles that once worked for us, and fight corporatism by eliminating 'one size fits all' laws (and no matter how many Senate Democrats also fight one size fits all laws when it suits them to do so), and no matter how much we reassure people that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments ensure state governments can step into any void we create, we will be portrayed by these corporate media propagandists as 'swinging harder right'.

Bank on it.


Jim Morrison: "Whoever controls the media controls the mind."

Nikita Kruschev: "The press is our chief ideological weapon" Nikita Khrushchev."

NON-RHETORICAL QUESTIONS 101:

In view of corporate-controlled Media's power as fourth branch of government and recalling the truly incredible blackout of Ron Paul, what are y'all gonna do DIFFERENTLY?

The knee-jerk thought to gain on Establishment-including-Media by raising enough money to buy enough Media is inherently flawed. By the time Disestablishment folk have enough money to compete via Big Media, their interests will align with Big Money. Another Catch 22.

[Brian4Liberty]

Spending bills, gun control. What are they planning?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?401629-Hey-gun-owners!-Mitch-McConnell-and-Harry-Reid-close-to-cutting-deal-on-Senate-Fillibuster

[cheapseats]

(There is a corollary: The president can’t lose the support of Democratic senators facing tough races in 2014. Opposition from within his own ranks undermines his attempt to paint the GOP as beyond the pale.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_presid ent_should_declare_war.html


These "D" seats are ripe for unseating by people who claim the I-for-Independent label, and people who identify as FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN-LEANING DEMOCRATS . . . if divisive, provocative, ratings-seeking Talking Heads insist on labels, when more and more people "on both sides of the aisle" are wide-screen that both the "D" brand and the "R" brand got us right exactly where we are.

Jon Huntsman, who gives every appearance of circling his wagons for a 2016 bid for the Corner Office, is pimping NO LABELS as an avenue to (let's face it, inevitable) COMPROMISE. No one is getting it all their way, unless they are Dictator.

And then they have to deal with INSURGENTS.

[anaconda]

Absolutely. We're allowed sour grapes after what was done to us in Tampa. But the people of the GOP are not the enemy, the party elite are.

George Will said this morning that everyone in Washington is in complete accord. They all want to offer an unprecedented level of welfare, and no one wants to pay for it. Here we have the real source of all this liberal animosity against the GOP--they're just uneasy because they can't tell the difference between their own corporatist, warmongering party and the GOP any more. If they can't be different from the Big Government Nixonian GOP, well, they'll invent some differences--be they real or not.

This is good cover for the liberals. After all, they're more racist than Republicans (they can get away with it--affirmative action isn't racism it's counter-racism, and therefore the lesser evil) and they're more sexist than the Republicans (of course, feminism is counter-sexism too, though that doesn't change the fact that it's a far more rabid sexism than any other kind). So, they need the cover, and they'll invent it wherever and whenever they can.

Damn interesting post.