Occasional Repost: The GOP Invited Dems to a Red Wedding, the Dems Obliged

We occasionally repost amazing articles from friends who hit the mark, perfectly. Here is David Phillips take on The Great Democalypse that was the 2014 midterms.

Red Wedding In The Capitol

A Red Wedding.

In Game of Thrones speak, this refers to a scene in the HBO series where the King of the North, his wife, and his mother--along with everyone else in their camp--is led into a trap based around a wedding meant to draw the two warring sides together in peace. The king and his crew let their guard down. They relax and believe that everything will turn out just fine. What follows is a massive bloodletting orchestrated by Lord Walder Frey where no one is spared--not even the honorable king's unborn child. It is a gruesome bit of television that has already taken its place in tube lore. It couldn't compare to what happened Tuesday night in the 2014 Midterms. The Senate flipped, the House got housed, and the guvnas got guvna'd.

Still, to spring this trap on unsuspecting Democrats, Lords McConnell, Boehner, Priebus, and Christie needed the unwitting compliance of two groups of people. Democratic voters and pols. They could not have asked for more.

If showing up is 80% of life, as it has often been attributed to Woody Allen, the Democratic voter was well short of that. Somehow, this happens nearly every midterm election and yet the left seems to never learn that the progress often made in presidential election years must be consecrated two years later. It's a common refrain that Democratic voters are lazy. Nothing about last night will make that refrain less common anytime soon. As usual, the electorate in this off-year election was paler, maler, and staler than in presidential years and again, Democrats paid the cost of too many of their flock only being interested in the big show every four years.

As well, we Democrats are an easily dispirited bunch. Susceptible to disappointment and wanting to punish our party for not doing enough while not recognizing the alternative to our way of thinking is more reliable and therefore more than willing to fill the void during our off-year siestas. This lurching back and forth from election to election is made possible not just by the Right's efforts to disenfranchise minorities and young people--although that's certainly a factor--but by our own occasional lack of interest. And if you think voter ID laws are making it harder to get the base to the polls now, just consider the contests for Governor we lost last night. Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts Florida, Maine, Wisconsin and perhaps Colorado are either flipping and going R or are staying that way. All in states that should be either slam dunks (IL, MD, MA) or at least competitive (the rest). Does anyone think it's going to get any easier to access the ballot box in any of these states now?

PAUSE: If any Democratic leader ever lets Martha Coakley (two time loser in sky blue Massachusetts) or Charlie Crist (who has now lost as a Republican, an Independent, and a Democrat) run for office under their banner again, please push them into traffic. RESUME.

As well, many on the left are feeling less than inspired by our current President. We buy into the fears over ISIS and Ebola, even though not a single American has died from either on domestic soil. We are displeased with the rate of economic growth even though we are outpacing every other first world nation post Bush II's Crash of 2008. We don't think he's done enough on immigration, disentangling us from overseas conflicts, and too much on privacy invasion and national security in general. There are reasonable arguments to be made in each of these cases. They are not won by not voting. Even if you think Obama's merely the lesser of two evils, when presented with the two, what idiot would not take that which would harm you the least?

Not to mention, all the state and local issues we failed to represent for Tuesday night. Even if your congressional vote was hopeless (as mine was), would you not at least want to mitigate the damage by at minimum, keeping your own backyard short of insanity? Don't get me wrong, the average voter in even the red states on election night was pretty strange. By and large voting 'yea' on liberal issues such as the legalization of marijuana and raising the minimum wage, while also voting for candidates who oppose both, but we already know these types vote against their own interests. At least they can be bothered to turn out, no matter how much head scratching ensues by us thinking types afterwards.

As irresponsible as the left leaning non-voter was last night, it's quite possible our candidates were even worse. Nearly all of them ran away from any sort of accomplishment Democrats may have won over the last six years. An improving, if fitful economy. A health care law that is literally addressing the needs of millions of people while also bringing down costs, and a country that is embroiled in fewer major conflicts and has not had one terror attack take place in this country from anyone outside of the occasional lone wolf. That's a story one could tell...if one were willing to tell it. See, when you act embarrassed by that which you have achieved, not only does it show, but your avoidance of those successes allows your foe to define those achievements as anything but. Therefore, you had a lot of politicians with a (D) by their name running on...what the fuck I don't know.

A perfect example is Mark Warner of Virginia. A former very popular Governor of Virginia who won his Senate seat in 2008 with more than 60% of the popular vote. This year, he had to scrape by former Bushie, Ed Gillespie, whom the Republicans (thankfully) barely bothered to fund. Warner was once a short lister for VP and even, in some circles, discussed as a future top of the ticket possibility. Tell me this though, what the fuck does anyone know about Mark Warner? What significant piece of legislation has he ever been attached to? Did anyone in Virginia even know what Warner was running on? Much like Indiana's former nondescript Democratic Governor and Senator, Evan Bayh, the only thing I know about Warner is he wins elections--if this year, only just.

Too many Democratic candidates ran this sort of safe race about nothing last night. Some were even worse. Many of those up for a vote on election day pretended we didn't even have a two-time electoral landslide winning Democratic President of the United States until they were asked directly about him. Then they turned into "See and Says." Only instead of pulling the string and having them--like the toy--say "the cow goes moo" or "the rooster goes cockadoodledoo," the candidate went "I disagree with the president" with every jerk of the chain.

Even worse, Senate candidate in Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes, when asked whether she voted for the president she served as a state delegate for in 2012, fell only one denial short of a Peter/Jesus relationship with her party's standard-bearer. This was the norm for the Democratic candidate in 2014. Take credit for nothing, run on nothing, and when asked about your relationship with a guy who knows how to win elections, speak as if that guy was nothing too. The funny thing is, you know who that guy was more popular than? Both chambers of congress.

This sort of weak-kneed campaigning led to Republicans overachieving everywhere. Even in the few places Dems pulled out a win. Take New Hampshire, where the relatively popular former Governor and current Senator, Jeanne Shaheen, barely outpaced the carpetbagging former Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown. A candidate so committed to his new state, he could hardly admit to any interest in staying in it should he lose. I don't know what all Mid-Atlantic states have Dems up for the Senate in 2016, but I do suggest they start their opposition research on Brownie now, just in case.

To these short sighted pols, I would like to ask, what did this "safe" strategy net you? Dems lost to a turtle in Kentucky, a man afraid of a circular fan in Florida, and a proud castrator of hogs in Iowa. I'll now share with you my favorite gallows-humored tweet of the night from former Daily Show correspondent, Wyatt Cenac: "For all the Democratic candidates that campaigned by distancing themselves from the President... it worked. They will be nowhere near him."

I will say this for Democratic non-voters and candidates, you did accomplish something unexpected last night. You made a lame duck President more relevant than anyone could have anticipated. Now he's all that stands between you and the policies you despise. I'm sure that's what you had in mind while watching the electoral map run red like the floor of Walder Frey's banquet room.

David Phillips

The Party Of Less Than Nothing

One of our favorite writing colleagues is David E. Phillips. 

He is always on the mark, and does it with style, so 

with his permission, we share his work with you. Enjoy.

The Party Of Less Than Nothing

by

David E. Phillips

Republicans may not be ready to admit it, but they probably lost the race for the White House in 2016 last night.

The bold executive action announced last night by President Obama on immigration has put the GOP in a terrible box. Oh sure, there is risk for the administrations here as well. While the policy the President unveiled last night that delays deportations, protects up to 5 million undocumented workers, and generally looks for a more humane way forward, may be popular, the process is not. Americans generally don’t like the idea of a President circumventing congress to establish policy, even when–like here–it’s legal.

The President made a nod in this direction last night when he pointed out that if the Republican Party did not like what he was doing, they could fix that. As he put it, “Pass a bill.” It was a deft move by the President and a clear challenge to the GOP. One that I suspect they will do their best to avoid and simply turn their focus back on the President and challenge his unilateral move by doing the usual clanging of pots and pans that produces noises like “emperor,” “king,” “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” There may be short-term benefits to this strategy, but long-term, the peril is more likely to be owned by the offended party.

The truth of the matter is, the President has much less to lose. His party needed to come through for their Hispanic constituency and make good on the promise of immigration reform. One could argue that, if anything, this is long overdue. Candidate Obama promised reform by the end of his first term. The closest he and the Democrats came was a failed effort at getting the Dream Act passed that would protect the undocumented who were brought here as children by their parents. The President showed patience–perhaps too much–in allowing the Senate to craft a bipartisan bill that passed over 18 months ago, but languishes in the House to this day.

Many–including myself–wanted the President to do this before the midterms. The President delayed this action in an effort to protect vulnerable Democrats up for election in red states. As anyone who watched the results of the most recent election knows, it made no difference. As is far too typical of the Democratic Party, they made the decision to attempt to mitigate the zeal of their opposition as opposed to inspiring their base. The cost of this backward thinking was a terrible turnout and the loss of the Senate.

However, now the President is behaving like a free man. The GOP may have taken congress, and his approval rating may be underwater, but he’s not running again. To put it another way, there is little left to lose, so why not do the right thing and see what happens? Which is exactly what the President did last night.

At this point, the greatest headache for the President going forward is that this maneuver will result in the GOP attempting to make life miserable for him over the next two years. Does anyone believe this wasn’t going to be the case anyway? Last night on MSNBC, former adviser to John McCain and network analyst, Steve Schmidt declared that the President’s executive action destroyed any chance of the new congress passing comprehensive immigration reform. I had to wonder if Schmidt–often a sane voice from the right–had taken leave of his faculties. Does he really believe there was any chance of that happening with a new congress that is likely to be more emboldened, obstinate, and republican-y? Like I said, I kind of like Steve and generally think he’s a pretty smart guy, but last night we saw the guy who thought Sarah Palin as Vice President was a pretty good idea.

One need only to look at the last six years to rebut Schmidt’s quaint notion of bipartisan potential.

During the first two years of the Obama administration, when the Democratic Party held both houses of congress, the GOP became the “Party of No,” using the filibuster to an unprecedented level in the Senate to block legislation. Once they took back the House in the 2010 midterms, they became the “Party of Nothing,” making the “Do Nothing” congress of Harry Truman’s time look positively robust in terms of legislative action. Come next year, the Republicans will hold both houses of congress. So far, what we have heard from them, is their desire to repeal Obamacare, block gay marriage, and fight the executive action by the President on immigration. The problem for Republicans is to do any of these things on a large level, they will need the presidency too. Which means in 2016, they will have to run against everything and for nothing.

The best thing for the Republican party, ironically, is also the best thing for the country. All the GOP would need to do is use legislation to improve Obamacare. On gay marriage, they could simply just get out of the way. The GOP loves to argue over state’s rights. Well, 34 states have decided that gay people have the same marital rights as straight people. It’s easy. Do nothing. Hell, they’re good at it. Finally, on immigration, they have a bill that has been sitting in limbo in the House of Representatives for a year and a half that was co-authored by the GOP’s great Latino hope, Marco Rubio, passed the Senate with 68 votes, and everyone believes would clear the House if only John Boehner would let it be voted on. Something he is loath to do for fear of political blowback from the tightiest of righties within his party. They may not like any of these choices, but getting those three issues off the table would allow the party to get back to convincing us that “trickle down” economics still works. For them, that’s a better–if equally stale–bet.

If this is what the GOP wants to run on in 2016, taking rights and benefits away from those who will have, by then, been enjoying those rights and benefits for years, I say be my guest. Be the Party of Less Than Nothing. Go ahead and make up the bumper stickers and everything. Let’s see how that works out. I may be mixing metaphors here, but the ball is in their court and as of last night, their bluff has been called. It’s up to them to decide if the way forward is to go backward. If that’s their choice, and I have no reason to believe they will go in any other direction, then they’ve already lost and they simply don’t know it yet.

David E. Phillips