THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A Revolution Brewing --- In The U.S. Senate?

Every month seems to bring news of a new revolution in
some part of the distant world, including Ukraine,
Venezuela, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, various countries in
mid-Africa, and elsewhere.

But another “revolt” is brewing much closer to home
--- in the U.S. senate. As in the case of the other revolutions,
the target of the revolt is a totalitarian figure, in this instance,
the dictator of the U.S. senate, majority leader Harry Reid.
Apologists for Reid, and those who agree with his policies,
praise Reid for his effectiveness in holding his Democratic
senate caucus together, thus enabling the senate to pass
some liberal and partisan legislation. Initially, this praise
had merit; the Democrats controlled both houses of the
Congress from 2009 to 2011, and Reid’s discipline, along with
house speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, enabled liberal legislation to
go to the Democratic president’s desk, and his signature.
Fair enough.

But Mr. Reid did not like to play by the senate rules and
tradition. The signature legislation of the Obama
administration, Obamacare, was so unpalatable to
Republicans and the public at large, that the legislation had
no true hearings, no true debate, was amazingly unread, and
finally was forced through both the house and senate by the
barest of margins --- and with literally no support from any
Republican, an extreme rarity for major new laws in modern
times.

Later, when many of Mr. Obama’s judiciary appointments
failed to gain confirmation due to the filibuster rule, Mr.
Reid then used a parliamentary maneuver to abolish the
rule.

Since the Democrats have a 55-45 advantage in the senate, they
now only needed a simple majority to pass many bills and
confirmations.

Obamacare is not only very unpopular among voters, its
roll-out has been a political disaster for the Democratic Party.
The house of representatives has been controlled by the

Republicans since 2011, and the result has been confrontation
and stalemate.

Several controversial judicial appointments did pass after the
elimination of the filibuster rule, and it was widely believed
that as long as Reid could dictate to his members that they
vote as a bloc, any presidential appointment requiring only a
majority for confirmation would pass. Then Mr. Obama
nominated a controversial lawyer to head the civil rights
division of the U.S. department of justice, a nominee so
controversial that seven Democrats refused to go along, and
the nominee was rejected.

In itself, this “mini-revolt” was not so big a matter, but the fact
that it happened might be a very big matter indeed.

The Obamacare “disaster” has clearly given the Republicans
a notable advantage so far in the early 2014 national mid-term
elections. Not only does it appear that the GOP might add to
its lead in the U.S. house as a result, it now appears that this
political debacle might not only give Republicans control, but
do this by more than a bare margin.

Democratic senate incumbents across the nation who voted
for Obamacare are in trouble. Several Democratic incumbents
have retired rather than face likely defeat. The response to this
by the White House and its senate leader, Harry Reid, has been
to double-down on the unpopular healthcare reform program,
and insist that incumbent senators support it. Months ago, I
suggested that this strategy was politically unnatural and defied
political gravity. In effect, Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid are asking
their own senate candidates to jump off a political cliff as if they
were the proverbial lemmings.

A revolt, then, is inevitable. Republicans need to gain six seats
from the Democrats to gain control. At least 4 to 6 Democratic
seats seem already lost. But if the remaining Democratic senators
continue to support their vote for Obamacare, there is a very real
risk that the number of GOP takeovers could be as high as 8 to 10.
If the “wave” against the Obama liberals continues to develop and
grow, the number might even be higher.

After two Obama terms in the White House, especially considering
his present low numbers in the polls and his other controversies,
there is likely to be “Obama fatigue” in the electorate (just s there
was “Bush fatigue” in 2008). Supporters of Hillary Clinton, the
frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, or
supporters of other Democratic candidates, do not want to end up in
the position John McCain was in 2008, i.e., go through an arduous
campaign with no realistic hope of winning. McCain not only faced
“Bush fatigue,” it should be remembered that he had to overcome
massive negative public reaction to the banking meltdown.

Whether the motive of the president and the majority leader is
to preserve what they feel is their Obamacare “legacy” or some
other reason, their current basic strategy is untenable in an
national election year. Of the seven Democratic senators who
broke ranks over the justice department nomination, only two
were vulnerable incumbents running this year. The other five
were Democratic moderates-centrists who apparently just had had
“enough.” However, the political dam was broken. Seven
Democrats refused to be lemmings, and they are still standing.

This revolution has only begun.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Good At Governing

Often the best solution to a quandary is a simple idea that
is so obvious that most of us miss it.

With an open race for president coming in only two years,
no incumbent running, perhaps the simple but invaluably
best criterion for either party is to select as their nominee
someone who is “good at governing.”

We have currently in the White House someone with no
prior experience at governing, and look at the mess we’re in.

Our best modern presidents have been successful governors
of states --- Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin
Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and although they are today
controversial, I also include Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Occasionally, someone with no real governing experience
turns out to be exceptional, Harry Truman comes to mind,
but they are very much the exception.

Being a governor, of course, isn’t enough by itself. Jimmy
Carter was a governor, and he’s among the very worst modern
presidents.

For the Democrats, the frontrunning candidate for president
has little real governing experience. Hillary Clinton was first
lady, then a U.S. senator, then U.S. secretary of state. The latter
was in part a management position. Mark Warner is now a U.S.
senator, but was previously governor of Virginia, and before
that, a very successful entrepreneur and corporate president.
Andrew Cuomo is the governor of one of the largest states, and
before that, he managed, as cabinet secretary, one of the largest
U.S. departments. Brian Schweitzer was a two-term governor of
Montana, and before that, a businessman and developer. Joe
Biden has been a legislator most of his adult life, and has
virtually no governing management experience.

For the Republicans, the two leading candidates either are
(Chris Christie) or were (Jeb Bush) governors of major states.
Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz are U.S. senators with little or
no executive or governing experience. Paul Ryan is a congressman.
Susana Martinez, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee and
Rick Perry, on the other hand, are or were successful governors.

Of course, many factors go into a voter’s choice for president,
and personality is one of the major ones. A candidate’s “story”
or their biography is another. Being first, that is, the first Catholic
or Jew, the first black person or Hispanic, the first woman, to be
president is another. Good public speakers attract voters. But the
most valuable quality of a future president, I suggest, might well
be the skill of being “good at governing.”

After all, that is what being president of the United States,
purported to be the toughest job in the free world, is truly all about,
isn't it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Perennial Planetary Hotspots

The nature of international life is that there are always
“hotspots” or areas in some form of natural, economic,
military or cultural crisis that draw the world’s attention
and concern.

As far as I know, there has not ever been, nor will there
likely ever be, a totally peaceful or untroubled planet
inhabited by human civilization.

What is curious, having established that, is that the crises
tend to occur over and over, albeit sometimes years apart,
in the same places.

Currently, the world’s “hotspots” include Ukraine,
Venezuela, North Korea, China, Japan, Turkey, the Middle
East, Spain, Greece and Argentina.

The reader familiar with only a limited background in
history will recognize that over the past several centuries
these same places have had recurring crises of one kind
or another.

In the above list, I included Japan because of its ongoing
environmental and nuclear crisis following a massive
earthquake and tsunami.

All of the other “hotspots” have crises that are political,
military or economic in nature.

The one “hotspot” perhaps least well-known to Americans
is Ukraine. This Slavic eastern European nation is one of the
youngest countries in the world. Settled thousands of
years ago.  it eventually became the center of medieval
Slavic life, and Kiev, its largest city, the de facto capital
of the region. The cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg,
today much larger than Kiev, were then only outposts,
and the tribes that created the Russian nation, not as
powerful and successful as those who lived in Kiev and
its surrounding territory.

In the 1300s, Kiev had numerous rival rulers and  declined.

By the 1500s, however, the Romanov dynasty was
established in St. Petersburg, and a Russian empire
under the czars was created, stretching eventually all
the way east to Siberia and the Pacific Ocean, and to
the west, to central Europe. The early settlements of
Kiev (Ukraine) and White Russia (Belarus) soon became
subordinate and part of this empire.

Ukraine is remembered best in America today perhaps
by its Jewish immigrants and their descendants who
came to the U.S. in waves from 1880 to 1920 following
intense persecution by the Czar and many Russians in
a series of pogroms (or murderous attacks) on their ghetto
communities in what was then called “the pale of settlement”
--- a region that included what today are Ukraine, Belarus
and Poland.

Except for a  short-lived Cossack republic in the 17th and
18th centuries, and a very brief period following World
War I and the Russian Revolution (begun in 1917), modern
Ukraine has not been a sovereign nation. Known as the
“breadbasket” of Europe, the region produced most of
the wheat and grain for two continents. After the Soviet
dictator Stalin had consolidated his power at the outset of
the 1930s, he instituted the deliberate and brutal starvation
of the Ukrainian peasantry, and prior to the outbreak of
World War II, millions of Ukrainians died from hunger.
Nazi armies then overran Ukraine, and murdered
millions more, including most of the Jews living in the
region.

When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Ukraine became
one of the breakaway soviet republics that became independent
nations on the new Russian border.

The problems that face Ukraine are many. Although by
now a major industrial area, as well as agricultural area,
it depends on other nations (primarily Russia) for its
energy needs, including supplies of oil and gas. The
western, and largest, part of Ukraine is inhabited
primarily by ethnic Ukrainians (77% of the population)
who speak their own Slavic language. Their memories of
what the Russians had done to them under the czar and
Stalin made them decidedly anti-Russian, and eager to
join the western European community. However, in the
eastern part of the country, around Kharkov, most of the
Ukrainians are ethnic Russians (17% of the population),
and speak the Russian language. A third region, to the
south, is the autonomous republic of Crimea which had
been “given” to Ukraine in the Soviet years. This was the
most tropical part of Russia and bordered on the Black Sea
with naval access to the world. The Russian navy, by
agreement with Ukraine, is stationed at a Crimean port.
Most of those who live in Crimea are also pro-Russian.

Although adopting a representative democratic political
form, Ukraine’s history and ethnic divisions overshadowed
the new republic’s attempt to create a viable nation.
Political and economic corruption was rampant, and as
in neighboring Russia, oligarchs soon emerged controlling
vast parts of the Ukrainian economy.

It has been suggested that Russian President Vladimir
Putin wishes to reconstruct the old Soviet empire. If this
is so, then Ukraine is an absolutely necessary component
of such a reconstruction. An independent Ukraine that is
part of the western European Union would mean that the
old Soviet Empire could not be put back together. Ukraine
is too large geographically, too populous, too economically
significant, and too strategically located for such a Putin
ambition to be fulfilled.

This means that it is likely that Mr. Putin will continue to
intervene in Ukraine until it is under his de facto control.
The alleged invasion and occupation of Crimea now
apparently taking place would be only the first of many
interventions.

Europe and the United States, for obvious reasons, would
oppose this turn of events, but, at least for now, lack enough
leverage to counter it successfully. Ukraine’s immediate
needs include a large infusion of funds, something Mr. Putin
had offered the deposed Ukrainian president as an incentive
not to join with western Europe.  The U.S. and the European
Union are now scrambling to come up with finds for Ukraine,
but so far none of them are talking about enough funds to make
a difference.

Eastern Ukraine and Crimea are clearly pro-Russian and
would likely cooperate with some form of Russian
“occupation.” Larger western Ukraine, where the recent
revolution began in the capital Kiev, would likely resist any
Russian attempts to restore the previous government. Thus,
there are prospects of a civil war, or the partition of Ukraine
into two nations.

With the European Union already in an economic crisis
overtaking several of its members states, including Greece,
Spain, Portugal and Italy; and the U.S. in an historic
withdrawal from its leading role in world affairs, it would
seem that prospects for Ukraine at the outset of 2014 are
not very bright.

This part of the world has known suffering and violence
continually for a thousand years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Obama Abdicates?

It is now becoming very clear that the true legacy of
President Barack Obama’s terms in the White House
might not be his disastrous “Obamacare” legislation
that was costumed as reform. Instead, Mr Obama might
be remembered as the first modern president to
abdicate. That is, to abdicate the role of the United
States in the world.

The latest announcement that Secretary  of Defense
Chuck Hagel proposes to cut back the U.S. military to
pre-World War II levels is only the latest evidence in
a relentless pattern of the Obama government to
change our relationships of world alliances, withdraw
from world conflicts, and ignore global security threats.

We should not be surprised. These are the views of a
relatively small but vocal and mostly academic liberal
group of Americans, views which are neither new nor
original, but which have not been part of the mainstream
of American politics.

These kinds of views first surfaced, in more modest form,
in President Jimmy Carter’s White House. Cutting the
defense budget was always the goal of the left wing of the
Democratic Party (as it has also become a goal of the
libertarian wing of the Republican Party), but the
accompanying inevitable loss of U.S. influence in the
world, and risky diminishment of U.S. national security,
meant that it could not attain true popular support in the
nation, especially after September 11, 2001.

Today, however, there is an ambivalence in public
opinion about America’s role in the world as a superpower,
especially after our experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
the volatile conditions of the Islamic states of North
Africa. Deteriorating conditions in North Korea and in
our relationship with an emerging China superpower, and
the rise of anti-American totalitarian states in the Caribbean,
Central and South America, further feeds the anxiety of
Americans in an increasingly more complex and dangerous
global environment.

With no further appearance before the American electorate
ahead, and an unpromising mid-term election imminent,
Mr. Obama has apparently decided that there is no time to
lose in making clear what he has always believed --- that is,
it is time for the United States to step down from its leading
role in the world.

Recently, the world has observed the abdication of some
elderly European monarchs (who had only ceremonial power)
in favor of their children. One senior monarch, perhaps the
most famous in the world, has not done so. Queen Elizabeth II
has assigned some of her duties to her aging son, the Prince of
Wales, but she will not abdicate. She remembers the only
British king to do so, her uncle Edward VIII who renounced
the throne “for the woman I love” in 1936, thus propelling her
father to become King George VI. History shows that Edward
VIII, later the Duke of Windsor, was ill-prepared for even the
limited responsibility of leading his people as the Nazi threat
engulfed the continent and the world (in fact, he was a Nazi
sympathizer and perhaps a traitor). Queen Elizabeth’s father,
a shy man and a stammerer, however, stepped in with steady
courage. Britain, once the world’s super power, faced invasion
and extinction, but the British people, with the aid of its
former colony, the United States, prevailed. As in  and after
World War I, Great Britain and the U.S. became close allies in
the post-war and Cold War period.

Even as the U.S. and Europe moved into a more competitive
relationship after the end of the Cold War and the rise of
the European Union, the ties between the U.S. and United
Kingdom remained strong. Similarly, from the outset of the
creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jewish nation was
our best ally in the Middle East.  Now, the Obama
administration has been moving away from these alliances
(all the while proclaiming their solidarity). The U.S. alliance
with Taiwan (nationalist China) was a bipartisan hallmark
of the Cold War. Today, mainland China increasingly has
asserted her influence in the Asian region. While this is
understandable, it presents the U.S. with certain conflicts of
its national interests. A voluntary and dramatic decline of U.S.
naval and air power is a clear public statement in that part of
the world.

So the primary legacy of President Obama might be his
policy of a New Isolationism, an abdication of U.S. power
“for the philosophy I love.” Long after “Obamacare” could
be forgotten, this is what his presidency might well be
remembered for by historians --- and by his successors who try
to repair its consequences.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Great Paradox of U.S. Presidential Elections

There is a lot of vocal lamenting these days about the
Republican Party’s lack of a positive political message
as it heads into the 2014 national midterm elections and
the 2016 presidential election.

The answer to this assertion is that a political party rarely
does have its own policy message when campaigning to
replace its opposition in power.

When a party in power falters, voters are less interested
historically in the program of the opposition party, and
more likely to be responsive to the negative criticism
about, or relief from, the party in power’s record. This
was true in presidential election years 1920, 1932, 1952,
1968, 1976, 1980, 1992 and 2008 when the party of the
incumbent was replaced by the opposition party’s
candidate. Whether it was criticism of the policies of
Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman,
Lyndon Johnson, Jerry Ford (Nixon). George H.W. Bush
or George W. Bush, the result brought in a new party
regime.

In 1960 and 2000 by contrast, the winning party did have
a message more than, or other than, pure criticism. President
Eisenhower had been popular, but John F. Kennedy
promised charisma and a “New Frontier” (and narrowly won).
President Clinton ended his presidency more popular than he
began it, but George W. Bush offered “compassionate
conservatism” and no personal scandals (and he did not win
the popular vote).

2016 will likely be an example of the former, and more
common, transition, if there is to be one. As we head into
the second half (and lame-duck phase) of President
Obama’s presidency, he is beset with serious economic and
political problems --- continued ambivaence in the economy,
the extreme disaster of his Obamacare legislation, lack of
progress on major policy reforms in education, and lack of
success in many of his foreign policies. There is a growing
“Obama fatigue” just as there was an acute “Bush fatigue”
in 2008. The “Reagan revolution” was not apparent in the
1980 presidential campaign, nor was the Obama move to the
left apparent in the 2008 campaign. Earlier, the New Deal
itself only emerged after Franklin Roosevelt took office.
Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 on his promise to
“go to Korea” and on his popular reputation from World
War II; Eisenhower’s policies only came into view after his
inauguration.

Future presidents do not usually want to show their policy
hands before taking office. They usually succeed because
economic and/or foreign policy conditions have failed during
their predecessor’s  administration. This clearly seems to be
the case as the nation begins to move to its next presidential
administration in 2016.

Hillary Clinton is the early prohibitive favorite for her party’s
nomination, but this is primarily because she is by far the
most well-known, at this point, of any other Democratic Party
contender, and because she might be the first woman
president. Her “policies,” however, cannot be much different in
substance from President Obama’s, especially since she was a
major part of his first term administration. If she criticizes
Mr. Obama’s policies, she splits her party. She can only imply
that her administration would fix Mr. Obama’s mistakes.
President Obama has attempted to move national policy
significantly to the left with his “tax the rich,” high regulatory
and Washington, DC-directed policies. Mrs. Clinton’s political
history is really not much different. As first lady early in her
husband’s presidency, she was credited with an even more
extreme reform of healthcare than Obamacare. She was a very
liberal senator from New York. Her record as secretary of
state includes Honduras, Argentina, the Middle East and
Benghazi. (Mrs. Clinton might well be nominated, and she could
be elected, but history indicates that those who consider her
being the first woman president to be her “sure” ticket to the
White House, might be underestimating the impact on voters of
her ties to the outgoing administration.)

On the other hand, none of her major Republican rivals stand
yet for some major new direction of policy other than a
general impression of a more conservative approach,
i.e., lower taxes, fewer regulations, less federal spending,
less federal mandates of policies from Washington, DC, and a
return to better relationships with Israel, Great Britain,
Canada and the nations of South America.

It is true that Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio do
represent more abrupt rightward direction if any of them
were elected president, but for that very reason, they are
probably unelectable if nominated, and thus very unlikely to
be nominated. Although outspoken “hard” right conservatives
always complain about the Republican Party nominating more
center right candidates, they are the ONLY candidates who can
win presidential elections. Since World War II, the GOP has
won with Eisenhower, Nixon (in his second race, running as a
moderate), Reagan, and two Bushes. Nixon in his
first race against Kennedy and Goldwater against Johnson had
too conservative images. Ford, Dole, McCain and Romney were
more center right, but ultimately weak as presidential candidates.

If the economy remains troubled in 2016, and  U.S. security and
prestige in the world seems diminished, the Democratic
presidential nominee will be on the defensive. Mr. Obama’s
successful model in such circumstances in 2012 was to first
injure the image of his Republican opponent, and second, to
identify and motivate his voter base at the polls while hoping
the GOP did not do as well. It worked. Will it work for Mrs.
Clinton or any other Democratic nominee in 2016?

If Chis Christie, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush or some new GOP figure is
to win in 2016, we will know a lot more about what they are
against than what they would do as president. That might not
seem “right” or “fair,” but that’s how it usually goes, as I have
pointed out, in U.S. national politics (and it applies, as I have also
pointed out, equally to Democrats and Republicans).

If Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama
had run explicitly on the policies they in fact did pursue in the
White House, they very likely would not have been elected
president.

This is the great American presidential election paradox.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: U.S. Clown Shortage?

Dr. Steven Hayward, the conservative commentator, is the
fastest political wit in the West (he teaches at Pepperdine
University), and he beat me to the political punch on the
announcement, just published in the New York Daily News,
that the World Clown Association has revealed a dramatic
fall-off in its membership (reportedly down from 3500 to 2500).

Dr. Hayward is a bit more partisan than I would be, suggesting
that many congressional and White House Democrats could
fill in for the shortage. My take on the clown crisis is that both
parties might be well served if some of their members
realized they are in the wrong profession, and would make a
mid-life occupational change and fill in at Ringling Brothers,
Barnum and Bailey Circus and other circuses still performing
across the country.

The problem, according to circus officials, is that the clown
population is aging, with fewer and fewer young persons
attracted to the profession. Since I have been a circus buff
since childhood, and have even known a few professional
clowns, I also know that clowns are fine performing artists
who work hard to bring laughter and tears to their audiences.
That might pose a problem for any political clowns who might
want to turn professional, since the political variety are most
well-known for their primary goal of getting attention (and not
doing hard work).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Bumptious Boehner Bashing

There is wave of bumptious Boehner bashing now going on
following Speaker of the U.S. House John Boehner’s agreeing
to a “clean” increase in the U.S. debt ceiling. A small number
of Republicans joined with all but two Democratic house
members to pass the increase which was then sent on to the
U.S. senate where it also passed with all Democratic senators
voting for it and all Republicans voting “no.”

Democratic leaders immediately praised Boehner for “coming
to his senses,” and many radical Republicans criticized him
for “caving in” to the Democrats.

I find both the praise of the Democrats and the criticism of the
radical Republicans to be more than a little ludicrous in the
face of the facts.

What are those facts? First, Republicans do control the U.S.
house, but not the U.S. senate. Democrats have no interest in
compromising (i.e., agreeing to spending cuts in return for
GOP passing the debt limit increase), so the ONLY outcome
of Mr Boehner’s and his GOP colleagues’ refusal to raise the
debt limit would be another government shutdown. What would
be the certain result of another government shutdown? It would
be, as it always is, a negative reaction by most voters as the 2014
mid-term elections approach only a few months away. Second,
the  Republicans now clearly have significant momentum and
a huge advantage as the Democrats’ Obamacare legislation
continues to roll out disastrously. This has caused most neutral
political observers to suggest that not only is the GOP likely to
win back control of the U.S. senate (based on current polls), the
conservative party is also likely to pick up seats in the U.S. house
(where they already have clear control). Democrats are
DESPERATE, I repeat, DESPERATE, for their opposition to
give them an issue to divert attention from their Obamacare
debacle, and shutting down the government at this time would
have done exactly that.

The praise of Boehner by Democratic leaders is therefore
only a pro forma (and reluctant) act; in private, any Democratic
strategist who knows even the basics of U.S. politics, knows
that Speaker Boehner has outplayed them on the 2014 chess board.
It might not yet be “check mate,” but the liberals have lost their
queen (Obamacare), and now some rooks and castles
(a government shutdown).

Last autumn, when the debt limit increase previously appeared,
so many house members insisted on voting against it despite
not having the votes in the senate, nor occupation of the White
House to sign it, that the government was in fact shut down.
The result was a significant public reaction, especially by
independent voters, against the Republican Party and its 2014
candidates. Mr, Boehner, who had been forced then to resist the
debt limit increase, finally prevailed with a compromise, and
the negative reactions not only went away, but was transferred
to the Democrats as the Obamacare roll-out debacle unfolded.
Recognizing that their speaker had been right all along, his
members gave him a standing ovation following the vote.

So what changed in the few months between last autumn and
now in February that would prompt house Republicans to vote
against a debt limit increase and thus shut down the
government? The answer is that nothing has changed, other
than the Republicans were on their way to an historic victory
next November that could probably only be endangered by
shutting down the government.

We then ask the question: Who are these Republicans who are
calling for Speaker Boehner to be dumped because he did the
smartest and most effective thing he could do in the present
circumstances? Remember, only a few Republicans actually
voted for increasing the debt limit. One hundred ninety-nine
did not. No GOP senators voted to increase it. The debt
limit increase issue totally belongs to the Democrats. Any 
attempt to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. No one, including
Mr. Boehner, is disagreeing in principle with those
conservatives who oppose the debt limit increase. The only
disagreement is how to go about eventually stopping it.

I suggest that the only way to do this is win back control of
the U.S. senate in 2014, and if possible, increase control of
the U.S. house. Then, in 2016, conservatives will need to
win the presidency. It is really the only way to do it.

So the TRUE question is: Did Speaker Boehner’s strategy
help or hinder those who truly want to lower the debt limit
rather than continually raising it?

The answer clearly is that Mr. Boehner has enhanced his
party’s chances to win in 2014. Those who want to “dump”
him therefore must not want to win next November.

That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the
“dump” Boehner effort which is bumptious at best.

John Boehner is not the brilliant idea man, nor the superb
debater, that his predecessor Newt Gingrich was, but he has
shown himself to be an effective leader of his party while
they controlled only one house of Congress. While others
have shouted out slogans of ideological “purity,” he has
been the person who has had to manage the day-to-day
work of his caucus and his party.

Unlike the Democratic caucus in the U.S. house, the GOP
caucus has been chronically splintered.

Others have previously described Mr. Boehner as the only
“adult” in the leadership of either side in the U.S. house,
and certainly in his party. There are many Democrats who
understandably disagree with his philosophy, but I think he
has gained the respect on all sides in his legislative body.

My final question is:  If the player on your side of a match
is a chess master, do you suddenly take him out and replace
him with a noisy kid?

________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2014 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.