Democrats Should Drink From the Right Bottle

In the newly released film “Antarctica,” the narrator talks about the similarity, in size and shape, between the standard-issue antarctic water bottle, for personal consumption, and the standard-issue bottle for human waste — and the importance of not confusing the two.

The lesson is the same for politics: Those who traffic in both wisdom and waste need to be able, in their own minds at least, to know which is which.

Take the Obama administration’s standard tactic of using fraudulent polls, coupled with a false narrative, repeated incessantly by a lapdog press, to try to convince Republicans to act in a way fundamentally contrary to the GOP’s best interests.

Obama has shown that foisting a fraudulent narrative on the “stupid” American voter, while immoral, is not inherently toxic to Democrats, so long as (a) the “stupid” American voter doesn’t find out about it, and (b) Dems don’t consume their own detritus. Unfortunately for them, this is exactly what they’re now doing.

We’ve seen it before:

  • Polls showed Democrats would hold the Senate;
  • Polls showed a large supermajority of NRA members favored Obama’s gun control;
  • Polls showed Americans wanted the sort of amnesty which prompts illegals to flood across the border.

How’d those work out?

But some new poll-backed mega-narratives now threaten to sweep Democrats away in a 2016 tidal wave if Dems make the mistake of acting on their own lies, which they now seem inclined to do.

Stranger things Democrats seem convinced are true

One: It is possible to embrace Fidel Castro without losing Florida

Democrats are polling everything which doesn’t matter: How people who don’t care about Cuba, Americans in general feel about Cuba. How Obama-supporters (undifferentiated Hispanics in general) feel about Cuba.

But only one piece of information is needful: How Cuban-Americans, in Florida, who vote, feel about Cuba. There are, tellingly, no polls for this, but the answer is clear — and devastating for Hillary Clinton.

I will also say, as the lawyer who drafted, for the late Florida [mc_name name=’Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’P000603′ ]a Hawkins, the appropriations rider which created Radio Marti, Obama has gratuitously blown up the electoral map for his aspiring successor. By embracing Fidel, both Obama and Clinton have kissed off Florida and any obvious Democratic route to the White House.

But there is a larger moral issue, and that is Fidel Castro’s famous effort to push the late Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev into launching a nuclear strike against the United States, which would have killed 40 million people.

Had Castro prevailed and Premier “Bang-Your-Shoe-on-the-Desk” not served as a moderating humanitarian counterbalance, New York would have been incinerated and all its residents dead. Washington? Dead. Los Angeles: Dead. Chicago: Dead. Boston: Dead. Philadelphia: Dead. Miami: Dead. Baltimore: Dead.

So here’s a question: What’s the statute of limitations on that

Two: Obama never has to worry about Congress exercising its power-of-the-purse

This Democratic narrative normally starts with the proposition that, while 41 percent — or 38 percent– or 45 percent of the American people supposedly approve of Obama, only 16 percent approve of Congress. As “icing on the cake,” the obsequious media normally points out that congressional Republicans are less popular than cockroaches — and, by this, we’re referring to the actual insects.

How’d that work out for Speaker Pelosi?

It didn’t, and the problems with this narrative are many.

First, I hate Congress, as do most conservatives, and it’s not because they’ve shown too much courage.

Second, everyone hates Congress, but tolerates their congressman.

Third, liberals tend to be concentrated in states and congressional districts which give enormous supermajorities to Leftist candidates, while conservatives are spread more evenly and elect more  senators: 54 , congressmen: 250, electors, state  legislatures: 69, depending on how you count Nebraska and governors: 31.

But this narrative has had its desired effect: House Speaker [mc_name name=’Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’B000589′ ] became convinced the Fall 2013 federal government shutdown was an enormous failure.

In that twisted mindset, he renounced any legislative strategy that could conceivably allow him to influence the outcome of events.

If there is a bright spot about the 2016 election, it is that Republicans can no longer run on the platform: “Vote for us. Nothing will change.”

Three: Obamacare innures to the Left’s political advantage

For this, the Obama folks have to ignore the polls showing that 58 percent of the American public continues to disapprove of this monstrosity.

Instead, they touted, for awhile, 8 to 9 million sign-ups.

It turns out that a million or two of these didn’t pay their premiums and 380,000 were fraudulently counted dental plans. Another couple of million, although the exact figure was never revealed, are people who were forced on the exchanges because they lost previous insurance which they liked more.

And an indeterminate number bought insurance they didn’t really want only to avoid a penalty with 80 percent of purchasers received subsidies, which means, if the Supreme Court complies with the law in June, all of them will be forced to drop out of the system.

And that “$2,500 premium rate cut” that Obama promised?

Fraudulent accounting gimmicks have allowed the administration to mask rate hikes because, although the cost of “benchmark” policies has risen, they have been replaced by new, less desirable “benchmark” plans.

The decline in the cost of health care? Well, it turns out that the “beneficiaries” of ObamaCare are loath to use health care because of $6,000 deductibles crafted by insurance companies with the approval of the Obama administration in order to mask the horrific consequences of the Affordable Care Act.

One more thing: Within the first four months of 2015, the first round of ObamaFines will hit for people who didn’t comply with the law.

The victims will be heavily Hispanic, 2.6 million of 10.2 million Hispanics, who were eligible actually bought policies, women, and young people — the core of the Democrats’ support.

Four: The nation’s demographics have changed so dramatically that Democrats can nominate a hard-core liberal—and that her election is not only do-able, but inevitable

Liberals are fond of pointing out that Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. This represents clever framing, but not much else.

Viewed another way, the GOP has won the electoral vote in five of the last nine elections, seven of the last 12, and nine of the last 16.

Consider, too, how a badly flawed Mitt Romney would have won in 2012 had a higher conservative
turnout given him a few hundred thousand extra votes in four states.

Hillary Clinton has the polling that ephemerally comes early in the process as a result of high name recognition.  But, like the economic uptick that Obama falsely takes credit for, the electorate moves cyclically in pendulum swings – normally as a result of aversion to the status quo.

Clinton is linked inextricably to everything the American public hates most about Barack Obama and she has none of the personal likability that he displayed, ever so briefly, before things went south for him.

If Democrats continue to drink from this bottle, they doom themselves in 2016 — up and down the ticket.

What is to be done?

Here’s my legislative agenda:

First, introduce a bill which will automatically repeal Obama’s executive orders and memoranda, and other unlawful actions, unless the new president and/or Congress affirmatively ratify them. That will make Obama “beneficiaries” think twice before cashing in.

Second, don’t turn Obama into Bill Clinton by giving him victories on taxes, trade, or anything else.

There is no deal congressional Republicans can make that wouldn’t be better if consummated with a Republican president. In particular, after whining about Obama’s lawlessness, don’t give him “fast track” authority to do anything he wants, so long as he calls it a “trade agreement” and bring all but emergency nominations to a halt as well.

Finally, I would restore the rule of law in the Senate and the nomination filibuster because, #newsflash, Obama is still president.

We want to fight his nominations, starting with Loretta Lynch for attorney general–and does anyone want to assume that [mc_name name=’Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’M000355′ ] will protect us from these?

Further, if Reid’s Nuclear Option, which eliminated a 200-year legacy of senatorial protections and rights, is allowed to become precedent, if the Democrats pick themselves up — and they have two years to do so — and the Senate still has no rules, we lose the Supreme Court and every legislative priority we
care about — permanently.

Crossposted at Human Events