Somehow, Brian Beutler has convinced himself that there are some substantial upsides to having the Republican Party in total control of Congress.
I’m not arguing that a fully Republican Congress will produce better policy than a divided Congress, or that Democrats should feel relieved to have lost the midterms so badly. All I’m suggesting is that a Republican Senate is the best outcome for me, personally, and for the growth interests of my employer. And also, maybe—in the longer term—for the country’s fragile, wheezing political system.
Basically, Beutler’s premise is that the status quo was boring as hell (true) and that watching the Republicans try to govern will be more interesting (true) because they’ll be constantly fighting among themselves (true) and will be more accountable for their actions (true) and that they needed to stop hiding behind Harry Reid (true) and that the Democrats needed a wake-up call (true).
I am optimistic kind of guy who prefers to look at the glass as half full, but I still can’t agree that getting our asses kicked in the midterms was the better result. But, yeah, it will be better for internet traffic, and that counts for something.
Basically, Beutler’s premise is that the status quo was boring as hell (true) and that watching the Republicans try to govern will be more interesting (true) because they’ll be constantly fighting among themselves (true) and will be more accountable for their actions (true) and that they needed to stop hiding behind Harry Reid (true) and that the Democrats needed a wake-up call (true).
Is the status quo going to change? I can’t see it, really. The bigger question will be what will Reid filibuster come January. The GOP tries to govern? Says who? All they really have to do is pass CR’s. Will those be clean or will they contain a lot of monkey business? How will the GOP be more accountable if Beutler’s friends in the corporate media have no interesting in holding them accountable? Which they haven’t these past 4 years. What wake-up call for Democrats(the Democratic elite)? The 2016 Senate map still massively favors them. Do they even care about the House at this point? I don’t know. Are they going to, again, run a slate of crappy mystery-meat candidates and House district after district and watch them get hammered? Probably.
Let’s see how everyone feels when the final continuing resolutions that make the sequester look like Christmas have to be signed.
I’d say you can break it down into two different aspects. If you look at it in terms of what the 114th Congress is going to be like, it’s a catastrophe. There are some extremely serious situations where we can’t afford to fuck around anymore, and we just guaranteed ourselves two more years of nothing.
And the other aspect is 2016. And from that perspective it doesn’t really matter if the Republican Congress is a good thing or a bad thing, it’s what we’ve got to work with. Like it or not, this is the massive shitpile of lemons that we’ve handed ourselves.
Personally, I see a lot of opportunity in the dismal turnout. The challenge there is to wake people up, get them engaged. Increased internet traffic would be a sign that this is happening.
Shorter Brian Beutler “”I’m boooooorrrrrreeed. Blow something up, Republicans!”
I would have preferred a 49-51 Senate to make 2016 easier.
But a divided Congress isn’t well understood by the public, whereas a unified Congress that doesn’t do shit is well understood to be the Republicans fault.
Especially since Obama seems to be double daring them to do stupid shit.
OT:
Someone here, an Illinois resident I think, was complaining about the pension issue in their home state. Try this:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/chicago-public-schools-100-million-swaps-debacle-demonstrates
-high-cost-high-finance.html
on for size. Notice Rahmbo says these contracts are unbreakable. Still want to complain that retirees and teachers have it too easy?
Is it not interesting that all these HORRIBLE contracts that RIP OFF the public are “unbreakable”, but contracts with employees who HAVE ALWAYS HAD THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TAKEN FROM EVERY PAYCHECK, are “breakable”.
Which was/is exactly my point. I wish I remembered who the Illinois resident was. Maybe they’ll pipe in on this thread and show themselves. I don’t want to wrongly accuse the wrong person.
It would be interesting to know what fee those financial “advisers” claimed for their advice.
I’m 90% sure, just from knowing Illinois, that a lot of the pension crisis is due to sweetheart deals with connected firms handling the pension funds. 20% hedge fund fees maybe?
The only thing that we will learn for certain is that it will become obvious how much of the crazy that Harry Reid stopped.