However, that is not the subject of this blog. I want to talk about those who sat with Obama. Let's consider the current composition of the Republicans in the Senate as of 3/7/13. There are now 3 groups. The group that "stood with Rand," the group that "was no where to be found," and those who "sat with Obama." Now there is also an intermediate group of "both," those who "stood with Rand," and then "sat with Obama," including Senators Chambliss and Toomey, and then there is Ron Johnson, who "sat with Obama" and then "stood with Rand" as an after dinner exercise, and Tim Scott and Mitch McConnell who were no where to be found but showed up in the final hours to stand with Rand. I can see someone not knowing it was "going down" or being stuck on the other end of town unable to get there. But I am entirely baffled by those who dined with Obama.
On Fox News, Sen. Paul indicated that he really didn't know he was going to filibuster until he was at the Senate Floor. Somehow, I doubt that and I think he had, at the very least, mulled over the idea, and speculated on the possibility. That is not to detract from the nobility of his quest, but I have a hard time believing he had not at least speculated on the possibility in the back of his mind. Furthermore, Sen. Toomey indicated he wasn't really sure there was going to be a dinner until that day. In other words, a series of maybes sort of came together. It is indeed interesting, that Toomey, Chambliss, and Barrasso, the later being regarded as particularly "RINO" by many, should have made it to both the dinner and to the filibuster.
How did these series of uncertain events come together? Could there have been some kind of thoughtful consideration on the part of the most senior Democrats such as Sen. Reid and Sen. Durbin with the President to make it happen? It was certainly advantageous for them to do so, particularly for President Obama. From President Obama's perspective, it was a way to keep the most fiscally conservative Senators away from secret tax hike discussions. It is well known that Sen. Paul, Lee, Cruz, and Rubio are fiscal conservatives who would have resisted any effort to raise taxes. During Obama's dinner with the Senators, he was able to negotiate support for a $600 billion tax revenue increase without the "extreme" voices at the table. It is highly unlikely that this could have been achieved with them there.
From my perspective, it seems that both sides were set up for failure. On one hand, the most conservative Senators were "kept busy" with the drone issue and away from the tax hike negotiations. The Democrats might have also thought they would get some outrageous statements to use in future political campaigns. On the other hand, Obama was able to talk to those inclined to RINO-ism without Tea Party influence. If it all went wrong, Obama believed he could discredit those at the filibuster for their "extreme" language or discredit those at the dinner for being traitors to their party, for they were meeting with the president in secret without their party leadership.
This prompts one to speculate about those who went to the dinner with the President, particularly those who went to BOTH the filibuster and the dinner? Did they know what they were going to talk about with the President? Seriously, why would a group of senators go to dinner with Obama without the Party Leadership? Did Mitch McConnell's absence, and the absence of people like Barrasso, Kirk, Collins, and Murkowski not tip off these guys that something was wrong?
What exactly did they think they would do without their party leadership? Lead a coup against Mitch McConnell? Seriously? Form a "Country First" super RINO caucus? What was in their BRAIN???? Did they think it would not be found out? Did they not sense that they were being set up?
This is a group of Senators who said they were about holding the President accountable on Benghazi and fiscal conservative principles. Yet, they were no where to be found to raise the issue of the use of drones, monitoring of drones, John Brennan's role in Benghazi, or even where the President was during Benghazi in the filibuster discussion. Certainly the issue of "who was monitoring the drones during Benghazi" would have been topical? Certainly the issue of indefinite detention regarding the youtube channel holder who is still in jail for the "horrible video" would have been topical in the filibuster? Certain the question of "Where are the Benghazi surivors?" would have been topical, particularly when one considers Brennan's role in Benghazi. While Sen. Paul did not raise them, it does not excuse the others who COULD have been there to do so.
Instead, they chose to dine at one of the most expensive restaurants in Washington D.C. dining with the very President they claim to be investigating. They squandered an opportunity to be great patriots to be part of the "beautiful people" and dine as a celebrity with one of the most corrupt men to ever sit in the White House. Rather than rising patriotism, they dined with someone who many regard as a devil.
How can they eat dinner with Obama on HIS DIME, and then expect us, or anyone else, to take them seriously? Or even worse, eat with Obama on OUR dime to negotiate a major tax hike in secret and then expect us to regard them as fiscal conservatives? Especially when we find out Obama was negotiating a $600 Billion tax hike with them?
The President has a majority in the Senate. He does not need these Senators for squat. What did they think was his agenda? How many times on TV were they told that Obama wants to destroy the Republican Party? Why did they comply? When they saw Rand Paul was filibustering, why didn't they cancel? Why were they more loyal to dinner with the President than the issues in the filibuster and a chance to expose the issues involved in Benghazi that have eluded the media cycle?
Did they not observe, in 2010, what happened to those Rs that supported the President? What did they think would be the reaction of their own party? Between the Democratic challenge and the Tea Party challengers, many of those folks have gone to the wayside. Did they think the voters would not find out?
Was it even not MORE shameful to listen to McCain and Graham excoriate their younger senators the next morning with the assistance of Sen. Durbin? It was horrifying, saddening, and made McCain and Graham appear as traitors rather than elder statesman or patriots. Indeed, it was shameful, even the most mainstream Republicans could barely stomach to listen to them deride the younger Republican Senators.
Did they not see that this was a set up to discredit them? To me, this is a special kind of stupid. There is no such thing as a free lunch; and there is never a free dinner. They should have known better. Now the Senate Republicans are so split they cannot even look at each other in an elevator.
No one can blame the younger Senators for what they did, for it was a noble thing. Senators McCain and Lindsay, being two faced and engaging in secret negotiations with an evil, corrupt President? What was your noble thing in this matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment