Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016


President Obama has an idea on how to overcome the unprecedented obstruction in Congress: Take back the House.

Speaking at a fundraiser in Chicago Wednesday night, the president said, “We’ve got a great chance of taking back the House. And I’m going to be working tirelessly wherever I get the opportunity to make the case to the American people that our ideas are the right ones.”

Taking back the House has been a preoccupation of the president’s since he was re-elected. He reportedly committed to helping congressional Democrats by both fundraising and recruiting candidates. That was before several “scandals” began swirling around his administration, but in Chicago, he seemed fully committed to the effort — perhaps because he knows sticking with the current House leadership will resign him to dealing with manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis for the rest of his presidency.

Of course, before Democrats can worry about winning back the House — which is gerrymandered to keep Republicans in power unless they lose by a margin greater than 7 percent — they have to worry about holding on to the Senate, where they are defending seven vulnerable seats. But a recent poll showed Democrats leading Republicans by 8 points and the president — whether by optimism or necessity — is looking past the Senate to the dream of a functioning Congress.

“Do not buy into this notion somehow that, oh, these problems are too big or Washington is broken,” Obama said. “Washington is not broken. It’s broken right now for a particular reason, but it’s not permanently broken. It can be fixed.”

Here’s how he could fix it.

AP Photo/Chicago Tribune, Zbigniew Bzdak, Pool

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • JD Mulvey

    “Today 5 percent fewer adults identify with the GOP than in November,
    2012 when President Obama won his second term in an electoral landslide.”

    I’m not sure you’re reading the data correctly. If, as your chart shows, the percentage of Americans who identify as Republicans has dropped from about 30% to about 25%, then the more accurate statement would be:

    “Today ~16% percent fewer adults identify with the GOP than in November”

    • Sand_Cat

      How can anyone with a brain and a shred of integrity identify with the pack of dishonest, malicious lunatics that the GOP has become?

      There are legitimate arguments for conservative policies; how come the Republicans use lies, libel, and delusion?

      • sndman1964

        Conservative “ideas” are the reason we’re in the mess we’re in.

      • jointerjohn

        They are not interested in voters with brains or integrity, only voters with excitable fears.

  • Cougar Smith

    Not gonna happen! When the corrupt IRS under Obammy comes stealing money with the excuse of Obummercare, people will go into a rage and vote against anyone having been involved with that insane idea. (that is IF the libtards do not resort to fraud and other nefarious methods to make a sham of the electoral system.)

  • Benghazi – More Whistleblowers Coming? Stinger Missiles, Hillary Clinton, General Carter Ham….. May 22, 2013 by sundance

    Roger L Simon @PJMedia has a column out which essentially predicts a new set of whistleblowers who will soon present to congress.

    […] According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

    Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

    Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.” (link)

    What is interesting is the affirmation of what we have shared from the VERY BEGINNING.

    The State Dept. (Stevens) was buying back Surface to Air Missiles, from the Libyan ”Rebels”, who were actually al-Qaeda. The CIA was a logistics facilitating co-agency supporting the efforts of the State Dept. but the CIA did not fully support the larger goal. Nor should they.

    What the article does not outline is what also we have previously shared which connects the dots.

    The Libyan missiles were in the process of being re-directed from Benghazi al-Qaeda into the hands of Syrian Rebels using Turkey as the middle-men to keep the Obama’s fingerprints off the transportation and delivery.

    That’s why the Turkish delegation was at the U.S. Benghazi compound that night meeting with Ambassador Stevens. The Turks were able to leave the neighborhood, around 9:00-9:15pm shortly before the attack commenced at 9:40pm.

    AFRICOM Commander, General Carter Hamm, was stuck betwixt a rocket and a hard place. Already the Afghanistan and Iraq U.S. forces had lost their close-air-support due to the risk from the Libyan SAAM’s which had already made their way into those specific areas of combat operations.

    The CIA/DoD were not big fans of giving the Libyan “Rebels” the shoulder fired missile capacity from the outset. The CIA out of fear of passenger aircraft being targeted, and the DoD because they rightly knew the missiles would eventually be used against our troops in other areas. Looking at what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, they were right.

    After the Benghazi assassination of Stevens the realized fears of both CIA and DoD became a risk to both Hillary Clinton and President Obama. [Both Obama and Clinton were sympatico on arming the rebels – they made it happen].

    • sigrid28

      The more elaborate the lies, the less substantial the conspiracy “theory,” proving it is just that, a theory, not a fact. I say, let the investigations continue, so that every cause of these deaths of Americans can be fully understood. Meanwhile, the numbers of voters identifying as Republicans will continue to decline as baseless accusations by Republicans in Congress are exposed for what they are. These hearings and the theatrics of Republicans at them will do nothing to improve the numbers identifying as Republican and drive away moderates and independents.

      Republicans by taking up time with this bogus activity, will continue to refuse to legislate. The public will become more and more enraged about a continuing lack of jobs and failure to attend to other important matters, such as collapsing bridges and roads falling apart, when Congress could have passed a by-partisan bill like the American Jobs Act (creating up to 2,000,000 jobs). Republicans in Congress openly state that they refuse to go to conference on the budgets passed in the House and Senate to bring about by-partisan solutions to avoid funding the government from crisis to crisis, to bring about more jobs by tossing out the Sequester, and by further stimulating the economy (up to 1,000,000 jobs). All voters can see that the jobs we need are within reach, with Republican obstructionism the only thing standing in the way of employment and greater job security.

  • sndman1964

    Getting rid of the treasonous baggers is this country’s only hope.

    • plc97477

      Getting everyone out to vote is how we do that.

    • ID-2


  • Democrats seldom do well in midterm elections, and with more Dems and Republicans running for re-election next year, the tide is against us. The truth is that the GOP is a lot better at rallying the troops – and voting – than the Democratic is. We get energized when a competent candidate is running for office – usually for President – Republicans get energized when their party feeds them the red meat they want to hear. The so-called “scandals” are not an accident. GOP leaders concluded that since they cannot run on their record and their candidates are unacceptable to most Americans, their only recourse is to tarnish the image and record of one of the best presidents we ever had, and at the same derail the candidacy of a woman they know will win by a landslide if she decides to run.

    • sigrid28

      Dominick, could it be that the number of Republican voters, rabid as they are, is diminishing, because of demographics and frustration among potential Republican voters, such as moderates and Independents, who are at their wits’ end over obstructionism in Congress? As a phone bank volunteer who called other swing states after our swing state seemed to be going Democratic during the 2012 election, I thought the individuals targeted for calling and the information available may have helped the other swing states I called go Democratic. Information based campaigning can have a stimulating effect right at home, where some Democrats become complacent or whatever it is that keeps them home during mid-term elections. I do agree completely that holding the Senate and winning the House will be a very tough climb.

      • jointerjohn

        The single strongest demographic group for democratic support is young adults. They are repulsed by the republican party’s anti-science, anti-gay, anti-women, bible-thumping positions. Unfortunately they are also the most unreliable voters when it comes to showing up at the polls. They were the difference between 2008 and 2010 results. Engage voters between ages 18 and 25 and democrats win. Fail to engage them and republicans win. In the state in which I live, republican election authorities suppress voting on college campuses because they know this to be true.

    • neeceoooo

      And the American people have a very short attention span and they forget promises not kept, lies or even discrepancies from previous politicians.

  • RobertCHastings

    Obama made a big mistake with ACA in that he did (and has) not push to educate the public. If people want to find out about the timeline for ACA implementation, they have to do some research and, considering that millions in this country STILL do not have access to the Internet and DO NOT have the skills required to do some simple research, this genuinely beneficial Act is suffering. Obama, as the chief proponent of ACA and as president of this country owes it to all Americans to adequately educate us on the benefits of ACA. Because of his failure in this area, it is all to easy for the opposition to demonize him and his program, and to convince America that it as an expensive, wasteful boondoggle.

    • plc97477

      I am not sure what you expect him to do. I know some low information voters, they are low information because they like it that way. I have heard them complain that politics gets in the way of their favorite tv shows. They will turn off any speeches on tv, they will not go to rallies, they just really don’t want to know the truth.

      • RobertCHastings

        At the time he was pushing ACA through Congress, it was very clear that while the Democrats, who at that time controlled both houses of Congress, were excited about the ACA, the Republicans were making great headway with the general public’s ignorance about the Act. And, in the intervening years, the administration has not done very much to improve the public’s knowledge and understanding. Obama would benefit greatly by conducting an around-the-country tour explaining this si9gnature piece of legislation, before the next presidential election lest this confusing and divisive Act become THE main point of the election, and the repeal of it become a major legislative push for the Republicans.
        Don’t get me wrong, I am one of his biggest fans, and I do not hide it even though I live in a very Republican county. And I and my family will benefit greatly once the ACA is fully implemented (as will millions of Americans, if not all Americans). But if people do not have a reasonable understanding of how it will benefit them, personally, they have no incentive to support it, especially when the oposition is so effectively portraying it as an expensive boondoggle.

        • plc97477

          You are right but if the unwashed masses refuse to listen to Obama how are we to make sure they understand what it is. I am hoping that when it is implemented and people see just what is in it it will stop being so taboo. I think the repugs know that and are trying to get rid of it before it gets going.

          • RobertCHastings

            Something that might help would a big media blitz everytime some new aspect of ACA comes on line. Those who are benefiting right now from ACA (like college students who can remain on their parents’ insurance) should be paraded before the cameras and touted as success stories. I am sure many people would love to at least do that much for their country. And when the states or Congress fall down in their responsibilities under ACA, that also should become headlines. Only about half the states (none in the Deep South) have set up their “marketplaces”. This year alone will see four implementations of various aspects of ACA, while many more will come next year.

  • demhack

    Of course the author is hopped up on dope

  • ID-2

    Leaving the GOP does not equal not supporting them in an election.

    This article makes a lot of questionable assertions starting with the fact that a lot of people view the economy well (tell that to a recent CNN survey sample). Second, Republicans will nominate a bunch of crazies. Does Capito in WV and Rounds in SD sound crazy to you? Don’t forget Cassidy in LA. Third, the literature and research on disenfranchised voting groups shows they rarely consistently show up to vote. Hard to see how they show up for Obamacare, especially when they are NOT paying for it but the other taxpayers of their state is. Fourth, since when have poor whites voted against their economic interests? That is a Democratic talking point. Sure, the GOP needs to change but this article is really wishful thinking and inaccurate at its core.

  • David Mahan

    Good article. Republicans have 249 house seats
    Gained at least 8 Senate seats and gained in State seats. Spot on totally wrong on your points