Image 01 Image 03

Will Obama go rogue? (Reader Poll)

Will Obama go rogue? (Reader Poll)

All he has left is his legacy.

The most dangerous two years are upon us, as Obama has nothing to lose but his legacy.

Preserving that legacy, as unpopular as it has proven to be, is all he has now. Obama himself said his policies were on the ballot. And the people spoke last night, rejecting those policies.

Obama has gutted the Democratic Party. It is a party without a younger generation of leadership.

The supposed rising female stars who were to lead the War on Women battle charge were wiped out last night — Wendy Davis, Alison Grimes, Mary Burke. Add to them the loss of Kay Hagan and the likely December runoff loss for Mary Landrieu.

Last night, by contrast, saw the rise of Elise Stefanik, Mia Love, Joni Ernst, and numerous other Republicans who are the future of the party, joining other next generation leaders from the 2010 wave.

In a party devoid of a short term future, Obama has a choice — give up at least some of his legacy, or go rogue, using his executive powers to continue to push his agenda despite the wave election rejecting his policies.

Politico suggests there will be no pivot.

What’s it gonna be?

Will Obama go rogue?

Poll open until midnight Pacific Time today


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The real question you should be asking is:

“What will President Jarrett do?”

As Bush would say, she’s the ‘decider’. O’s just the teleprompter reader.

    snopercod in reply to Aarradin. | November 5, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Another real question is whether the Milquetoasts of the GOPe will stop him, or just wring their hands and whimper as has been their custom.

      NavyMustang in reply to snopercod. | November 5, 2014 at 10:02 am

      THIS is what concerns me the most.

      Cruz may attempt to mount an opposition.

        Cruz has committed to trying, and KUDOS to him for doing so.

        But the establishment GOP sees him as a thorn in their side as much as the Dems do. Most of them won’t support him (or can’t/won’t be seen supporting him), so unless he’s the actual chair of influential committees, his opposition will likely fizzle out quickly.

        Just more proof that the establishment GOP is as big a problem as the “Progressive” Dems.

        MarkS in reply to Rick. | November 5, 2014 at 1:04 pm

        Cruz will attempt and the panty waists (aka McConnell & Boehner) will thwart his efforts

      The bigger question is: when we will boot-out the Milquetoasts we tolerate at the head of the GOP?

      Winning the election we just did and tolerating the likes Boehner and Prebus is sheer idiocy.

I think an argument could be made that he has always *been* rogue.

He is compiling his list of staffers and department heads for his “will get pardoned” list. He will definately and officially go rogue with the media backing him. What a great payday the media had this cycle.

Humphrey's Executor | November 5, 2014 at 8:56 am

With a stroke of pen he could pardon all illegals and, I presume, their relatives waiting to join them. But I think he’s too chickensh*t because of the blow back, including many from his own party.

    No, he really couldn’t. He simply does not have that power.

      Lina Inverse in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 10:05 am

      Ragspierre: I think you’re right. He could perhaps pardon them for their past crimes, but going forward, they’re still illegally in the US, still committing crimes like ID fraud to stay and work here, etc.

        Ragspierre in reply to Lina Inverse. | November 5, 2014 at 10:16 am

        There’s another, I think larger, impediment.

        A president can pardon persons. He cannot pardon a class of people. No president could, for instance, pardon all people in Federal pens for possession of smoking dope UNLESS individual pardons were issued to individual persons.

          Humphrey's Executor in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 10:33 am

          When Carter pardoned the draft dodgers, the pardon was given to anyone who asked for it (with exceptions for deserters and violent protesters). So, yeh, there was an application process.

          Obama can and will do whatever he chooses will the comfort of knowing that the Repubs will never obstruct his efforts.

          Voyager in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 11:01 pm

          Laws haven’t exactly slowed him down in the past, and he is the head of the branch that enforces the laws.

          Whether or not he could make it still past his tenure, he could simply announce all illegals are pardoned, and then direct the executive branch to act as though they were. Even if it got over-turned in the end, it would take years to untangle.

      Humphrey's Executor in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 10:18 am

      Carter, you may recall, gave a blanket pardon to the Vietnam draft evaders. I see no reason Obama could not do the same for all illegals.

        To get Carter’s pardon, each individual had to apply. It was a “person” thing, not a class thing. Nobody just said, “Come home…all is forgiven. Just take up your life.”

        AND I it was unconstitutional, but Carter got away with it because it was about the war, and the Collective had made America tired of the whole deal.

        My reasoning on the constitutional aspects of it revolves around this; Congress makes the criminal law, and the president may sign or veto it. Once enacted, for a president to issue pardons of whole classes of people would be to defeat the power of congress to make the laws. The pardon power was, I assert, intended to provide a means to extend clemency to individuals who deserved it, or where there was an apparent miscarriage of justice, or even where the public good would be benefited (as in the Ford pardon).

        It could, conceivably, if used to pardon whole criminal populations, create a cadre of criminals beholden to that president. I doubt the Founders ever intended it to extend to a whole class of people, and especially NOT citizen people.

          Humphrey's Executor in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 11:40 am

          No question it will be a battle. Congress can try to withhold funds for the administrative process of handling all the pardon applications but Obama has to sign the bill doing that. As to your point of constitutionality, the president’s pardon power is in the constitution. It’s a broad power. To get his crown back King Charles II agreed to pardoned the entire parliamentary army who deposed his father (except of course the “regicides” — the 50 some fellows who signed Charles I’s death warrant). That’s relevant because the pardon power is not defined in the constitution so the courts will look to precedents like that. I see no reason why Obama could not, as a constitutional matter, offer a pardon to all illegals for entering the country illegally. As a policy matter, it would be a disaster.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm

          I appreciate the breadth of the power, but I persist in my positions. It was never intended to be so broad as to vitiate the powers of the other branches. It was certainly never intended to gut the notion of citizenship, and I doubt very much the Supremes would stand for it being used that way.

          I appreciate the historical precedent, but also point out that it is itself exceptional. It was used to heal an existential wound in the English body politic, not to revolt against the body politic. And that’s what Barracula would be doing, and even he knows it.

          On a different level, this would bring about an insurrection in the states, and among the people. It could get really ugly, and I’d hate to see some of the reactions that this could prompt.

          Something I’ve been thinking…if the states along the border (sans Kuhlifornia, of course) were to simply put militia down to seal off the border, it would force Barracula to back off or deploy troops there himself. I’d like the governors to push that.

          Lina Inverse in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 1:52 pm

          Humphrey’s Executor’s example is important, for the President’s pardon power was intended to among other things allow him to settle civil wars peacefully. The recent example of Charles II might have have even been part of the inspiration for it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 2:12 pm

          Yes…settle, in extremis…civil wars.

          NOT start civil wars.

    Before he goes and pardons illegals he needs to take a close look at the results from deep blue Oregon on an initiative to give illegals drivers licenses.

    OR Measure 88 – Driver Card
    Yes 401,473 33%
    No 824,823 67% W

    In Portlandia they passed every other leftwing idea but strongly said no to this initiative. It gives a real sense of what even deep blue thinkers (?) think about illegals.

      Some leftist federal judge will decide, after lots of thought and analysis, that measure 88 is unconstitutional.

      Clinger in reply to Anchovy. | November 5, 2014 at 11:44 am

      AND, don’t forget, we can now buy and smoke DOPE legally…we are just so progressive…


      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Anchovy. | November 5, 2014 at 3:54 pm

      The progs who work for a living care about illegal aliens as it relates to jobs, wages, and tax expenditures. The progs who don’t care are the ones who don’t work (many), although a few may have enough sense to worry about the diseases being brought in by illegals, especially if they have kids in school.

    A president can pardon someone for something they have done and for which they have been accused or convicted, but he cannot pardon them for what they will do, or what they have done but have not be accused or convicted of. For example, most illegals in the United States, by virtue of their presence here, have not been arrested and deported, therefore they cannot be pardoned for the crime.

    More importantly, you cannot pardon a person for future crimes, and illegal immigrants are in a state of ongoing commission of crime by remaining in the US illegally. The only way to relieve that condition is to change the law, which the presnit can’t do unilaterally. The crime isn’t crossing the border, it’s being in the US without permission, and as such cannot be pardoned. Illegals can only be pardoned if they leave the country.

      Lina Inverse in reply to Immolate. | November 5, 2014 at 10:07 am

      What about Ford’s pardon of Nixon?

      I don’t remember anyone at the time saying “let’s just wait until the next President takes office to prosecute him”.

        Immolate in reply to Lina Inverse. | November 5, 2014 at 10:40 am

        Nixon’s impeachment proceedings were underway. He was “accused” in a meaningful sense, and therefore could be pardoned for the underlying acts that resulted in the proceedings. He was not continuing to commit crimes at that point, at least that we know of.

          tom swift in reply to Immolate. | November 5, 2014 at 11:06 am

          If a President is believed to have committed a crime, he must be removed from office before he can be arrested, charged, or tried. The impeachment process is how he is removed from office.

          Impeachment is not itself the prosecution or conviction for the crime.

          Nixon was not impeached. He resigned, making impeachment irrelevant. However, after he was no longer President, he was not arrested, charged, or tried for any crime, and that made pardon irrelevant as well.

          Ford’s strange pardon for a non-crime was an effective though clumsy way to kill the whole political and legal issue. Although probably appropriate at the time, it established a Constitutionally unforeseen precedent which will doubtless come back to bite the Republic in the ass, since it muddled the boundaries of the President’s pardon powers and opened the doors to further novel interpretations and abuses.

          tom swift’s argument is a better articulation of what I was going to write, which was: what difference does it make to obama whether such a pardon is legal or not legal?

      Patriot2112 in reply to Immolate. | November 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm

      That is all true but, if a blanket pardon is issued , in co;njunction with the number of recently latino & muslim judges who are beholding to Obama for their positions. Even if border agents bring someone to the point where it reaches the threshold of a deportation hearing, the judges in question willsimply dismiss the case. On CSPAN live right now in one of the DC hotel co. nference rooms the National Press Club is hosting , the Latino Victory Project, America’s Voice and the National Council of La Raza. They are crowing about the “tremendous Latino turnout”. Couple this with The American Latino Elected & Appointed (TALEO) Council of Hispanic Congressional Caucus CHCC or AMJA American Muslim Jurist Association. These groups are comprised of government employees & elected officials.
      Unless the Republicans use their thin majority to start pressing charges on those Latinos who as a matter of course use their offices & US government assets to fund raise & as call centers to get the word out. There are at least 7 latino .orgs that are using the offices of our government to subvert the immigration laws.
      So while you are correct when you say that pardons can’t be given to someone who hasn’t yet been arrested for a crime. There are literally thousands off legal latino citizens that cash Goevrnment checks who are actively engaged in breaking abuse of office & other laws in furtherance of illegal aliens breaking our immigration laws.

    “…he’s too chickensh*t…”

    I see what you did there! 😉

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Humphrey's Executor. | November 5, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    Very good analysis. We still have a big fight ahead of us.

    As for obola, he’s been “rogue” since day one, intent o destroying this country. He will become more brazen as more and more of the populace tune him out an look to the ‘pubs to straighten things out. Are the ‘pubs up to it? I seriously doubt it. The best we can hope for is that they find their voices and demonstrate to the public through their actions to undo, repeal or modify obola’s acts of destruction as well as his illegal acts.

    Nothing has stopped obola thus far from advancing his agenda through executive orders, edicts from the high command, presidential directives and “mandates”, be they legal, illegal or extralegal. Will the ‘pubs impeach? Or will they cower from the media’s race card?

    I say they’ve not given any reason to think it’s not the latter. They weren’t elected because they have any great ideas. They were elected out of fear and loathing of obola.

The American people have failed him, so he will seek to replace them with those more to his liking.

    Patriot2112 in reply to RCosta. | November 5, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    Maybe, in a fit of despondency he will throw himself under a bus one can hope 😉

      I just had a vision of the final episode of The Sopranos, and Phil Leotardo’s head getting run over. One can hope for change.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Patriot2112. | November 6, 2014 at 1:00 am

      If obola becomes more disengaged and depressed than he already is (his huge ego is very likely in shambles right now), and neglects his responsibilities more than he already has, and begins to demonstratively behave or speak irrationally, there should be a case made for his fitness for office.

    mariner in reply to RCosta. | November 5, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    He’s already been doing that for almost all of 2014.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to RCosta. | November 7, 2014 at 4:08 am

    I think he will get his full Hate-America vindictive on and use every resource he can muster achieve it, all the while blaming ‘pubs. He will underpin that will be his contempt for American hicks in the hinterlands

    His narcissism, ego, defiance, arrogance and, most of all, hatred for this country cannot allow anyone with his apparent personality disorders to do otherwise.

    It will be that or complete withdrawal and disengagement with congress and Americans’ concerns. Ear plugs and golfing, and in-our-face lavish vacations.

After the election he said he was “irritated but didn’t feel repudiated”. With that mindset, what do you think he will do? One hope we can cling to is that some Democrats will finally see the problem and start voting for their country rather than their party. Surely there are some who are not as ignorant as their leader.

    Ragspierre in reply to gasper. | November 5, 2014 at 9:31 am

    No. It has never been about ignorance. The Collective is doing what it has intended to do, and don’t expect the people who have sustained Dirty Filthy Harry Reid in his outrages to suddenly become anything BUT the wreakers they’ve been for years.

    There are a few…and a damned few…who will turn to more civil ways. A couple might be inclined to switch parties after last night, but the main body will now join in finding new ways to screw up the country, lie about conservatives, and hunt for new ways to smear us with the public.

      Agreed. What part of “fundamentally transform” is so hard to comprehend?

      I think many voters were ignorant, or wracked by white guilt, or had some other mental affliction that caused them to disregard those words or ascribe some other meaning to them.

      But Obama has never been “ignorant.” He is plowing full steam ahead with Cloward-Piven.

      I fear Ragspierre is correct. To the leftists this is simply a lost skirmish. Their war to destroy America will continue.

    tom swift in reply to gasper. | November 5, 2014 at 11:15 am

    will finally see the problem and start voting for their country rather than their party

    When was the last time that actually happened?

    The last time I can think of was when Chester Arthur became President after the death of Garfield. Chester apparently decided that his life as one of the most ferocious “machine” politicians of his century should end, and that it was time to straighten out and fly right. But that was a while ago.

    And besides, Chester was a Republican.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to gasper. | November 6, 2014 at 1:05 am

    I think he’s always hated this country, especially the middle class. I think he will lash out at middle America.

    Things could get real ugly, especially if the ‘pubs capitulate in a big enough way. The more they cave, the more he will push. People are reaching their breaking point as it is.

DINORightMarie | November 5, 2014 at 9:27 am

This is sweet!

Sandra Fluke lost her state senate run, too. So sad, too bad. #suckit!!

So many wins; still waiting on recounts for Bongino and VA Senate (I don’t hold out hope, but it’s possible – just look what happened with MN and Frankin in 2008 ….oh, wait!!) 😉

Today is a good day. Morning in America, again.

Empress Trudy | November 5, 2014 at 9:29 am

Something akin to Martial Law, I suspect. Or at the least an Imperial Presidency that no longer pretends to acknowledge the existence of the other two branches of government.

    snopercod in reply to Empress Trudy. | November 5, 2014 at 9:33 am

    That’s probably why he is actively bringing Ebola to the U.S. – so he can declare a “health emergency”.

      Lina Inverse in reply to snopercod. | November 5, 2014 at 10:15 am

      The big disadvantage with that is that the action for handing public health emergencies is almost all at the state and county/city level. It’s very questionable it would get catastrophic enough for major extra-legal Federal action before the importation problem would be solved by state level quarantines of all likely to be possibly exposed travelers.

      And what could he do that would actually advance his agendas? Well, besides further bankrupting a bunch of hospitals etc.

So is impeachment back on the table again?

    Immolate in reply to snopercod. | November 5, 2014 at 10:11 am

    Sure, chief up there on the list of “how to rehabilitate a failed presidency”. We can martyr him. Bill Clinton part deaux. Takes a super-majority to convict right?

    Right or wrong, the next two years are about battle-space prep for 2016. Legislatively we accomplish that by passing common-sense legislation and sending it up to the president to veto, and by doggedly pursuing the worst of the administration’s abuses (F&F, IRS) where there is a clear and simple narrative: Americans killed by weapons DoJ put in bad guys hands; IRS chose sides in an election and changed the result. Benghazi is a scandal of incompetence, and as such doesn’t make people want to vote conservative unless the Democrat nominee is Hillary Clinton.

      I tend to agree with you about a run at impeachment ‘martyring’ him.

      However, I think there are some circumstances that could make it possible. Executive amnesty might do it (see drivers-license vote in Oregon), and a full-blown epidemic of Ebola or EV86 coupled with continued open-borders might just anger enough people to force enough Dems to cut their losses. Although putting Drunken Uncle Joe in the White House hardly seems like “cutting ones losses”, does it? Yuck.

      I can also imagine some massive shit-storms coming out of his litany of scandals now that Hairy Reed isn’t there to play defense for him. However, there isn’t much time to get to the bottom of those scandals… I imagine the main result there will be a bloated pardons list as the prick leaves office.

      But one can hold onto hope that there will be a change. Perhaps enough dirt will come out of F&F, Benghazi, NSA snooping, IRS targeting, or from under some other rug, to force him to resign in disgrace. That would be the best outcome of all… to force him to eat his own shit in public and admit he is a fucking failure.

        Immolate in reply to Paul. | November 5, 2014 at 10:45 am

        I think we’re better off putting some of the criminal scandals on a slow burn so that any indictments or convictions happen post-Obama. if Holder is convicted of fraud, obstruction, etc., he should serve time for it as a warning to future AG’s not to politicize the office, not earn six figures every couple of weeks for speeches in friendly venues.

        Not sure if it’s possible to do that with F&F though.

Rouge? Been that. He’s going to go full on marxist.

One of the bellwethers to look for in reading Pres. ScamWOW going forward will be his pick for the new AG to replace the criminal Eric HOlder.

Just HOW outrageous the nominee is will tell us a lot.

    Immolate in reply to Ragspierre. | November 5, 2014 at 10:13 am

    Yes, it tells us just how destructive the lame duck Senate is willing to be under the assumption that it will all be forgotten and forgiven by 2016.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 5, 2014 at 9:56 am

He has shown NO inclination toward compromise. No doubt in my mind he’s going rogue. He will push the envelop farther in the next two years than any president except perhaps FDR.

Random thoughts:

1) I think there’s a pretty strong chance that Joe Manchin changes parties, giving Republicans an even larger cushion. Real Clear Politics has video of an interview he did with Tingles and he sure sounds like a man not happy with the Democrat Party’s war on coal. He’s seen the rapid transformation of his state, and it’s unlikely he can win re-election as a Democrat if he keeps voting with Democrats.

2) Given how well Republican governors did, there must have been a massive and historic realignment down ballot. That can only be a good thing for Republicans in future elections. So much for the mindless media groupthink that the Republican Party can no longer win AND doing everything in its power to move the Republican Party leftward. Now Republicans have to prove they are not Democrat-lite. I’m skeptical Republicans can do that. I hope I’m wrong.

3) I can’t see how Harry Reid can run for re-election in ’16. He has been instrumental in losing their majority and destroying the Democrat Party in a mere six years. I would not be surprised to see him resign soon to begin his new career as a near octogenarian multi-millionaire lobbyist.

    Given how well Republican governors did….

    Discount the Blue state ones, except perhaps for Illinois where their version of the party is fairly competitive, and even a lot of downstate Democrats aren’t doctrinaire liberals (see the pretty easy passage of the court mandated shall issue concealed carry law). Blue states and cities have a pattern of electing Republican executives when things are bad and getting rid of them later.

    Wisconsin is interesting, not only did Scott Walker win his 3rd election in 4 years, the Republicans added to the state Senate majority and retained their House one—and all this in the face of a brutal suppression of the state’s conservative civil society that makes the IRS. Still too early to say, but it sure seems to have at least turned Purple if not Red.

    Hmmm, I’ll bet that Walker’s smashing of much of the Deep State/Democratic party apparatus by destroying most of the public sector unions is paying dividends. And maybe they should have focused a bit more on the state house, Walker living rent free in their heads looks to be a losing proposition.

      9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Lina Inverse. | November 5, 2014 at 12:01 pm

      “Discount the Blue state ones, except perhaps for Illinois where their version of the party is fairly competitive, and even a lot of downstate Democrats aren’t doctrinaire liberals (see the pretty easy passage of the court mandated shall issue concealed carry law).”

      The GOP in Illinois is moribund, not competitive. Their attempt to be competitive is limited to fear of social conservative issues and Mike Madigan. More than New York and California, Illinois suffers from an extreme dominance of Chicago politicians in the statehouse (half the state’s population lives in Cook county). Madigan’s daughter, Lisa, will either be the next Senator (replacing Kirk), or Governor after Rauner’s one term. The entire Chicago machine will seek to pin on Rauner every cut, pinch, or pivot needed to keep this state from a full-on slide into Detroit.

      The only reason that Illinois passed a concealed carry law (we’re number 50!) was because the Supreme Court finally addressed the basic tenet of the 2nd Amendment allowing personal firearm possession and use. Gun laws in this state are draconian, with more hoops to jump through than a three-ring circus; yet anyone can go to Chicago’s west side and purchase some firearm out of the trunk of a car or waistband of a thug. However, get your legally-purchased, permitted firearm home and odds are that your town will prohibit lawful discharge of same—and will prosecute you for it if you have the need to defend yourself. That’s the case in my town…you can own a gun but you can’t use it.

      Dick Durbin is as downstate as they come.

        Lina Inverse in reply to 9thDistrictNeighbor. | November 5, 2014 at 3:32 pm

        While what you say may be true, I’m using California as a comparison, where I think the Republicans are even more moribund and things are more dire.

        As for the concealed carry law change in Illinois, which is more like state number 43, it was forced by a Federal appeals court: Illinois decided to quit at that point and passed the new and not vile from what I’m hearing law (has even been used in Chicago!), whereas California looks like they’ll appeal it all the way along with D.C. (all other Federal circuits where this is an issue have ruled against it, and the Supreme Court has denied cert in each case).

          9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Lina Inverse. | November 5, 2014 at 7:03 pm

          I live in Illinois, do you?

          herm2416 in reply to Lina Inverse. | November 6, 2014 at 7:24 pm

          Like 9th, I, too, live in IL. We were the last state to approve concealed carry. How bad is Illinois…most Dems run unopposed, or the Republican opponent is a Madigan buddy, funded by Madigan/Cullerton/Berrios. This year’s ballot was shameful.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Lina Inverse. | November 6, 2014 at 12:35 am

      WI, MI, OH, IA and even IL (a bit) seem to be coming to their senses slowly.

      Can anyone explain WTH is wrong with MN? Good grief. Those people must have water on the brain from all those lakes.

      PA seems to be turning more and more blue while OH is gradually turning back to its original red. Those two used to be almost two peas in a pod, but no longer.

smalltownoklahoman | November 5, 2014 at 10:12 am

I think he will try to pass as much of his remaining agenda as he can via executive order. I’m really worried that he may even go scorched earth, attempting to do as much damage as he can with what little time he has left, maybe even going so far as to ruin the office for whoever comes after him. The republican controlled Congress needs to be ready to fight him as hard as they can in order to limit the amount of harm he will try to inflict upon this nation.

On the other, more positive, side, I hope to see a move by someone like Ted Cruz early on to kill ObamaDoggle.

If THAT ball is in the air, it will give Barracula something to think about BESIDES screwing up the nation worse.

I caught a short piece of Beck on with some guys last night (Beck’s channel), surmising that Obama would stuff the bureaucratic channels with regulations that would never go away, as per Cass Sunstein style. Something about “after 90 days it becomes law, and no one challenges that stuff”.

We have the IRS and EPA already going rogue, probably for the last two decades. So I don’t doubt a lot more damage can be done, and 5000 bureaucratic operatives like Lois Lerner will retain positions for their lifetime. Obama will carve Marxist policy into the furniture of the founding fathers, after already lighting a fire of unfunded liabilities with Medicaid and “free” health care for all Central America.

Obama has his minions working on destroying the structures, as was the plan with Obamacare in breaking down the private system. They openly admitted the path to “single payer” was the destruction of private insurance. The same with the phony green energy, the path to shutting down coal and cheap energy.

Maybe governors could convene and make some constitutional amendments to stop the federal government from coercing the states with their own damn money. The federal leviathan needs to be put back in its constitutional cage.

I think that Obama’s reaction will be to do as much damage as possible, with the maximum amount of school-yard outrage provocation, but that he will be tempered by those whose political careers will extend beyond January of 2017. Simple as that. How much influence those people can exert on him will determine just how big a tantrum he is able to throw.

    In the end, he may be ‘martyred’ by his own party, to limit the damage to the Dim brand.

      If the GOP were capable of running a competent campaign, they’d still be able to capitalize on that.

      Simply point out that right up until the point when the Dem incumbents “martyred” Prez 0, they supported everything he did. Paint them as modern-day Judas Iscariots, supporting party over principle (and principal, in this case), and standing with their leader until it’s more convenient (and profitable) to betray him to their enemies.

      The vast majority of Americans would understand that message, and it would spell the end of the Democrat party, IF the establishment GOP had the spine to run with it.

Sometimes, you can’t beat a good cartoon.

Which suggests a point…the Deemocrat’s sense of self-preservation may provide SOME anchor to Barracula. Collectivist though they are, they also can see the country is in no mood to be flucked with further.

The Obama Doctrine … “God Damn America”.
Could anyone state it more clearly than his close friend Rev. Wright?

Michelle was never proud of this country, Obama got his political start in the living room of a domestic terrorist. His first mentor was a communist watched by the FBI, his second supported the Sandinistas. He installed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and has supported Hamas.

He seems a lot like the Manchurian Candidate, though the book may have gotten a few details wrong. Barack Hussein Obama has no reason to abort his mission of “fundamental transformation of America”.

Obama simply doesn’t care enough to “go rogue.” He’ll pout for a bit. If the Republicans make some conciliatory gestures, such as passing comprehensive immigration reform, then he will accept that he has license to do whatever he wants. Otherwise, he’ll just go golfing and grumble about being surrounded by idiots.

Obama himself really hasn’t accomplished much. And he won’t accomplish much in the next two years.

He’s already inflicted considerable damage via his control of such things as the Executive Dept (think the perversion of DoJ, FBI, INS, Homeland Security, IRS, the Treasury), appointments to courts (such as useless drones like Sotomayor and Kagan), notably feeble and ineffectual foreign policy, and gutting of the military. This election changes none of that.

He still has the Bully Pulpit, but he’s failed to use it so far. He’s advanced no clever ideas, presented no convincing arguments, fired no enthusiasms. President Teleprompter ain’t no Teddy Roosevelt. This election won’t change that, either.

Everything else, such as Obamacare, and the shocking national debt, were acts of Congress. All Barry really did was sign on the dotted line. Without malevolent Democrats controlling Congress, there should be no more such perversions ending up on his desk, and what doesn’t end up on his desk he can’t sign into law.

The threats to rule by decree have so far been just that – threats. FDR closed private banks and carted Americans off to concentration camps by Executive Order. But President Teleprompter ain’t no Franklin Roosevelt, either. His constant bluster about reform amnesty has, so far, been nothing more than an attempt to stampede Boehner into doing something dumb, with notable lack of success. If Barry thought he could make it work, he would have done it already, and he’d have done it when it would have generated enough new Democratic votes to win this recent election. But he didn’t, and there’s no strong reason to believe that he’ll even try now.

He’ll probably take up a hobby. More golf, perhaps.

He’s already been rogue for 6 years now.

Obama will continue to talk a good game, but what the WH does from this point forward depends entirely upon whether the MSM continues to give him cover (unlikely) or they decide to hang the obvious failures of liberal ideology around his neck. They created the bastard and have over-invested in supporting him to the point of looking absolutely silly in the process, but somebody is going to have to be sacrificed in order for the ideology to survive and a new messiah be annointed/appointed. Their failures must be channeled and focused onto an individual, because the collective is NEVER going to admit the fantasy of their ideology. Just ain’t going to happen.

Notice what is completely absent today?

    Ragspierre in reply to Paul. | November 5, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Trolls. They both…

    1. have not gotten talking points, and…

    2. are blubbering in their beer.

Henry Hawkins | November 5, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Obama will have to commit some new offense to be impeached, or perhaps some new evidence will come out on an old one, but it will have to be so egregious, a clearly impeachable offense, that enough congressional Democrats sign on as well.

I think Obama plays small ball from here on out, little nips and nibbles with executive orders, daubing mud into the cracks all over his historical legacy. He has no power. Harry Reid’s Chief of Staff is publicly blaming Obama for the midterms already.

I think Obama is incapable of self-examination and lets the endless accolades of his acolytes suffice for his sense of self. He’ll be in denial of what changed last night until next summer when new GOP bills start hitting his desk, requiring veto after veto. America already noticed good bills stop in the Senate, so we got rid of Reid. Now America will see how it has only moved one step to the ultimate gridlocker: Obama, who will have to ignore public sentiments with every veto.

Plus, I suspect that Obama’s will be the political carcass the liberal media vultures ultimately settle on to blame for 2014, all the while pimping Warren and/or Hillary for 2016. Break out the one-legged duck jokes.

Obama is constitutionally incapable (pun intended) of compromise on any issue on which he has already taken a stand, nor can he admit defeat or error on anything of substance to him.

Obama = Icarus

    Another Voice in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 6, 2014 at 1:44 am

    Your projection on what the next 26 months of what we can expect to see coming out of the White House is straight on. It bears the markings of what is happening now, within his party and his “support” staff of aides. The sniping, off and on the record, from among those who have up till now been Obama’s go to people. The abyss will only get deeper and Obama hasn’t the character nor the ability to do differently than he has. If both houses present solid legislation at his door step which meets the criteria to deal with problems either ignored, mismanaged or buried by Reid, the onus will be on the democrats to defend in 2016. I don’t think anyone in the Senate of his party going into 2016 will want to take odds that they wouldn’t see a repeat of yesterday’s outcome if they continue to stand in solidarity with him. He might not like what they have to say, but he will be sacrificed if he refuses to hear.

DevilsPrinciple | November 5, 2014 at 2:09 pm

Jebus Crist, I wasn’t aware that Obama HAD or HAS a legacy? Who knew?

Subotai Bahadur | November 5, 2014 at 2:22 pm

The most dangerous two years are upon us, as Obama has nothing to lose but his legacy.

Preserving that legacy, as unpopular as it has proven to be, is all he has now.

The only legacy that he cares about is the destruction of the United States and its Constitution. He may well have succeeded already. But he has literally no barrier to completing that in the next two years if he decides he is not done.

He is going to effectively try to rule by decree. There will be no resistance from the Republicans, because they do not view him as they enemy. They believe that they have defeated their main enemy; conservatives and the TEA Party. To them, Cochrane’s win in Mississippi after they conspired with the Democrats against their own party is proof. McConnell long ago promised to destroy the TEA Party, and he also promised to give the filibuster back to the Democrats.

There are all sorts of flashpoints. Watch Connecticut. Malloy won re-election, so we can expect him to follow through on his gun confiscation promise under their registration and confiscation law. That is not going to go down peacefully.

In Colorado, it seems that the Democrat fraud machine kept Hickenlooper in office [barring Republican poll watchers in Boulder County, deliberate flaws in the mail in voting system that allow college students to frequently vote twice, documented efforts by Democrats to steal the ballots of those who decided not to vote and vote them, and of course more votes than people in several counties]. This means that his gun confiscation laws passed in his first term will not be repealed [non-PC guns are “grandfathered”, but when challenged by any government official you have to produce the original sales receipt immediately or they are confiscated]. Plus his attempts [with the Republicans] to repeal our Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

The vote yesterday was not an unmixed victory. It is more like ripping the scab off of the wound, and there are no unmixed happy endings.

Barry went rogue the moment he decided to run for office.