Show Me The Money.  Well Mr. Boehner…I guess the ball is in your court.  If you were to call time out and huddle up on courtside, hand me the clipboard and a marker, here is the play I would draw up: Tell them to show you the money.

Republicans have to face up to the fact that Obama was re-elected and that the Democrats held onto their majority status in the Senate.  Even though Obama’s victory was much, much closer (thin margin in almost every battleground state) than the Electoral College indicates, it was a victory nonetheless.  There is absolutely no way, if I were Boehner, one should allow the President to fight the upcoming legislative battles on the basis of rhetoric.  Mr. Boehner needs to keep his team together, communicate well, and do everything in his power to force the Democrats to put their ideas in writing.  This approach will result in one of two things.  First, nothing will happen because the Democrats will not create a paper trail of their positions that might come back to haunt them in two years and there will be endless discussion of blame assignment for the resulting gridlock, or….Second, Democratic proposals will be submitted to the floor, the Senate will pass them wholly, and the House will then grapple with the lost art of compromise.  Truly, therein lays the devil.  A certain amount of movement towards the President must be expected due to his successful campaign, but total capitulation will be almost impossible to swallow for most Republican Representatives. 

I would imagine the best approach for conservatives is a matter of conjecture; specifically, how will the economy perform under each scenario?  That, my friends, is truly the million dollar question.  Given the landscape we live in today, I would urge Mr. Boehner to boost team morale, know very well in advance what his limits on compromise are, and prepare for a long wait.

The Dilemma for Republicans.  Now that the election dust has settled, the big question for the markets, the business owners, and most everyone else who earns a paycheck is: Where do we go from here?  We had a divided government going into this cycle and there is nothing that has occurred that would lead one to believe that the division will be mitigated; in fact, it will likely worsen.  This President clearly feels empowered and mandated and shows every sign of pursuing full-bore his agenda; even to the point of heretofore never-seen explorations of executive privilege and power.  Perhaps the most important character to watch as this drama unfolds is not the President, but rather the majority leader in the House.  Mr. Boehner has a difficult job under the best of circumstances.  His rightwing group remains adamant in principle and unsatisfied with the performance of nominee Romney.  His moderate group has seen their credibility significantly diminished with the Romney loss.  His liberal group – well, he has no liberal group to speak of.  Mr. Boehner can continue to operate as he has over the past two years; seeking to derail any Administration or Senate action that he finds ideally objectionable through the use of majority levers or he can pursue a new tact of strategic surrender.   This new tact has been floated by a journalist or two and I find it to be quite interesting, if not well advised.  The thinking goes that the American voters clearly did not get the message that Democratic rule would ruin the country…economically, morally, and internationally.  It would continue that in order to conclusively drive this point home, House Republicans should basically roll over and let the Democrats have their way.  Certainly Ms. Pelosi, based on her recent comments, would gladly embrace this philosophy.  By doing do, Boehner and the Republicans lay the groundwork of clear accountability for the terrible consequences they see flowing from these Democratic policies.  By removing any semblance of Republican opposition, they will further clearly attach the practical results of the next two and four years to the Democrats.  It should also be carefully considered whether or not ceded ground in the name of accountability can be easily recovered in the name of consequence; that might be giving the American voter too much credit.  The other path would be to continue as he has over the last two years, operating within the limited bounds presented to a Republican House majority co-existing with a Democratic Senate and President; a formula that argues for a reactive rather than a proactive approach.  The problem with this approach, if doing your job as you were elected to do it is a problem, is that it leaves open the opportunity for the Democrats to claim obstructionism as the culprit if their agenda does not bear useful fruit. 

This situation is why I previously set forth that the best election results we could expect would be a single-party victory for Congress and the White House.  With that result, we would have eventually had a basis for clear accountability from a policy standpoint.  I fear what we will now have is a  continuation of the last two years; a muddled puddle of blame-shifting between the House, the Senate, and the President with each blaming the other for all the bad things that might happen and each falling over the other to take credit for the good things that might happen.  And…it will be left to the American voter to decide where the true blame or credit lies.  Good luck with that.

Post-Mortem Election Comment.  In my previous post, I made my election predictions and indicated my preferences.  My predictions were pretty terrible, as some (apparently the majority of those voting) might also categorize my preferences.  Whatever the case, here is a comment or two on the Tuesday outcome.

Regardless of your position on the policy debates that played out over this cycle, a very persuasive argument can be made that this presidential race was not won on the basis of policy, but rather on the basis of campaign aptitude.  That is not to say that many of the Obama voters did not embrace his policies; they did and they do.  I am simply suggesting that the “deciding” votes in the election were not based on policy questions that rise to the top of the national priority scale.  The plain and simple fact is that the Obama campaign was better at executing a winning strategy than was the Romney team.  Obama has the weight of his record to carry, but he also had the powers of incumbency to help bear the load.  Romney had the unenviable position of challenging an incumbent, but he was fighting an incumbent that was badly wounded by the state of the economy.  It could well be argued that the playing field was level.

Obama’s success in this race is tragic in the sense that it validates some of the worst aspects of the American electoral system.  As mentioned above, the “War on Women”, Romney’s record at Bain, and all the other misdirection that was thrown into the race likely resulted in the winning margin.  The fact that factual dishonesty, intentional deceit, unwillingness to directly address issues of top priority, and most of all, the shameful performance of the national media, resulted in this victory will do nothing to discourage its application in future political endeavors.   Rather, it will only encourage its future use.

This race, more than any other in my lifetime, placed two opposing views of our nation’s legitimate government role in clear and distinct contrast.  It is a monumental loss of opportunity that we did not have a straight and honest debate on these differing positions, both of which are valid in their own right.  I don’t think I am the only one wondering that had that more honest debate occurred, would the result have been the same.

State of the Race, 2 Days Out.  In my lifetime, this is certainly the most uncertain presidential race I have ever witnessed.  Being a rank amateur at election prognostication, I certainly don’t expect anyone to put much stock in what I predict.  Having said that, I will go ahead and state my expectation that Romney wins on Tuesday with 315 electoral votes.  I think he will win the popular vote by a count of 52 to 47, and I believe the Republicans will fall just short (a seat or two) of gaining control of the Senate.  The Republicans will retain control of the House.  If true, it is deeply regrettable that we will face the specter of a Republican President and House repeatedly knocking heads with a Democrat Senate; continued gridlock is not the electoral solution that I and many others were seeking this cycle.  It will certainly put the bipartisan skills (so highly touted by himself) of Romney to the test and will essentially guarantee (not a bad thing, in my opinion) that any legislation that passes will be center-right and not far-right.

For all of its venom, hypocrisy, and factual ineptitude, this campaign has served this nation well.  Two distinctly different visions have been set before the American voting public and any voter who has made any attempt to be self-informed has no excuse for not understanding the consequences of their vote.   We will get the Government we deserve. 

I personally believe that Romney clearly represents the best opportunity for this nation to get back on the right track towards attaining fiscal stability and vibrant economic health; I leave foreign policy status to those who are more informed and more intelligent.  However, for all of its pitfalls and clumsiness, our election process works.  If Obama is re-elected, with the likelihood in that instance of a Democrat Senate, the Democratic Party will be held clearly and directly accountable for the state of this nation over the next four years and that will establish the tone of the 2016 election cycle (notwithstanding the 2014 cycle).  Whatever your policy position, this is as it should be.  A party should be held accountable for its agenda and stand ready to accept either the benefits of success or the recriminations of failure. 

The puzzling thing to me is this: Given that Obama had a Democrat Senate and House for his first two years in office, along with the overwhelming good will of the American voting public, why would anyone expect any different agenda for a second term?  And if the foregoing statement is true, why in the world would anyone want to lock-in the current condition for the next four years?