Democracts are still insisting that a law already amended by executive action is sacred. It's. The. Law. Nothing can change. Senate Majority Leader Reid said that just yesterday. The Consitution is a living, breathing document that can be reinterpreted at will, but Obamacare is written in stone with only the question of original intent a valid template of analysis?
I may not be convinced that this tactic is the smart thing to do--although I don't pretend to know how it will end up--but it is clearly not illegal.
After dehumanizing the conservative opposition, at least one writer is ready to employ any means necessary (tip to Instapundit) to break the impasse:
[The New Republic]’s house Twitter account fantasizes of tank strikes on the GOP today.
The advice was attached to a picture of a Soviet BMP infantry fighting vehicle in front of what I believe was the Russian Republic's parliament building, scorched from being fired upon in the coup attempt that Yeltsin defeated.
And that's the really funny part. Yeltsin faced a communist coup attempt to save the Soviet Union. Just who's the left wing in our drama?
Amazing. It seems just like yesterday that Democrats loudly (very loudly) proclaimed that "dissent is patriotic" as they attempted to end the Iraq War short of victory. To be clear, they wanted our defeat in the war and the enemy's victory.
And this despite the fact that it's. the. law.
And now, lawful resistance to a domestic law is viewed by the left as so out of bounds that violent suppression of opponents is a fine analogy to make. As Instapundit commented, "I’m beginning to think that lefties don’t believe there’s any sort of legitimate opposition."
Yes, I know, these are just words. The author isn't literally calling for the president to call in the troops (I hope not, anyway). But if a conservative did the same thing, we'd be having a national conversation on civility and hateful words that incite violence.
UPDATE: I will say that if military logic can be applied to the situation, it is often better to resolutely carry through a mediocre plan to conclusion than to rapidly switch plans that don't bring immediate success in search of the perfect plan. So pulling the trigger on a shut down and then surrendering soon after may be far worse than caving before the shut down. And once begun, perhaps Republicans should look for ways to make this plan succeed.
And given that only 6.6% of EPA employees are considered "essential" and so not affected by the shut down, perhaps the Republicans should pass a funding bill that only fully funds essential employees and then tell Nancy Pelosi that perhaps in that vast mass on non-essential employees and functions perhaps there really is something that can be cut.
UPDATE: Perhaps Republicans can win by making sure that people know that the immediate dispute isn't about "denying people affordable health insurance" as our president twists the issue. The issue over the continuing resolution on funding is much simpler right now:
This CR doesn’t defund Obamacare, or even delay it for a year. All it does is delay the individual mandate for a year and restore the originally-intended treatment of Congress under Obamacare. In other words, every Senate Democrat – including several from conservative-leaning states who are up for re-election -- would rather shut down the government than give working Americans the same one-year break from Obamacare that big businesses have gotten from the administration, or be treated like other Americans under Obamacare’s rules.
Obviously, Republicans want to repeal Obamacare. And more people disapprove of the law than approve, so that is hardly a coup attempt, eh? But can Democrats really defend opposition to these amendments on the slippery slope ground and make it stick?
I'm no political guy who can advise on political tactics. So I freely admit that I'm merely offering semi-informed opinions out of my lane.
