It was as if the editorial board over at the Washington Post suddenly stopped what they were doing, looked up from their work, and dropped their jaw as a (rare) coherent thought suddenly manifested inside their collective brains.
“Wait a minute…” they muttered, as the thought of Obama using executive action played over and over again in their minds. “If he can change the law unilaterally,” a gradual expression of horror engulfed their faces, “then if Republicans end up winning in 2016, they could just -- ”
I imagine the rest of that thought was almost unbearable for the liberal clones of Ezra Klein to articulate. But they did manage to spell it out in an Editorial:
Democrats urging President Obama to “go big” in his executive order on immigration might pause to consider the following scenario: It is 2017. Newly elected President Ted Cruz (R) insists he has won a mandate to repeal Obamacare. The Senate, narrowly back in Democratic hands, disagrees. Mr. Cruz instructs the Internal Revenue Service not to collect a fine from anyone who opts out of the individual mandate to buy health insurance, thereby neutering a key element of the program.
Whoa, whoa… How did the Senate swing back to the Dems? Oh, that’s right: Obama implemented amnesty. (Dems must have rode the wave of that all-important “illegal voter” wave.) The Post’s hypothetical world (where their “birther” concerns aren’t enough to derail a Ted Cruz Presidential campaign) brings up a pretty good point: If working with Congress is suddenly deemed optional, what would stop those evil Republicans from implementing a little executive action of their own next time they’re in power?
Recommended
It’s almost too much fun to imagine the nuclear meltdown that would take place in the Leftist media if a GOP President decided to use Obama’s patented style of governance to repealing the contraception mandate, neuter Obamacare, and reinforce immigration law. Heck… With just a phone and a pen the newly elected President could erase much of Obama’s legacy. The mere thought of such actions undoubtedly send some liberals into blind hysterics…
Which is why they should probably stop cheerleading for King Obama. After all, it was only a mere paragraph later that the editorial board at the Wash Po decided to “warn” Republicans about being obstinate:
It would not be rational for Republicans to spurn compromise in [some] areas just because Mr. Obama acts unilaterally in others; but it is entirely foreseeable.
For being an editorial board, I don’t think these folks have a solid handle on the English language. If there is only one side “compromising”, isn’t that considered a surrender? But their larger point, warning against setting a new precedent for executive power, should be well taken.
It was somewhat refreshing to see a traditionally Leftist paper balance their enthusiasm for amnesty with a little pragmatism. Sure… The Wash Post editorial board still has a ways to go before they start waiving the Gadsden flag and calling for Obama’s impeachment, but at least they seem to understand that Americans vote for representatives, rather than Kings.
(Of course, there is also an outside chance that they are simply terrified of a Ted Cruz Presidency.)
Join the conversation as a VIP Member