According to Jonah Goldberg’s column, the Founding Fathers would want President Obama to fail. While that sounds absurd, Jonah makes the case this way:

In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, “may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.”

For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63:

“There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”

Now is the time for the salutary interference of temperate and respectable citizens, otherwise known as the 41 Republicans in the United States Senate. It is their job to help the president in areas where there is widespread agreement that he should be helped, and hold the line on everything else.

Of course the economy is in crisis. But if Obama had his way, everything would be treated as if it were a crisis. Health care is a crisis. The environment is a crisis. Education is a crisis. In truth, those other areas are not crises, and the Senate’s job is to delay action on them until Obama’s power to stir popular passions fades. Then, whatever legislation is truly needed on health care, etc., can be undertaken in a more reasoned and measured way.

QUESTION: If President Obama says something is a crisis, is he required to provide proof that he isn’t telling us a tall tale?

Here’s how crisis is defined by Dictionary.com:

1. a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.
2. a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change.

Is health care at the point where what’s done now will determine “all future events”? Will holding off on global warming legislation bring about a “condition of instability or danger”? To those that answered yes to either question, I’d recommend that you think things through better. To those of you who answered yes to both questions, I’d ask that you return to your institution immediately so you can be properly medicated.

In our current situation, the people elected Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities in Congress. They didn’t elect them to do nothing. When action is needed to deal with the economic crisis…it would be nice to have a financial stabilization plan, Mr. President…they will support it.

But they didn’t elect Obama to change everything, either. With Pelosi eager to go along with the president’s every wish, it’s up to temperate and respectable citizens to distinguish the crisis from the non-crisis, and act accordingly.

In other words, it’s up to the Senate to slow things down. Just like Madison planned.

Expecting Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel and President Obama to act with restraint isn’t realistic. In fact, it’s imprudent to think that they’ll act with restraint.

President Obama likely doesn’t think that Greenberg’s focus group results apply to him because it’s entirely possible he thinks he can sell anything because he’s always been able to sell himself. It wouldn’t surprise me if President Obama’s audacity was the first indicator of his impending downfall.

The worst news for President Obama is that Warren Buffett is now questioning and criticizing him as he did in this exchange:

BUFFETT: I think–I think a lot of things should be–job one is to win the war, job–the economic war, job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can’t expect people to unite behind you if you’re trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would–I would absolutely say for the–for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are–you know are contentious, and I also–I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would–you know, I would not say, you know, `George’–`the previous administration got us into this.’ Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we’d spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would–I would–I would–no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward. ..[snip]…
BUFFETT: Well, I was going to mention to Joe that you’ve heard this comment recently from some Democrats recently that a `crisis is a terrible thing to waste.’
BECKY: Yeah.
BUFFETT: Now, just rephrase that and since it’s, in my view, it’s an economic war, and–I don’t think anybody on December 7th would have said a `war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we’re going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and–but we expect to–expect the other party to unite behind us on the–on the big problem.’ It’s just a mistake, I think, when you’ve got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things.

The Democrats will have made a major mistake if they think they can get away with pushing an unpopular, oversized agenda through. If the overreach badly enough, they will fall victim of their own audacity. (Everyone knows that they’ve overreached. It’s just a matter of whether their overreach is repulsive enough to trigger a major backlach or just a backlash.)

Labelling everything a crisis simply isn’t credible. Thoughtful people will understand that President Obama, Rahm Emanuel and Speaker Pelosi will be attempting to use a genuine crisis to push through an unpopular agenda. We know that it’s an unpopular agenda because Democrats have tried passing universal health care before. The last time Democrats tried pushing manmade global warming down our throats, Kyoto was defeated on a unanimous vote.

One of the major reasons why the Democrats’ agenda is so unpopular is because they’ve listened too often to K Street inhabitants. The other explanation why why the Democrats’ agenda isn’t popular is because they haven’t listened enough to Main Street.

Here in Minnesota, the GOP is rebuilding quickly because they’re gaining the reputation of supporting Main Street-approved reforms. They’re fighting against unfunded mandates, many of which turn mayors into administrators. They’re fighting against the DFL majority’s oversized and predictable tax increases.

Most importantly, they’re offering Main Street-approved reforms on health care and education. For instance, my adopted state legislator, Steve Gottwalt, has proposed one market-based health care reform after another. Rep. Laura Brod is another conservative who’s proposed market-based health care reforms.

As a result, Republicans are getting a reputation for listening to Main Street while solving their problems.

That’s important because it’s the type of thing that kills the momentum for passing a runaway agenda like President Obama’s crisis-a-minute agenda.

Technorati: Economy, Warren Buffett, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Overreach, Global Warming, Health Care, K Street, Democrats, Wall Street, Main Street, Laura Brod, Steve Gottwalt, Reforms, Conservatives

Cross-posted at California Conservative