What Did Corker's Deal Do For Republicans?

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, written by Republican Senator Bob Corker, set up a framework that mandates Congressional review of any arms control agreement with Iran, but allows the agreement to go into force unless Congress can override President Obama’s veto of a bill to stop the agreement.  Since the agreement seems very tilted in favor of President Obama, why would Corker write and help pass such legislation?

What Corker bought us is an on the record vote by every Democrat in Congress on the Iran agreement. Without the Corker bill, there would have been no vote at all. Traditionally, Congress does not vote on Executive Agreements. You must measure Corker’s agreement by the way the Smartest President Ever got the agreement ratified in the UN before Congress could even vote.  Without Corker’s agreement, there would have been no vote and no debate in Congress on the Iran deal.

Further, once that vote is taken, it will be a matter of public record that Barry the Brilliant acted without the advice and consent of anybody beyond his circle of cronies. The Israelis and Saudis are not going to wait quietly while Iran gathers the strength to kill them. They will attack first. The situation will quickly deteriorate in the Middle East to the point that even the Pravda Press can't ignore the general, perhaps nuclear, war that the agreement triggered. We will have a Democratic president, Obama, supported by Congressional Democrats who voted on the record, who made an agreement the majority of both Houses of Congress voted against. This Chicago Machine Prodigy will carry it out anyway, showing his true colors as an arrogant aspiring dictator. That will be a great campaign issue against every Democrat in 2016.

You should note that the Obama administration feels free to ignore Executive Agreements concerning nuclear disarmament whenever convenient. In 1994 the US, UK and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with the Ukraine. In return for the Ukraine surrendering all of the former Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, the US, UK and Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. Last year, Russia seized the Crimean Peninsula from the Ukraine, then invaded the Ukraine from the east. The Smartest President Ever refused to send any weapons to help the Ukrainians. He only sent "non-lethal" aid. I know that US field rations are much better than Soviet era leftovers, but do you really believe that's keeping the promise of the Budapest Memorandum?

Since the Smartest President Ever has ignored Executive Agreements he didn’t like, and since the Iran Executive Agreement will have been put in force after being rejected by a majority in both houses of Congress, it should be relatively easy for a Republican president to cancel it in 2017.  If a Democrat is elected in 2016, the country will have so many problems that nuclear war in the Middle East may seem relatively minor.

Cool Style or Issue Substance?

A recent article talked about how Republicans could get more younger voters because Republicans candidate were cool now.  Cool gets you a hearing, but issues get you a motivated voter. I think Republicans should emphasize that student loans wouldn't have to be forgiven if the government didn't make jobs so scarce by regulating them out of existence. Republicans should also explain that the way Obamacare was designed to work assumed young people were stupid enough to buy overpriced insurance so that "the needy" could be subsidized from what younger and healthier folks were paying. Republicans could further explain that raising the minimum wage puts teenagers out of work, especially minority teenagers.

I was a young voter (relatively) when Ronald Reagan was running in 1980. At that time, the media pundits assumed that young folks like me would not relate to the older generation Reagan. We voted for him in droves because his issues were our issues. His age didn't matter at all.

Liberals win with a divide and conquer strategy. Any of the carefully divided demographic groups that liberals cater to can be solicited for their votes. To get votes, Republicans have to talk to voters. Republican ads have to appear in media with that the target audience sees. Your issues have to be explained in a way that the audience understands. However, you don't have to pander or change positions. In fact, if your message is the same everywhere, it gives credibility to your positions. You must let voters know that you want their votes and that you see them as social equals. 

I think part of a winning presidential campaign in 2016 is mentioning all of the lies Democrats told in the last 8 years in order to get elected and to get their way on legislation. These lies were targeted at demographic groups Republicans can take away from Democrats. For example, not only was Obamacare supposed to let you keep your doctor, it was supposed to be a free lunch. Democrats were careful not to mention that young healthy people were going to pay higher rates to subsidize older and sicker people. Another example is the minimum wage, which Democrats say is designed to help poor people earn enough to support their families. Every time it goes up, more black teenagers lose any chance at part time or summer jobs. Republicans can use these and other whoopers to say they lied to you before, why should you believe their promises now? 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419691/birth-cool-republican-kristin-tate