Who Promoted Private Ryan?

Who Promoted Private Ryan?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Forty-eight hours after Donald Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination with a smashing victory in the Indiana primary, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that he could not yet support Trump.

In millennial teen-talk, Ryan told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now.”

“[T]he bulk of the burden of unifying the party” falls on Trump, added Ryan. Trump must unify “all wings of the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.” Trump must run a campaign that we can “be proud to support and proud to be a part of.”

Then, maybe, our Hamlet of the House can be persuaded to support the elected nominee of his own party.

Excuse me, but upon what meat has this our Caesar fed?

Ryan is a congressman from Wisconsin. He has never won a statewide election. As number two on Mitt Romney’s ticket, he got waxed by Joe Biden. He was compromise choice as speaker, only after John Boehner went into in his Brer Rabbit “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah” routine.

Who made Ryan the conscience of conservatism?

Who made Ryan keeper of the keys of true Republicanism?

Trump “inherits something … that’s very special to a lot of us,” said Ryan, “the party of Lincoln and Reagan and Jack Kemp.”

But Trump did not “inherit” anything. He won the nomination of the Republican Party in an epic battle in the most wide-open race ever, in which Trump generated the largest turnout and greatest vote totals in the history of Republican primaries.

What is Ryan up to?

He is pandering to the Trump-hating Beltway media and claiming the leadership of a Republican establishment routed and repudiated in the primaries, not only by that half of the party that voted for Trump, but also by that huge slice of the party that voted for Ted Cruz.

The hubris here astonishes. A Republican establishment that has been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War is now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans.

This is difficult to absorb.

Someone should instruct Paul Ryan that losers do not make demands. They make requests. They make pleas.

What makes Ryan’s demands more astonishing is that he is the designated chairman of the Republican National Convention, a majority of whose delegates and whose nomination Trump is about to win.

Ryan is saying he is ambivalent over whether he will accept the verdict of the Cleveland convention — of which he is the chairman.

If Ryan holds to his refusal to accept the decision of the Republican majority in the primaries, he should be removed from that role. And if Ryan does not come out of Thursday’s meeting with the Donald, endorsing him, the presumptive nominee should turn to Paul Ryan, and, in two words, tell him, “You’re fired!”

Trump cannot allow the establishment to claw back in the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill what he won on a political battlefield. He cannot allow a discredited establishment to dictate the issues he may run on.

That would be a betrayal of the troops who brought Trump victory after victory in the primaries.

To longtime students of politics, there is rarely anything new under the sun. And there is precedent for the shakedown Ryan and his Beltway collaborators are trying to do to Trump.

Paul Ryan is the Nelson Rockefeller of his generation.

In 1960, Gov. Rockefeller refused to challenge Vice President Nixon in the primaries. When Nixon went to Rockefeller’s New York apartment to persuade him to join the ticket, Rocky refused, but demanded concessions in the platform, to which Nixon acceded.

The Chicago convention, a Nixon convention, believed itself betrayed by the “Pact of Fifth Avenue.”

Only the appearance of Sen. Barry Goldwater at the podium to tell conservatives to “grow up. We can take this party back,” halted a suicidal drive to take the nomination away from Nixon.

After Goldwater won the nomination in the 1964 California primary by defeating Rockefeller, Rocky arrived at the San Francisco convention to demand that a plank equating the John Birch Society with the Communist Party and Ku Klux Klan be written into Goldwater’s platform. Hooted and rejected, Rocky went home and refused to endorse the nominee, who went down to a crushing defeat by LBJ.

Nixon, a party loyalist, campaigned across the country for Barry and his doomed party.

In 1968, Nixon got his reward, the nomination, with Goldwater’s support. And Govs. Rockefeller and George Romney, who had done the Paul Ryan thing, never came close.

Rockefeller got what he deserved when the Reaganite heirs of Barry Goldwater, at Kansas City in 1976, demanded the dumping of Rocky from President Ford’s ticket. And they got it.

Paul Ryan, in declaring that he cannot now support Trump, and imposing conditions to earn his support, has crawled out on a long limb.

Trump cannot capitulate. He has to saw it off.

This is one Private Ryan we cannot save.

Is Putin Our Ally in Syria?

Is Putin Our Ally in Syria?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Among the presidential candidates of the Republican Party and their foreign policy leaders on Capitol Hill the cry is almost universal:

Barack Obama has no strategy for winning the war on ISIS.

This criticism, however, sounds strange coming from a party that controls Congress but has yet to devise its own strategy, or even to authorize the use of U.S. military force in Syria.

Congress has punted. And compared to the cacophony from Republican ranks, Barack Obama sounds like Prince Bismarck.

The President’s strategy is to contain, degrade and defeat ISIS. While no one has provided the troops to defeat ISIS, the U.S. is using Kurdish and Yazidi forces, backed by U.S. air power, to degrade it.

And recent months have seen measured success.

The Kurds have run ISIS out of Kobani, captured much of the Turkish-Syrian border, and moved to within 30 miles of Raqqa, the ISIS capital. Yazidis and Kurds last week recaptured Sinjar in Iraq and cut the highway between Mosul and Raqqa.

The terrorist attacks in Paris, the downing of the Russian airliner in Sinai, the ISIS bomb that exploded in the Shiite sector of Beirut, are ISIS’s payback. But they could also be signs that the ISIS caliphate, imperiled in its base, is growing desperate and lashing out.

Yet consider the Republican strategies being advanced.

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Mitt Romney writes:

“We must wage the war to defeat the enemy. … [Obama] must call in the best military minds from the United States and NATO … and finally construct a comprehensive strategy that integrates our effort with the Kurds, Turks, Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians.”

The Kurds excepted, Gov. Romney ignored all the forces that are actually fighting ISIS: Russians, Hezbollah, Iran, Bashar Assad, the Syrian army.

Mitt urges instead an alliance of countries that have done next to nothing to defeat ISIS.

The Turks are instead hitting the Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The Saudis are bombing the Houthis in Yemen, not ISIS in Raqqa. The Egyptians are preoccupied with their own homegrown terrorists.

“Now is the time, not merely to contain the Islamic State,” says Mitt, “but to eradicate it once and for all.” But why did he not mention Russia, Iran, Assad and Hezbollah, all of which also wish to eradicate ISIS?

We partnered with Stalin in WWII.

Is Vladimir Putin an untouchable?

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham want U.S. ground troops sent into Syria and Iraq. But as Turkey has an army of 500,000 next door and Assad’s army would happily help wipe out ISIS, why not let Arab and Turkish boys do the fighting this time?

“America must lead,” is Jeb Bush’s mantra, and he wants U.S. boots on the ground and a no-fly zone over Syria.

“We should declare war,” says Bush.

Why then does Bush not call up Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and dictate the war resolution he wants passed?

And whom does Jeb propose to fight? Why declare a no-fly zone when ISIS has no air force? Does Bush plan to shoot down Syrian planes flying over Syria and Russian planes flying in support of Assad?

Has Jeb, like his brother, not thought this through?

If we declare a no-fly zone over Syria, or establish a “safe zone,” we risk war not only with Syria, but Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

None of these allies of Assad will meekly stand aside while we take military action to deny the Syrian regime and army the right to defend itself and survive in its war against ISIS, al-Nusra and other assorted jihadists and rebels.

Having invested blood and treasure in Assad’s survival, and securing their own interests in Syria, they are not likely to submit to U.S. dictation. Are we prepared for a war against both sides in Syria?

Who would fight Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria alongside us?

Yet New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is ready to rumble.

“Well, the first thing you do is you set up a no-fly zone in Syria, and you call Putin, and you say to him, ‘Listen, we’re enforcing a no-fly zone, and that means we’re enforcing it against everyone, and that includes you. So, don’t test me.'”

And if Russia violated his no-fly zone? “Then you take him down,” said Christie, meaning we shoot down Russian jets.

But what vital interest of ours has ever been so engaged in Syria as to justify a major war in the Middle East and a military clash with a Russia with a nuclear arsenal as large as our own?

In any war it is usually wise to enlarge the roster of one’s allies and reduce the roster of enemies. If ISIS is the implacable enemy and must be annihilated, we should welcome all volunteers.

As for those who decline to fight, but claim a veto over whom we may ally with, we should tell them to pound sand.

If Putin wants to enlist in the war against ISIS, sign him up.

IMAGE: Original image by Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia – Edited and remixed by Linda Muller @ Buchanan.org

Watch Pat Buchanan Chat With Jack Hunter About the Midterm Elections and 2016

Pat Buchanan at Rare.us Event

A post-election conversation and book signing with New York Times best-selling author Pat Buchanan and RARE.us Managing Editor Jack Hunter

Political Trends After the 2014 Election

View the video on Rare.us….
NOTE: Scroll the video forward to the 1:00 mark [midway] to view the beginning of the show.

Pat Buchanan and Jack Hunter chewed over the lessons of the midterm elections and now we can officially start talking nonstop about the 2016 presidential election!

Crown Forum Publishers, All News 99.1 WNEW FM, and RARE TM “America’s News Feed” present an evening of analysis and insight with one of the most influential thought leaders in American Politics, Pat Buchanan. In the aftermath of one of the most contentious mid-term election cycles in history, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Hunter charted the course of the United States over the next two years when America will hold a referendum on its ideals in the 2016 Presidential Election.

It was an awesome event that political junkies won’t want to miss!

View the video on Rare.us….
NOTE: Scroll the video forward to the 1:00 mark to view the beginning of the show.

Pat Buchanan: Hillary Would Beat Romney in 2016

Pat Buchanan: Hillary Would Beat Romney in 2016

By Jerome Corsi – WND

But she must please progressive base while distancing from Obama

NEW YORK – Amid rumblings of another Mitt Romney run for the White House, author and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan is advising the GOP to avoid nominating the first two-time loser since Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson lost to Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and again in 1956.

In a wide-ranging interview on his new book, “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority,” Buchanan expressed doubt that Romney could make the kind of historic comeback Nixon accomplished in 1968.

Buchanan, a WND columnist, believes Romney would beat Barack Obama if the presidential election of 2012 were held today. But he contends Romney would lose in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, the Democrats most likely choice.

Buchanan bases his analysis on his nearly 50 years of top-level election experience. In December 1965, he left his job writing editorials for the St. Louis Globe Democrat and was hired by the Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander, and Mitchell law firm in New York City. A year later, Nixon’s campaign hired him as its first adviser.

Order Pat Buchanan’s new book now: “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority”

Buchanan believes, however, that Clinton will need to work skillfully to distance herself sufficiently from Barack Obama while reassuring Democrats she still advocates the progressive values of the party’s base.

“In 1968, the GOP was seen as an acceptable alternative to the Democratic Party,” Buchanan said.

“Today, while the country is ready to reject Obama, it is not ready to accept the Republican Party as an alternative. Among the reasons are the huge demographic changes in an electorate that is now approaching 30 percent from Third World countries that vote 70 to 90 percent for Democrats. These figures are not moving in the GOP’s direction, they are moving in the other way.”

Hillary running against Obama

Hillary’s problem right now, Buchanan stressed, is that she is running against the growing perception of being part of the Obama administration.

“The American people now are wondering if they want four years of Hillary after the two years of Obama since 2012,” he said.

The Greatest ComebackBuchanan said it’s much like the problem President Lyndon Johnson had in 1968 after winning in a landslide four years earlier.

“By 1968, the American people were saying, ‘We’re not sure we want any more of this guy,’” he said.

“This is the problem the Democrats are having today and the reason Hillary is receding from her high point of something like 70 percent approval when she left her job as secretary of state.”

Buchanan made clear that despite Hillary’s recent decline in popularity, she remains the front-runner.

“It’s very hard to see if Hillary runs who will beat her,” he stressed. “I don’t see Elizabeth Warren beating her. I tell people that if I were a 45-year-old Democratic senator, I would run, and I would challenge Hillary on issues, so if I lost I would have gained the opportunity to introduce myself to the American people and hope lightening strikes.”

Mindful of Bill Clinton’s support of Hillary’s candidacy, he added, “But I doubt any Democrat wants to take the risk of running against Hillary, since it means going after the king, and failing to get the job done might just have disastrous consequences.”

Comparing Romney’s comeback probabilities to Nixon’s, Buchanan said there’s nobody in the GOP like Nixon.

“Before I was 10 years old, Nixon was a world figure that had taken down Alger Hiss and was a famous American congressman who had wiped out Helen Gahagan Douglas by the largest majority in California history (for a U.S. Senate seat),” he said. “Then he was the second youngest vice president. He was a huge figure in the GOP, and there is nobody in the GOP with that stature today.”

Buchanan conceded the nation has changed since Nixon was on the political landscape.

“I can see back in 1965 how the GOP could be stitched together, and you might have trouble holding the liberals,” he said. “But if you commanded the center and the right, you see how we could trade our liberals, the Rockefeller Republicans, to pull away from the Democrats’ huge segments of FDR’s socially conservative supporters, including the ethnics who voted Democratic, southern Protestants and Catholics, in a trade where the GOP came out on top.”

Where are the conservative Democrats?

Buchanan believes the GOP is in a much more difficult position today to turn such a trade into a winning presidential coalition.

“It’s hard to see today where the GOP can find enough conservative Democrats to pull away,” he said. “It used to be there were a lot of conservative Democrats. Today, there aren’t that many.”

Buchanan pointed out the Democrats begin presidential campaigns with a large electoral vote advantage.

“In the last six elections, the Democrats have won the same 18 states plus the District of Columbia all six times, and among those states are California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York – four of the big seven. Two of the other big seven are now swing states – Ohio and Florida. Texas is the only reliable state of the big seven that the Republicans have left. So if the GOP loses those 18 states plus the District of Columbia, adding up to about 242 electoral votes, the Democrats need to pick one or two tricks and it’s over.”

Buchanan said he found it difficult to believe any GOP contender could break the Democratic Party hold on the presidential electorate.

“It’s hard for me to see what Republican cracks that base that is increasingly solid Democratic – first because of demography and second because of the welfare state that now embraces scores of millions of people who look upon anyone wanting to cut government as somebody who’s going to take my food stamps away, or cut my education, or my health care, or my housing subsidy, or my income subsidy.”

Buchanan pointed out that in 1968, Nixon’s only real contender for the GOP presidential nomination was Michigan Gov. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, but before the New Hampshire primary, Nixon was ahead among GOP voters by a margin of 4 to 1.

“The real problem for me in 1968 would have been had then-governor of California Ronald Reagan stepped in and torn the conservative vote away from Nixon. As it was, Nixon basically scared any other GOP contender off from going strong into the primaries.”

Hard to see a clear GOP winner

But this year, Buchanan sees no GOP candidate who can command the kind of lead Nixon had in 1968 ahead of the primaries.

“Going into the GOP presidential primaries next year, it is hard to see a clear winner,” he said.

“Rand Paul will have a following, especially among young voters, and Ted Cruz ignites enough voters to have a strong following,” he said.

Among establishment GOP candidates, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie “is having a hard time recovering the support he lost and he’s now running behind Hillary even in New Jersey.”

“I would be surprised if Jeb Bush ran,” Buchanan said. “Florida Senator Marco Rubio damaged himself early on with the immigration issue.”

GOP can’t win without tea party

Buchanan advised that if Romney wants to run again in 2016, he should be out on the campaign trail supporting GOP candidates, much as Nixon did in 1966.

“Romney should today be working this fall not only for establishment GOP candidates but for tea party folks,” he said.

“The GOP cannot win without the tea party’s energy and enthusiasm. You need those folks, just like in 1968 Richard Nixon needed the Goldwater supporters and the Reagan supporters to win.”

Buchanan argued the voter coalition Nixon put together in 1968 was the greatest of the 20th century, with the possible exception of the FDR New Deal coalition that led to four presidential election victories in a row.

“People forget that after LBJ’s landslide victory in 1964, the GOP was half the size of the Democratic Party at the time,” he said.

Buchanan doubted Romney has the ability to pull together the type of historic voter coalition needed to beat the Democrats in 2016.

“Because Obama is so unpopular now and is likely to be increasingly unpopular in the next two years, and his foreign policy is going to antagonize the interventionist wing of the Democratic Party, Hillary will continue to take a harder line than Obama takes on foreign policy,” Buchanan said.

“Hillary will increasingly distance herself from Obama’s record so she is not seen by 2016 as the successor to Barack Obama, but as someone different, much more realistic and tough-minded, especially in foreign policy – more of a Bill Clinton than a Barack Obama,” he said.

“Where she is right now, she is winning the nomination. But the liberal wing of the Democratic Party will assert itself in 2016, and Hillary wants to make sure Democratic voters know she continues to hold the basic beliefs of the Democratic Party, especially on domestic issues.”

He concluded by emphasizing that Obama could not be elected president again, even if it were constitutionally possible for him to run for a third term.

“By the time of the 2016 presidential election, Hillary will be positioned as a non-Obama, because Obama could not win again. If Obama were to top the ticket as of right now, Republicans could break the 18-state hold the Democrats have on the presidential electorate.”

Buchanan summarized his assessment: “In a contest Romney vs. Obama next week, Romney wins. In a contest Romney vs. Hillary in 2016, Hillary wins, despite Hillary having to spend the remainder of this year and the next two years making her way through choppy waters.”

Read more at WND

The Knives Come Out — for Christie

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Maybe the folks in Washington, D.C., should tune in their TVs right now and see how it’s done,” said the big winner of Tuesday last.

“I did not seek a second term to do small things,” Chris Christie went on, but “to finish the job — now watch me do it.”

Humility is not the governor’s strong suit.

Yet, Christie registered a remarkable victory. He won with 60 percent in a blue state, winning 55 percent of women, half of the Hispanic vote and 20 percent of African-Americans.

If he could replicate those numbers in New Jersey and nationally in 2016, Chris Christie would be elected president in a landslide.

“[T]his fellow is really on the right track,” says seven-term Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, “if the Republican Party is not too stupid.” To fill out Christie’s ticket in 2016, Hatch proposes Susana Martinez of New Mexico, who made eight campaign stops with Christie on Monday.

Democrats concur with Hatch. The headline on the lead story on page one of Thursday’s Washington Post reads: “Democrats Take Aim at Christie: He’s Seen as GOP’s Best Hope for 2016.”

“The Elephant in the Room” is the title of Time’s cover story.

And with the corporate contributors and Beltway bundlers gravitating to him, Christie is emerging as the establishment’s hope to recapture the GOP from its Tea Party, libertarian, social conservative and populist wing.

Will Christie be the candidate in 2016?

Put me down as a skeptic.

Some of us yet recall James “Scotty” Reston of the New York Times writing in 1963 that Nelson Rockefeller had as much chance of losing the Republican nomination as he did of going broke.

Comes the retort: Christie is no Nelson Rockefeller, but a pro-life conservative with five kids and Middle American values.

Why then the skepticism?

Geography, persona and culture — for openers.

The Republican Party is a Southern, Midwestern and Western party, suburban and rural. Not since Tom Dewey in 1948 has the GOP nominated a candidate from the urban Northeast.

And Chris Christie is not only from New Jersey; he is indelibly and proudly so.

The candidate who comes closest to him is Rudy Giuliani, hero of 9/11. Christie may be the hero of Hurricane Sandy, but Sandy is not remembered nationwide like the shock and horror 9/11.

As Rudy won two terms in the toughest turf in America for a Republican, New York City, Christie has now won two terms in New Jersey.

So, how did Rudy, who started off 2008 as the front-runner in the Republican polls, do? He did not win a single primary.

Then, there is the “in-your-face” persona of Christie, a pol who does not suffer fools gladly and is forever finding them along rope lines and at town hall meetings.

Not a good fit for Cedar Rapids or Sioux City.

Moreover, Christie seems to have no coattails. Despite his triumph, he failed to make significant gains in the state House or state Senate, both of which remain solidly Democratic.

Then there is the reputation Christie has built as a self-centered politician. At the 2012 GOP convention, his prime-time address was the political counterpart of Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself.” Mitt Romney went unmentioned until 16 minutes into the speech.

According to Chuck Todd of NBC, though heading for a blowout, Christie rebuffed a desperate plea to come down to Virginia for a few hours to help Ken Cuccinelli, whose late surge almost won the state.

And while Christie embraced and thanked President Obama profusely for federal assistance during Sandy, when asked about a visit by his party nominee Romney to view the damage, he retorted, “I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested.”

Christie trounced state Sen. Barbara Buono, who was abandoned by her party. Yet, according to an NBC poll, were he running for president against Hillary, Christie would lose New Jersey 48-44.

In congratulating the governor, the Wall Street Journal noted that Christie has failed “to improve the state’s economy. New Jersey ranks 49th in the Tax Foundation’s state business tax climate index, ahead of only New York. The state jobless rate is still 8.5 percent, among the 10 highest in the country.”

Christie appears to be peaking more than two years before the Iowa caucuses. And not only will Democrats be spending 26 months blocking him in Trenton and trashing him nationally, so, too, will those elements in the GOP who see in the coalescing Chamber of Commerce-Beltway elite alliance a plot to seize the party from them.

These folks will not be going gentle into that good night.

Nor is Christie being helped by all the bouquets being tossed his way by a media that regards his party’s base as extremist. If a civil war is coming inside the GOP, does Chris Christie wish to be the champion of the establishment?

Because that is where the forces assembling are pushing him.

A Republican Retreat — or Rout?

Dead End

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Given the expectations raised by the Republican punditocracy — that Mitt was headed for a big victory — the jolt of defeat hit especially hard.

Now, what had seemed an orderly retreat has taken on the aspect of a rout, with Beltway Republicans calling for abandonment of fixed positions all along the line.

After Senate candidates Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri bollixed the question of abortion in cases of rape, Republicans are being counseled to downgrade or dump the social issues. As young people seem to support same-sex marriage, why not be good libertarians and get on board?

As Romney got 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, we must stop this talk of border fences, ID cards, employer sanctions and “self-deportation,” and reconsider amnesty and a path to citizenship.

The party is being urged to shed positions dear to loyalists, to win over folks who voted for Obama. And those who urge the ditching of positions dear to the base are rewarded with indulgent media portrayals as Republican leaders who have “grown.”

But there are two problems with this panicky reaction to defeat.

First, while the defections depress and dishearten the faithful, they rarely attract the disbelievers whom the switch is designed to appease. Second, such maneuvers are the indelible mark of the opportunist.

Which bring us to John Boehner‘s concessions to Obama to save us from going over the fiscal cliff.

Though a tax increase would violate party principle and a commitment to constituents just a month ago, and though Lord Keynes himself would argue that raising taxes in a limp economy is risky business, Boehner has offered Obama $800 billion in new tax revenues.

Yet, though Boehner is capitulating, the White House has backhanded his offer. The Clinton tax rates on the rich must be restored or no deal, says Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Obama takes a more moderate position. We must raise both rates and revenues.

The purpose here? Rub Republican noses in their capitulation, and force a rupture within their party.

While the administration could reap far more revenue by capping and cutting deductions — “tax expenditures” in the liberal catechism — an increase in tax rates would be such a transparent surrender it would cause a rebellion in the House and demoralize the conservatives.

Why, then, are Republicans still bearing gifts to Obama, with a few even pushing for concessions on tax rates?

They are terrified of the fiscal cliff, and understandably so.

For if we go over, taxes rise on every family, and polls say that by 2 to 1 the people will hold Republicans responsible.

And if we go over the cliff and taxes rise on everyone, the first order of business of Obama in the New Year will be to push a tax cut for the 98 percent of Americans who earn less than $250,000. His second move will be to reverse the damage done to the national defense by the sequester.

By his State of the Union address, Obama would be able to pose as the rescuer of the middle class from the abyss into which the GOP had plunged it — to prevent fat cats from paying a fair share for debt reduction.

And he would be able to pose credibly as a peace-through-strength Democratic president determined to restore deep cuts in defense caused by a congressional sequester.

At the end of the Battle of the Fiscal Cliff, the GOP may be left in the position of the lady who sold her virtue — and didn’t get paid.

By Jan. 31, the GOP may have double-crossed its Tea Party allies by accepting increases in tax revenues and rates, and alienated its strongest supporters, seniors, by demanding and winning freezes and cuts in future Medicare and Social Security benefits.

If Republicans cut a deal on tax hikes to prevent our going over the cliff, they look like collaborators. If they refuse to cut a deal, the Bush tax cuts are history and the GOP will be forced to enact the new “Obama tax cuts.”

The Republican Party seems close to the end of its tether.

Party elites want to go silent on social issues, while the base believes they define who we are. The base wants no part of wars on Syria or Iran being pushed by leading Senate Republicans.

The grass roots see mass immigration as imperiling the national unity and community and advancing national bankruptcy. The elites babble on about an open door.

Now a GOP House elected to hold the line on taxes is offering new tax revenues and perhaps higher tax rates to fund the biggest Big Government in history. The GOP is close to reassuming its role as the tax collector for the welfare state.

Meanwhile, the New Majority coalition is passing on, and the era of Reagan is over for good. The party needs new ideas and leaders other than the ones who brought them to this dead end.