| The problem with an abiding dominance of the federal government by Democrats is that they will inevitably find it hard to escape the consequences of their actions.
For that reason, Obama might have reason to hope for a GOP takeover of the House if not both houses of Congress.
In 2006, The Democrats ran conservative candidates as the only way they could get majorities in both houses.
The moderate/conservative Democrat members of Congress have in many cases yielded to leadership pressure (or promises of special favors) and have voted for items of Obama's liberal/left agenda, angering constituents and inspiring Tea Party people to run against them.
They helped with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislative blitz which seems to have been intended to be accomplished in the space of one two year election cycle. With the goals of the two year plan more or less accomplished, they may now be more liability than asset.
They might learn to be more assertive with liberals if they stay around.
And their departure might help to assure the ideological purity of the party.
As Obama's repeated abuse of George W. Bush's record becomes progressively more stale with the public, he will no doubt desire to find a new way to evade the consequences of public reaction to his policies.
I think a Republican controlled House would prove a great source of relief to the White House. The ever willing accomplices in the junk media helping out, any cause for public discontent could be the fault of the "party-of-no" House/Congress and any policy successes would be to the credit of Obama.
So a successful election night for Republicans in November might be what the White House is counting on to have a successful 2012 which is, lets face it, probably worth letting 2010 be unsuccessful for many congressional Democrats.
Of course, a lot depends on whether the Republicans would unwittingly cooperate with this as they seemed to have in the past.
|
