The worst thing that could happen to us is that we actually take either the House or the Senate in ‘10.That would allow Hussein to pull a “Clinton ‘96” in ‘12.The best case scenario is that we come close enough to taking one and/or the other to cause Hussein to stall in his tracks.
“The worst thing that could happen to us is that we actually take either the House or the Senate in ‘10.That would allow Hussein to pull a “Clinton ‘96” in ‘12.The best case scenario is that we come close enough to taking one and/or the other to cause Hussein to stall in his tracks.”
If it is any consolation to you, we are so deep in the hole on the Senate side that getting to majority in one cycle is really difficult to impossible.
On the House side it would take a 40 seat shift, which is difficult but possible.
The old "the road to victory is defeat" theory.
Why do you assume that when there are no reasons to think the economy should prosper from the rats' attempts to stimulate it, or to think Obama won't have disasters in foreign affairs?
I don't know. There are two things that are significantly different now. In the '90's we were in the midst of a economic boom. Also, Clinton's term was pre-9/11. Those two events have changed our circumstances. People want competence and leadership, which Bush provided for a while after 9/11, but which seemed to vanish as his term went on. Bush had a knack for looking inept. The Kenyan was able to sell himself as the harbringer of "change," i.e. as a restorer of competence. But people wanted to get rid of the ineptitude, they didn't want to get rid of conservative values. Zero, with his "Hahvahd" law degree and fresh face, was able to sell himself as the smart, cool guy who would get us out of our difficulties.
I think that image is starting to fall away fast. Zero was always essentially empty, but people just didn't see it. Add in a fawning press, and it was almost impossible to get the word out about him. It's now becoming clear that Obama isn't cool, he's cold hearted. He is a master of affronts and insults--the gift to the British PM, returning the bust of Churchill, bowing to the Saudi king, chumming with Chavez, insulting the country whenever he's abroad, covering over the IHS at Georgetown, speaking at Notre Dame, releasing the CIA interrogation memos, etc., etc. His essential anti-Americanism is showing. Add to that the corruption of his subordinates (taxcheats running the IRS, etc.) and little capers like yesterday's buzzing of lower Manhattan with a 747, and the impression of competence is going to vanish soon enough. So I think that Zero is going to have a much tougher time pulling a Clintonian come-back. And don't forget what sparked Clinton's comeback: it was the Oklahoma City bombing. Is there any scenario in which a terrorist attack would help Obama and the dems? I don't see it.
I have been advocating an approach entitled "pick the low hanging fruit" for 2010. Focus $$ and attention on conservative (or leaning conservative) congressional districts that are now held by Democrats.
At the very least, a bunch of Blue Dogs will get nervous, leading to the death of cap and trade and other boondoggles.
Another positive outcome is that you're adding to the conservative base, instead of moderate RINOs.