Posted on 09/09/2010 4:05:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Democrats will probably suffer historic losses in both the House and Senate in less than 60 days. The 11th-hour campaigning of the now-unpopular Barack Obama on behalf of endangered congressional candidates will not change much. In fact, most embattled Democratic candidates don't want the president to even set foot in their districts.
The public knows that the stimulus packages are played out. Unemployment rose, not fell as promised. All that is left are the higher taxes next year required to pay for the borrowed money that was squandered.
Those in Congress who went along with the Obama borrowing agenda now find themselves on the wrong side of the American people on almost every issue -- from federalized health care, higher taxes and bailouts to proposed cap-and-trade and amnesty.
Could things still turn around before November?
The Democrats' best hope is a major crisis overseas that would rally the American public around their commander in chief. Usually, cynical journalists dub an unexpected autumn bombing run, missile launch, or presidential announcement of a cease-fire or needed escalation an "October surprise."
These are the "wag the dog" moments that might turn angry Americans' thoughts elsewhere. And they have a checkered history that began long before critics alleged that in August 1998, before midterm elections, Bill Clinton ordered bombing missions in Afghanistan and the Sudan to distract public attention from his embarrassing dalliance with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. He looked decisive and presidential; his Republican opponents looked nitpicking and petty.
Abraham Lincoln could have lost the 1864 election to peace candidate Gen. George McClellan, given that Gen. Ulysses S. Grant over the summer had almost ruined the Army of the Potomac without taking the Confederate capital of Richmond. Then, suddenly, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman took Atlanta on Sept. 2. Overnight, Lincoln went from an inept bumbler to a winning commander in chief. An exasperated McClellan never recovered.
Less than two weeks before the 1972 election, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger without warning announced that "peace is at hand" in Vietnam (it was not). Democratic rival George McGovern would have lost anyway to Richard Nixon, but his peace candidacy abruptly appeared redundant.
Suspicious liberals were convinced in 2004 that George W. Bush would pull off some sort of surprise to distract voters from the bad news from Iraq. A year before the election, a paranoid former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even floated the crazy suggestion that Bush had kept arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden on ice somewhere -- "Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?"
In panic over the depressing polls, Obama is now scrambling to find any good news that he can overseas to turn voter attention away from near-10 percent unemployment and record debt.
He just addressed the nation about the long-ago-scheduled troop reductions in Iraq. Suddenly, all Mideast leaders are now equally welcome at the White House in hopes of reaching a dramatic Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough that showcases presidential leadership before the midterm elections.
Neither event is likely to change things in November. Only a headline crisis could rally Americans around their now-unpopular commander in chief and his beleaguered supporters in Congress. What would that entail?
Most probably something like a showdown with soon-to-be-nuclear and widely despised Iran.
Obama ran on criticism of the Bush administration that it had not reached out and talked with Iran's theocratic leadership. Obama did that. He even muted criticism of the brutal Iranian crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations. But Obama soon found that the Iranians considered his outreach appeasement, and so have only increased their breakneck efforts to get a bomb.
Now, everyone from the Israelis to the Sunni Arab nations is pressuring the United States to do something before a radical and nuclear Iran changes the complexion of the entire Middle East. If the erstwhile peace candidate Barack Obama were to confront Iran, conservatives might well support his resolve. Democratic candidates would find a more united nation suddenly far more worried about Mideast Armageddon than unemployment and record deficits. Unlike past October surprises, this time the pro-Obama media would probably be far less cynical in its coverage of presidential motives.
But Iran won't go nuclear in the next two months. So let us hope that the current unpopular administration waits for a while before deciding between the rotten choice of using military force against Tehran and the even worse alternative of a nuclear Iran.
All I have to say is “Thanks, you DIM/LIB nitwits.”
The first three paragraphs say everything that needs to be said about American politics in the summer of 2010.
I would only observe that this is not a presidential election, and it’s the party, not the man himself, that is being scrutinized.
obama has nothing left but more of the same... a smaller and smaller minority percentage wants that to continue. The dims have no stomach for more marxism when their survival hangs over an abyss.
LLS
LLS
This is assuming that the Democrats forget to pull their usual voter fraud. Those who control the voting computers control the vote. It aint over. Stay vigilant.
Reports from Ohio yesterday claim his handlers had to shanghai students to fill the meeting hall where he was speaking. The man can't draw flies. Oh, wait a minute....
October surprise coming
Count on it.
We’ve been speculating for many months here about an attack on Iran and it hasn’t happened yet. I think pretty much everyone on FR agrees on the necessity of stopping Iran’s nuclear program. From Obama’s perspective, now would be the perfect time since he makes every judgement based on political necessity, not the facts on the ground. Else he would have struck Iran before they fired up their nuclear plant.
I would give good odds that a strike will occur within the month with a lead up consisting of claims by the administration that it’s necessary because Iran has failed to comply with sanctions. I think it’s a done deal.
I think it is needed and I think it was needed years ago but even if...it wouldn’t make me want to vote for a Dimocrat.
I don’t think an attack on Iran will help the dems or Obama in November. Conservatives and republicans will still turn up at the polls in mass to vote out the dems (perhaps even more so realizing that we need a steady hand on Congress if we do go to war with Iran) and Obama’s leftist base will be outraged that he went to war with Iran. It’s likely to backfire by depressing his marxist base vote.
“I think it’s a done deal.”
Desperation knows no bounds, but this would be an extraordinarily risky play. In the long run, it may make strategic sense (and as the author notes, is a less miserable option than allowing Iran to acquire nukes), but in the short run, it is likely to precipitate fierce attacks on a) Israel; b) Strait of Hormuz; or c) Iraq, or perhaps all 3.
There’s no guarantee things would shake out by election day and in the meantime, uncertainty about how things will be resolved may make it appear that Obama has threatened the survival of Israel, the reliability of our oil supply or our 7-year investment in Iraq. I doubt the voters would exactly be pleased with any of these prospects. I think it would be seen for the “wag-the-dog” gamble that it is and would result in an even greater backlash against the Dems.
Obama does not have it in him to pull a military “wag the dog” surprise. And even if he did, his Libtard base would refuse to let him get away with it. I think more likely the October Surprise will consist of some massive populist giveaway program aimed at the middle class (we’re forgiving half of your student loans, freezing foreclosures and implementing cramdowns, capping credit cards at 10% interest, etc.)
satan and his minions always attract flies! ;-)
LLS
Good points all and your scenario is very likely so it would appear to be a poor choice for wag the dog scenarios which leaves the question of what they will do in October. Maybe trot out some Justice Dept indictments of Cheney or whatever.
Even if Obamalama did this I would still vote against any lib or RINO on my ballot.
I hate when he uses our tax money to buy votes, and he's bought enough of them from people and groups I despise to ever make for it now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.