I am convinced that, even after the special election in Massachusetts, the Democrats have no idea how big the tidal wave will be in November. The Republicans need ten seats to take the Senate, and thirteen are in play. Maybe more. A tsunami is about to hit the incumbents.
Of course, the Republican-controlled Senate will promptly hand reelection to Obama in 2012, as he’ll have them to run against.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:00 am
Mr Bottum,
We sometimes hear comparisons to 1994, but there isn’t a figure like Newt leading the Republicans in the Congress. Then again, when the Democrats re-took the Congress in 2006, they really didn’t do it according to any theme.
February 16th, 2010 | 12:24 pm
The country is presently ungovernable.
The GOP would be better off regaining only the Senate.
February 16th, 2010 | 6:32 pm
“The country is presently ungovernable.”
Balderdash. The country is no more “ungovernable” than it ever has been. The fact is that we are a little-c conservative country and each of the last two presidents have tried to change things FAR, FAR more than the majority of the country can tolerate. We revere a 200+ year old document and the men who wrote it. We’re not the kind of nation that thinks the guy in charge gets to radically revise how the government works (with the horrific exception of FDR). Clinton was so popular because he basically wanted to do nothing but be popular–quick, what did he accomplish? Welfare reform (already effectively abolished in Obama’s first year) is it. The budget was balanced thanks to executive-vs-legislative tussles, and that’s something people like as well (certainly in comparison to the last 10 years), but it’s not really an “accomplishment” in the sense of a policy change.
February 16th, 2010 | 6:46 pm
The more things change, the more they stay the same. . . (there may be a pun nestled in there)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact